Sentences with phrase «because design patents»

We can't definitively say because design patents don't reveal specific aspects of the design to the public.

Here's a classic case where we're unable to verify whether or not the stand is designed to attach a tablet via magnets, because design patents don't provide any design guidance whatsoever.

Not exact matches

Because the seams are sealed using the Planet Wise Patent Pending No Leak Design, you won't need to worry about messes.

Lawyers for the defendants contend that the patent issued for the Luvs diaper is invalid because it was not the result of any breakthroughs, but was rather an imitation of previous attempts to design the best diaper.

These polka dot tights from Wade & Bell are a great choice because their patent - pending waistband that was specially designed never dig, pinch, or roll.

I own the patent for the LED light that we use for the salon in New York, but we're modernizing the design and function of that particular technology, which I'm very excited about because it'll be a totally new and improved tool.

Patent leather in the new season will remain current because each design executed in this material looks great — thanks to glowing coverage, it will shine especially beautiful in the sun.

For example: The Ford Escape and the Nissan Altima hybrids are using drive trains designed by Toyota because it was economically impossible to design an alternative drive train with the current patent restrictions placed on the industry by Toyota.

We say that because everyone is now able to see what the Emerg E Concept looks like in this set of patent design images which surfaced...

Our patented and race bred muffler technology consistently provides the finest sound enhancements and performance exhaust system capabilities because every system incorporates performance mufflers designed specifically for each application.

In a pretty significant ruling last week, a UK high court judge ruled that the Galaxy Tab does not infringe the iPad design patent because «it -LSB-...]

Apple has had the last two weeks to be on the offense and present their case against Samsung which, they claim, has infringed upon multiple patents of theirs which includes the design of the iPhone and iPad, and has also led them to lose Billions of dollars because of it.

As we've known for the last several weeks now, Apple is going after Samsung to the tune of $ 2.52 Billion for infringing their patents which include the design of the iPhone and iPad, and damages that have been caused to their brand because of it.

Shouldn't this patent be nullified because Polymer Vision's Readius had an almost identical folding design.

The court filing notes that the plaintiff «was the first to file a device so designed and aggregated,» but admits that the patent application was declared abandoned in 1995 because Ross never paid the required application fees.

It is patented because of its unique design and its unsurpassed qualities which suite your dog's needs as much as possible.

(And because in today's bad gaming journalism, every rumor is a «leak») But let me remind you that Nintendo did patent an idea, not a design.

A group show examines the legacy of the industrial designer who called for ecologically sound design and who didn't believe in patents because he felt they stymied innovation.

Vega Basto said that her team plans to create a human - scale model in the future, because they want to patent the design.

Apple gets a mention here because the firm is all about innovative product design, and in fact has already patented a different screen / solar power charging technology.

Instead, the very first paragraph of the introductory section stresses that the case law surrounding U.S. design patents needs to be adjusted in the 21st century because of how products have changed since the late 19th century:

Theoretically, claim construction could have had a devastating impact on Apple's design patent case (because it could have resulted in findings of invalidity and / or non-infringement).

These patents are often mis - understood because when people first hear the term design they think this is a patent for the functional design of something.

But the other extreme would mean that a device maker could be liable for several times or even many times the profits (because each of multiple asserted design patents would on its own entitle its owner to a disgorgement of total profits), which underscores how little sense the absence of any apportionment makes in this world, no matter how reasonable it may have appeared to Congress in the late 19th century when design patents related to no - tech products like carpets.

Design patent remedies, injunctive relief, partial summary judgment over invalidated patents, the royalty base (a context in which I hope Apple will defeat Ericsson because it will discourage outsized royalty claims over standard - essential patents), and possibly some procedural issues concerning the interplay of infringement cases and FRAND contract cases in different venues.

I'm so very skeptical because the USPTO has taken a long time since the filing of the reexamination requests to issue this Office action and, which is far more meaningful, it has determined that this design patent's single claim «stands twice rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a)[obviousness], rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) / 102 (e)[obviousness in connection with a published patent application], and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (e).»

Samsung's lawyers accuse their colleagues working for Apple of «rhetorical excess» because they «repeatedly incant [ed] broad, vague design concepts» such as «the iPhone's innovative look» rather than properly portray the narrow scope of the three design patents - in - suit.

The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for now) that this patent «is not entitled to benefit of the filing date» of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was not disclosed in those earlier applications.

Face paint, being removable, was deemed not to be a sufficient «fixation» under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 because it was not sufficiently permanent to be deemed a «work».

Apple argues that this smartphone case has different characteristics than Samsung's hypothetical example of a disgorgement of total profits could affect the manufacturer of a car only because of a cupholder infringing a design patent.

As with the design claimed by the D'889 Patent, the tablet disclosed in the clip has an overall rectangular shape with a dominant display screen, narrow borders, a predominately flat front surface, a flat back surface (which is evident because the tablets are lying flat on the table's surface), and a thin form factor.

Because it is unknown whether design patent rights holders that make false or frivolous complaints could be held liable for such actions, it is strongly encouraged that design patent owners take care with making such complaints under the current system.

All three of today's design patents are frustrating to view because it would be very interesting to know about each of the design a little deeper.

Samsung has got the support of many high - tech firms because «unapportioned infringer's profits, regardless of the potential insignificance of a design patent infringement, would have terrible consequences in some fields,» he pointed out.

These questions are yet to be answered, but one thing is for certain: be on the lookout for design patents, because they have arrived and are likely here to stay.

It's difficult to assess whether Samsung's designs are pointing to a smartphone or iPod touch - like device because several other design patents granted to Samsung today are clearly named «mobile phones.»

Because of this, Google owns the patents on some interesting designs, but that doesn't mean they'll ever actually get incorporated into a real product.

We highly doubt it, both because obtaining a patent on a variation of the classic smartphone rectangular design is tricky, and because Huawei might argue the Nokia 808 Pureview came out before the Grand S.