Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Paul Reed Smith
Intellectual Property Portfolio Development for BioTech Startups in the Plant Space [Webinar]
What Is a Patent and How Do I Get One
Monthly Minute | Design Patents
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Patent families claim inventions that are similar since the entire family claims the innovative features of a single or limited number of inventions. They do so by relying on the disclosure of a single patent specification...more
Judge Nelson S. Román (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in a patent case. Wang v. Laview Eagle Eye Tech. Inc., No. 24-cv-01822-NSR, 2025 WL 2371222, at *1...more
The USPTO must reject a patent application if the applicant’s claim covers what the prior art already disclosed, and patent applicants may respond to such rejections with arguments that what they claimed was different. ...more
We have covered the LKQ v. GM design patent disputes from the PTAB decision through appeal and en banc rehearing. And now we report on yet another chapter in the saga between these parties....more
TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application...more
Many industries rely on design patents to protect the look and feel of their products—especially when aesthetics drive customer interest, brand identity, or market differentiation. In Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company...more
Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1864, -1940 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 14, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Cunningham....more
Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC, clarifying the application of prosecution history disclaimer in the context of design patents. This alert summarizes the...more
Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC, Appeal No. 2024-2191 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that prosecution history disclaimer applies to...more
Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has delivered his opinion in the case Deity Shoes, S.L. v Mundorama Confort, S.L. and another (Case C 323/24). The case considers whether a footwear design made by Deity Shoes, S.L. (Deity...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that held for the first time that principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, aligning design patent law more closely with...more
One year has passed since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, which overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for determining design...more
Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) recently denied Plaintiff Chengdu Tops Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“Chengdu”) motion seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against “a slew of merchant Defendants” to enjoin “the...more
On April 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision In re: Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd that underscores a critical and often overlooked risk in design patent prosecution: relying on a utility patent application for...more
In its recent In re Floyd opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject a design applicant’s priority claim to an earlier utility filing for...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment of no design patent infringement in North Star Tech. Int’l Ltd. v. Latham Pool Products, Inc., ruling that the patented and accused pool...more
One year ago today, the en banc Federal Circuit decided LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, where it overturned the decades-old Rosen-Durling test for obviousness of a design patent for being “improperly...more
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) recently construed claim terms at issue in a patent litigation between Plaintiffs Trove Brands, LLC, d/b/a The BlenderBottle Company, and Runway Blue, LLC (collectively, “Trove”) and...more
The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more
On April 1, 2025, United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted Defendants Marut Enterprises LLC and Brett Marut’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss and entered final judgment against Foto Electric Supply...more
Recently, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Andrew Walker, Jr.’s (“Walker”) Second Amended Complaint be granted for lack of...more
The landscape of design patent law has recently evolved with the introduction of a new standard for determining obviousness. For decades, the Rosen-Durling test was used to assess obviousness of design patents....more
Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States....more
On March 5, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245, vacating in part the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that...more