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
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
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
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
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
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
For decades, the ITC’s jurisdictional requirement – known as the domestic industry requirement – effectively shut out innovators from availing themselves of the powerful remedies of the forum, in the form of an exclusion...more
When there are fewer design elements in a design claim or when the individual elements of the design seem commonplace in isolation, it can be easy to overlook the inventive effort that went into developing a design. Rather...more
In anticipating a dispute over whether the America Invents Act would apply, Petitioner MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) filed concurrent petitions for both inter partes review and post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441...more
2024 brought exciting developments at the Federal Circuit. The court issued its first en banc decision in a patent case in five years in LKQ, which significantly altered the standard for proving obviousness of a design...more
Appellate courts issued a variety of notable intellectual property (IP) cases in 2024, including cases touching on Orange Book listings, extraterritoriality, willful infringement, design patent obviousness, and public...more
Over the course of 2024, the patent law landscape has continued to evolve as significant court rulings and emerging technologies shaped its direction. During 2024, activities at the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, various...more
Inter partes activity involving design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was relatively low in 2024. The PTAB rendered just two inter partes decisions involving design patents: Next Step Group, Inc. v....more
The landscape of design protection has seen significant developments on both sides of the Atlantic, with the U.S. undergoing a pivotal shift in design patent law following the Federal Circuit’s decision in LKQ Corporation v....more
The majority of 2024 was a quiet year for design patent cases at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued five opinions involving U.S. design patents: one Rule 36(a) affirmance, two decisions involving...more