Hot answers tagged

3

I agree with Maca that, by definition, if any specific example that falls under the scope of a claim is obvious, the claim is obvious. Examiners do not need to find "full scope" obviousness, applicants need to have full scope non-obviousness. Some judges in district courts get a very small number of patent cases ever. Can you image a response to a 103 ...


3

As described and shown in the patent, the design also covers the top shape and relative dimensions of the flask. In order to be infringing on the design, a bottle would need to be extremely similar in appearance, including the relative dimensions and presence of all or very nearly all features. These design patents exist to prevent knock-off products from ...


2

In the US case, I would also like to add that reverse doctrine of equivalents (DOE) may apply as implicit claim scope limitation. Reverse DOE essentially says literally infringing structure may not infringe if it does not satisfy all of the traditional function-way-result requirements. E.g., see the wikipedia article. This would apply to the previous ...


2

Are such broad claims invalid when an unenabled/non-writtenly-described embodiment is identified? Yes. The written description requirements in the US and EPO require that the invention must be enabled or sufficient described (respectively) across the whole of its scope. The USPTO sets this out reasonably clearly at MPEP § 2164.02: For a claimed genus, ...


2

Simply put, a specific minor change MAY avoid infringement. There's something in the United States called the doctrine of equivalents that gives patentees protection that is broader than the literal language of their claims. So a patentee may argue that what you think is a minor change is actually "equivalent" in the eyes of patent law. I'll let you ...


1

As you just found, using www.google.com/patents is unreliable when searching patents. You can find a better version at patents.google.com and even better at The Lens. In any case, this is a patent application (not yet a patent) and it is for a children's play fort that floats on a cushion of air. Please see the figure below from the patent. Also, you used ...


1

The examination process for design patents is extremely limited. In this case, it seems like an invalid patent was granted. Yes, the scope of this patent is almost infinite because the claimed design is merely two parallel faces/edges. However, if the owners were to attempt to enforce their patent, it could be effortlessly invalidated by presenting evidence ...


1

The protection is defined by - and only by - the claims. You can talk about god, the world, your neighbours dog, apple and the blue LED in your patent specification, but that will not grant you any kind of protection. The grant of a patent is primarily decided by the novelty and inventiveness of it's claims and the wording of these (the claims that are ...


1

It depends on what you meant by unthreaded nut. If your nut has two notches that engage with a threaded element, then the patentee might argue that it is a partial thread. If your nut is, say, a snap-on nut, then you should be off the hook.


1

A design patent such as this one protects an ornamental design; or, roughly speaking, what something looks like. It is the entire design, not just one part of it, that matters. A product that looks like what is shown in the design patent's drawings might infringe. It is hard to answer any more precisely than that without knowing what the "similar product" ...


1

In short an assignment of IP rights with scope of worldwide means that all rights of IP are assigned to second party. Further it also comes to specific clauses of assignments which can restrict to exclusive or non-exclusive mode, specific patent number or portfolio. to cut short if exclusive rights are given then all IP belongs to new holder along with ...


1

Any patent protects what is listed in the claims -- no more -- no less. The best way to start is to compare "Claim 1" word-for-word and see if your product matches the description -- if your product differs in just one matter of what is described in the first claim, then it is likely not covered. Also, making something "automatic" could be an innovative ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible