design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

Blue Spring v. - This complaint (filed by Boies Schiller) is going in my all-time worst design patent infringement claims file:

https://www.scribd.com/document/708509893/Blue-Spring-v-Schedule-A-Complaint

Not only are the two design patent infringement claims that are actually alleged in the complaint absolutely baseless, the plaintiff (or perhaps more correctly, their attorneys) don't seem to understand the difference between a design patent and a utility patent.

kathleenthelaw,
@kathleenthelaw@mastodon.social avatar

@design_law this is just embarrassing levels of lawyering for Boies Schiller, which can certainly afford to do better

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

This first patent is NOT a design patent.

How do I know, without even pulling up the patent?

Well, the drawing was the first clue.

Then there's the number. There are not even 2 million DPs, let alone 9 million.

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

But maybe the "D" was just a typo. Let's see.

No, they seriously seem to think this is a DP. (It is not.)

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

For actual design patents, yes, we compare the figures in the patent to the accused products.

That is NOT the test for utility patent infringement.

This is really basic stuff.

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

For anyone who is interested in the details of the two infringement tests, check out our free patent casebook: https://patentlawcasebook.com/

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

And as you all know, § 289 damages are only available for certain acts of design patent infringement. They are not available for any acts of utility patent infringement.

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

Anyway, here are the pictures in the complaint that show the asserted DP and two accused product. Neither of these products infringe this design patent.

And it's not even close.

accused mermaid tail that does not infringe
accused mermaid tail that does not infringe

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

But the judge will probably grant a TRO and freeze these defendants' assets. Because that's just what happens in these cases.

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

And there's here, too. (As far as I can tell from the public screen shots, neither accused listing uses the asserted FUN FINS mark.)

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

Ugh, this one is so bad. It might need to go in the next draft of my paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4549909

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

Oh, by the way, this is not Boies' first :

https://mastodon.social/

design_law,
@design_law@mastodon.social avatar

Looking at all the asserted copyright registrations, which differ significantly from each other and differ extremely from the patented design, I also have lots of questions about the purported basis for here.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • tacticalgear
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • modclub
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • ngwrru68w68
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines