Recent Design Patent Litigation

By Dennis Crouch

  • D. 624,501 –a dual USB adapter owned by Ever Win International. Ever Win's product is available from Amazon for $20 and is allegedly being infringed by similar devices being sold at CVS and other locations.

122012_0308_RecentDesig1 122012_0308_RecentDesig2

  1. Mr. BD Kidd has sued Home Depot and others for infringing his Patent No. D.646,537 covering a crimping tool that fits in your pocket.

    122012_0308_RecentDesig3 122012_0308_RecentDesig4

  • Nebo's No. D.659,869 covers these funky flashlights that are allegedly being infringed.

122012_0308_RecentDesig5 122012_0308_RecentDesig6

  • Jugs Inc. owns No. D.451,566 that covers a five-position batting practice tee that is allegedly being infringed by Wilson's and others. Wilson's has asked for a declaratory judgment of invalidity alleging that it began using its version of the product (shown in yellow) in 1996, five years before the patent's 2001 priority date.

 122012_0308_RecentDesig7. 122012_0308_RecentDesig8 122012_0308_RecentDesig9

  • Oakley has again asserted its D. 397,350 that covers eyeglass fronts.

122012_0308_RecentDesig10

  • Lulumon has asserted its Design Patent No. D.645,644 against Calvin Klein. Klein immediately caved.

122012_0308_RecentDesig11 122012_0308_RecentDesig12

8 thoughts on “Recent Design Patent Litigation

  1. Thank you, this is interesting.

    I am especially interested in seeing the results of cases such as this. I have a hard time applying the law of design patent infringement to real-world examples. A summary of actual decisions showing the drawing and the accused product would be a useful crib sheet (with the usual caveats).

  2. Thank goodness we’ve got someone like anon around to keep the MM patent-curmudgeon (who apparently never sleeps … or works … or has a life outside of trolling) safely ensconced in its cage.

    How do you do it, anon? A secret “MM comment GPS” device?

    But in any case; thank you.

  3. I’m glad to see the defense of design patents. It shows they have teeth

    Put enough money (“lawyers”) behind any IP “right”, and the “teeth” will suddenly appear. It works even better when the case law is completely nonsensical. Nobody could have predicted!

    I wonder if in ten years (five years after the USPTO starts to sort of actually examine design patents instead of just registering them) we’ll be seeing lots of complaints about the design patent appeals backlog and how some Examiners aren’t allowing any design patents what happened to the historical design patent allowance rate design patent reject mentality all the jobs that depend on design patents etc etc.

  4. “Funky” for a flashlight? Oh-oh, we need a Markman hearing for this. I see many appeals in the future fighting over funky.

  5. Bleedingppen,

    I had a chance to review the judge’s instructions to the jury in Apple v Samsumg re design patents. The jury was instructed to disregard the design features that were dictated by function.

  6. I’m glad to see the defense of design patents. It shows they have teeth. I’m surprised, however, that BD Kidd disclaimed the hinge on the crimper. That looks pretty unique to me. Perhaps there was a prior art problem.

Comments are closed.