Prosecution History Disclaimer after Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort

Episode 1 of Prosecuting Design Patents for Enforcement, a series on what design patent litigation teaches about prosecution.

This episode discusses how the Federal Circuit applied prosecution history disclaimer to a design patent in Top Brand v. Cozy Comfort, and what that means for how you draft and argue responses to office actions so the patent holds its scope when it is later enforced. It also covers the related doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

The information in this post is general information only. It is not legal advice.

All episodes: Prosecuting Design Patents for Enforcement

Picture of Robert G. Oake, Jr.

Robert G. Oake, Jr.

is a Registered Patent Attorney and Board Certified in Patent Litigation, Civil Trial Law, and Civil Practice Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He holds two LL.M (Master of Law) Degrees, including an LL.M in Patent and Intellectual Property Law (with highest honors) from George Washington University Law School.

Robert served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Egyptian Goddess in the landmark case of Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa. He has tried to verdict as lead counsel cases involving design patents, utility patents, and trademarks, and has argued eleven cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals including an en banc case involving a design patent.

Robert currently serves as one of four members on the Patent Litigation Specialty Program Commission of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.

Recent Posts
Categories

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *