A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates that sometimes, the key to an overcoming an obviousness rejection (even one affirmed by the PTAB) is simply explaining an overall story of the invention, with supporting evidence.

While trademark law may offer attractive options for protecting tire tread designs, design patents are also offer an avenue for protection and can be used as a predicate to later trademark protection. 

The recent headlines from Apple are that you can have taxes or you can have jobs, but you can’t have both. What does this have to do with patents? Everything.

Highlighting the important of design patents to the Outdoor industry, a group of outdoor gear companies filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Apple v. Samsung battle.

The Federal Circuit provides some much needed guidance on limitations in using “common sense” to support an obviousness rejection. 

I just returned from the 2016 summer OR show in Salt Lake City where I was invited to speak on intellectual property issues as they relate to the outdoor industry.

In a recent ex parte appeal to the PTAB (13/296,787), BMW challenged a rejection related to a way to utilize an electronic braking system upon actuation of an operative element (e.g., a parking brake)

In a recent IPR appeal at the Federal Circuit, the Court reviewed the Board’s claim construction de novo and found that the Board improperly added an element to their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the claim terms

In in re Magnum Oil Tools International, the Federal Circuit rejected a crafty approach by the USPTO to shift the burden to the patentee in proving non-obviousness in an IPR. 

The usually boring world of vehicle emissions has taken center stage recently with the revelation that VW employed “defeat device” software on its vehicles to game emission compliance tests. The recent lawsuits by New York and Massachusetts bring new details to light regarding VW’s software. While not discussed in the media yet, patent filings by…