Today, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case Samsung v. Apple. The case concerns the measure of damages to be awarded to an owner of a design patent, particularly when the product infringing that patent is a multi-feature product with features unrelated to the design patent.
Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued its widely anticipated Section 6(b) study on patent assertion entities. In the report, the FTC calls for broad reforms to patent litigation practices, including addressing discovery cost burdens, requiring greater information disclosure on the part of patent assertion entities, streamlining multiple cases with similar issues, and demanding clearer notice of patent infringement theories.
"The granting of improper and illegal patents defeats every object and purpose of patent laws. It serves to mislead and deceive the public, and to subject them to the annoyance of unjust and invalid claims. It throws distrust and discredit upon patented property, and injures the salable value of meritorious inventions.”
Today, the Supreme Court announced its decision in the case Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office over two challenges to the agency's post-grant procedure for reviewing patents, called inter partes review. Public Knowledge filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the USPTO in this case.
Imagine a tire on a fancy Tesla, a highly technical, complex car made from myriad technological contributions and likely subject to thousands of patents. Many of those patents cover the technologies that make the car run, while others, design patents, cover only the ornamental designs. Generally, a tire's tread pattern is several straight lines that cross each other - and could be covered by a design patent. The tire itself is a small part of the final car, and the role the tread plays in the car’s value is minimal.