3 ms·

The patents in question seem to consist of essentially just pictures. Can anyone more familiar with design patents clarify whether there are more specifics beyo

by rory096 10y ago

The patents in question seem to consist of essentially just pictures. Can anyone more familiar with design patents clarify whether there are more specifics beyond what Google Patents and the USPTO website show, or if this is all there is to it? [0] https://www.google.com/patents/USD618677 https://www.google.com/patents/USD618677 [1] https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286 https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286

DSMan195276 10y ago
I'm not a patent lawyer, but I have dealt with patents. The important part is the claims, because that lists what it is they are actually patenting. But since their only claim is about the design the only real relevant information is those pictures and the short descriptions of them. Note that I'm not attempting to argue over where that should be a valid patent or not, just why it is so bare. If there were more specifics, you'd see them on that page.
- Oletros 10y ago
  In both cases, the only claim is: > 1. The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.
  - DSMan195276 10y ago
    Yes, that's my point. There's not much specifics because there's not much other details that need to be provided to explain the claims. IE. The claim basically just says "look at the pictures".
WildUtah 10y ago
Google Patents is giving you the whole thing. Most design patents are just a picture and some boilerplate text. And there's little or no review before issuance. If you can draw, you can get one.
josaka 10y ago
To a first approximation, design patents confer the right to stop others from making/using/selling things that look too much like what is in the picture of the patent and not enough like what existed before the patent. How it functions does not matter-just how it looks. Design patents do not last as long as utility patents, typically only 14 years, rather than 20. Design patents are generally much easier to design around than utility patents -- you could use a sufficiently different corner radius, put a curve in one side, add a hood ornament, etc. Most notably, and key in this case, the measure of damages is different: Disgorgement of profits for a design patent, versus a reasonable royalty for a utility patents. The issue in this case was profits on what--the whole phone, or just the component of the phone to which the design is applied. A reasonable reading of the statute suggested the former.
drbigglesworth 10y ago
They are just pictures, but they are very specific pictures. The USPTO's Design Patent Application Guide (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/...) might be of interest. Of specific interest is that broken lines are not considered part of the patent claim.

by rory096 10y ago

DSMan195276 10y ago

I'm not a patent lawyer, but I have dealt with patents. The important part is the claims, because that lists what it is they are actually patenting. But since their only claim is about the design the only real relevant information is those pictures and the short descriptions of them. Note that I'm not attempting to argue over where that should be a valid patent or not, just why it is so bare. If there were more specifics, you'd see them on that page.

Oletros 10y ago
In both cases, the only claim is: > 1. The ornamental design of an electronic device, as shown and described.
- DSMan195276 10y ago
  Yes, that's my point. There's not much specifics because there's not much other details that need to be provided to explain the claims. IE. The claim basically just says "look at the pictures".

WildUtah 10y ago

Google Patents is giving you the whole thing. Most design patents are just a picture and some boilerplate text. And there's little or no review before issuance. If you can draw, you can get one.

josaka 10y ago

To a first approximation, design patents confer the right to stop others from making/using/selling things that look too much like what is in the picture of the patent and not enough like what existed before the patent. How it functions does not matter-just how it looks. Design patents do not last as long as utility patents, typically only 14 years, rather than 20. Design patents are generally much easier to design around than utility patents -- you could use a sufficiently different corner radius, put a curve in one side, add a hood ornament, etc. Most notably, and key in this case, the measure of damages is different: Disgorgement of profits for a design patent, versus a reasonable royalty for a utility patents. The issue in this case was profits on what--the whole phone, or just the component of the phone to which the design is applied. A reasonable reading of the statute suggested the former.

drbigglesworth 10y ago

They are just pictures, but they are very specific pictures. The USPTO's Design Patent Application Guide (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-basics/...) might be of interest. Of specific interest is that broken lines are not considered part of the patent claim.