Episode 2 of Prosecuting Design Patents for Enforcement, a series on what design patent litigation teaches about prosecution.
A design patent has one claim: the ornamental design for a named article of manufacture. The drawings usually do most of the work, but when they show no article, the title and claim language supply it, and that language can decide the case. This episode walks through Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions, where a pattern claimed for a chair could not be asserted against a basket, and In re SurgiSil, where the same article-identifying language kept an art tool from anticipating a lip implant design. It then covers how to choose the title deliberately: the broadest accurate identification of the article disclosed, without unnecessary qualifiers, and why an examiner’s objection to the title should be treated as claim drafting rather than a clerical correction.
The information in this post is general information only. It is not legal advice.
All episodes: Prosecuting Design Patents for Enforcement
