GM Global Technology Operations LLC

13 Cited authorities

Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 369 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 182 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm
Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Company, Inc.
101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 96 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"
High Point Design LLC v. Buyers Direct, Inc.
730 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 49 times 13 Legal Analyses
Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP
747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Cited 32 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the district court did not err by failing to provide an express verbal description of the claimed design; rather, it described the claimed design in the context of comparing it to the prior art"
In re Borden
90 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 28 times 9 Legal Analyses
Affirming the Board's affirmance of an obviousness rejection where the examiner found "differences between the [prior art] and appellant's design had little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design"
In re Harvey
12 F.3d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1993) Cited 30 times 2 Legal Analyses
Reversing a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it "should have focused on actual appearances, rather than `design concepts'"
In re Rosen
673 F.2d 388 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 40 times 28 Legal Analyses
Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”
In re Carter
673 F.2d 1378 (C.C.P.A. 1982) Cited 4 times
Appeal No. 81-593. April 1, 1982. Franklin D. Wolffe, Washington, D.C., and Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol., and Harris A. Pitlick, Asst. Sol., of Washington, D.C., for the Patent and Trademark Office. Appeal from the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals. Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, BALDWIN, MILLER and NIES, Judges. NIES, Judge. This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining
Dobson v. Dornan
118 U.S. 10 (1886) Cited 56 times
Upholding the validity of a patent that annexed a photograph instead of describing the design in question in words
Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
35 U.S.C. § 103 Cited 6,153 times 485 Legal Analyses
Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."
Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review
35 U.S.C. § 314 Cited 377 times 633 Legal Analyses
Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"
Section 1.152 - Design drawings
37 C.F.R. § 1.152 Cited 33 times 3 Legal Analyses
Requiring design patent drawings to "contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article"

GM Global Technology Operations LLC

13 Cited authorities

Holding that "the ‘point of novelty’ test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement" and that the "sole test" should be "the ‘ordinary observer’ test" based on substantial visual similarity between the accused product and claimed design

Holding that a movant must make a clear showing of likelihood of irreparable harm

Holding that a district court's vague description of the concept of a design patent provided insufficient detail for the appellate court to "discern the internal reasoning employed by the trial court to reach its decision"

Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment because "there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Woolrich Prior Art are, in fact, proper primary references"

Holding that "the district court did not err by failing to provide an express verbal description of the claimed design; rather, it described the claimed design in the context of comparing it to the prior art"

Affirming the Board's affirmance of an obviousness rejection where the examiner found "differences between the [prior art] and appellant's design had little or no effect on the overall appearance of the design"

Reversing a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because it "should have focused on actual appearances, rather than `design concepts'"

Concluding that two glass coffee tables were “significantly different in concept” because the primary reference “does not give the same visual impression of lightness and suspension in space conveyed by appellant's table”

Upholding the validity of a patent that annexed a photograph instead of describing the design in question in words

Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

Requiring design patent drawings to "contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article"