The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as informative an institution decision that granted post-grant review of a design patent for lacking ornamentality. Sattler had argued that the overall design of the mount adapter bracket covered by Humancentric's U.S. D823,093 patent was functional rather than ornamental. While 35 U.S.C. § 171(a) states that a design patent may be obtained for "any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture," "a design pat

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Dolgencorp with regard to design patent infringement, copyright infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Regarding the issue of design patent infringement, the Federal Circuit disagreed with Lanard's contention that the court reinstated the “point of novelty” test in its infringement analysis and stated that "we have never questioned the importance of consi

The Federal Circuit held that GMS failed to timely preserve and thus waived its objections to the jury instructions, and that the jury instructions did not seriously prejudice GMS or warrant a new trial. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[o]bjection to the presence or absence of [a jury] instruction must be timely raised during the trial proceeding, and the correct instruction offered and rejected," and "a court may consider a plain error in the instructions

A would-be infringer should not escape liability for design patent infringement if a design is copied but labeled with its name. But L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co. does not prohibit the fact finder from considering an ornamental logo, its placement, and its appearance as one among other potential differences between a patented design and an accused one. In other words, if an ordinary observer determines that the accused design and the patent design are not "substantia