applications

Subscribe to applications

Design patents in the U.S. typically include two types of shading. The first and most common type of shading used in U.S. design patents is opaque shading, which illustrates a non-transparent or non-translucent surface of an article of manufacture. The second type of shading used in U.S. design patents is oblique shading, which illustrates a transparent or translucent surface of an article of manufacture. Specifically, MPEP § 1503.02(II) states that “[o]blique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror.” Therefore, if the article of manufacture is intended to have some level of transparency or translucency, the USPTO requires that oblique shading be used. Continue Reading Best Practices for Protecting Transparent and Translucent Designs

Like many patent owners or aspiring patent owners, at some point you may have found yourself in a situation where design protection was needed, but all you had was narrow utility protection. Perhaps a decision had been made years ago to forgo a design filing in favor of a utility application, and in retrospect, that decision was a costly mistake. Sure, your disclosure may have been robust and your drawings comprehensive, but the available claim scope is not as broad as you would like, and now a competitor is selling a product that looks a lot like your product but does not infringe any of your utility claims.Continue Reading While There is an Active Utility Application, There is Design Hope

While obtaining a design patent is often quicker than obtaining a utility patent, current design patent application pendency is often still a lengthy period of time. Based on data released by the USPTO in July 2024 and shown below, over the previous year the average length of time from a design application filing date to the date that a first Office action was mailed was 16.7 months (Figure 1, below). In the month of July 2024, that average had crept up to 17.1 months. In the consumer product space especially, given the sometimes short shelf-life of a product, such a long examination pendency may not be suitable for a design patent applicant.Continue Reading Rocket Docket: Fast Track to Examination

As commerce moves more and more online, companies are facing unique challenges with respect to protecting their products, and the low cost of entry for online sellers has contributed to proliferations of knock-off and potentially counterfeit products being sold. This is particularly true when the product being sold is a simple disposable or replaceable product, such as a refill cartridge, a duster refill or a coffee pod.Continue Reading Indispensable Strategies for Protecting Disposable Products

A recent Federal Circuit decision, Junker v. Med. Components, Inc., No. 2021-1649 (Feb. 10, 2022), serves as a warning to prospective filers that making pre-filing offers for sale, or engaging in discussions for future sales, can be detrimental to one’s ability to obtain both design and utility patents.
Continue Reading Junker v. Medical Components, Inc.: Pre-filing Offers for Sale Trigger Patent “On-Sale Bar”

A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has fundamentally altered the law on prior art anticipation for design patent applications. In this decision, captioned In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P. et al., No. 2020-1940 (Oct. 4, 2021), the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), which had previously affirmed an examiner’s anticipation rejection of a design patent claim for a lip implant based on a prior art reference depicting a similarly-shaped tool for artists.
Continue Reading In re SurgiSil : Much More than a Cosmetic Change to Design Patent Law