Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 SEPTEMBER 2017

Recent Design Decisions Provide Insight For Design Patent Prosecution

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Three recent decisions relating to design patents provide useful insights into design patent prosecution.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Three recent decisions relating to design patents provide useful insights into design patent prosecution.  First, the PTAB recently instituted two IPR petitions directed to design patents, bringing the total number of instituted design petitions to nine.  In addition, the Central District of California recently found a design patent directed to an interlocking floor mat to be invalid as obvious on summary judgment.

Skechers USA, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2017-00620, -00621

In a November 2016 post, we discussed a series of petitions Skechers filed against Nike involving design patents directed to athletic shoes.  At that time, all eight of Skecher's petitions were denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  In a new series of petitions filed on different grounds, Skechers once again sought to invalidate the same Nike design patents.  This time around, however, the PTAB granted institution on two of Skechers' petitions, IPR2017-00620

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from