For the record, Samiam *did* cite Surgisil in its summary judgment brief, albeit in its discussion of obviousness: https://www.scribd.com/document/619555735/Samiam-v-Coopersburg-Samiam-MSJ-Brief

Note that SurgiSil did not address the issue of primary references (or § 103 at all). But I think this is a fair reading of the logical implications of SurgiSil.

#DesignPatents #Litigation #BeverageBat #SurgiSil

The court also doesn't discuss the difference between § 102 and § 103 prior art, appearing to assume that the § 103 "same field of endeavor" standard governs both (it doesn't).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.597550/gov.uscourts.paed.597550.53.0.pdf

#DesignPatents #Litigation #BeverageBat

The court also doesn't discuss the difference between § 102 and § 103 prior art, appearing to assume (presumably based on the parties' briefing) that the § 103 "same field of endeavor" standard governs both (it doesn't).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.597550/gov.uscourts.paed.597550.53.0.pdf

#DesignPatents #Litigation #BeverageBat

The court's discussion of design patent validity is really interesting, especially in light of yesterday's arguments in #ColumbiaVersusSeirus.

The result seems correct but the court doesn't discuss SurgiSil (the leading case on design patent anticipation) or Glavas (on what counts as prior art for design patents and § 103) at all, instead citing and discussing utility patent cases about the scope of the prior art.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.597550/gov.uscourts.paed.597550.53.0.pdf

#DesignPatents #Litigation #BeverageBat

In the BEVERAGE BAT case, the judge has:

- Granted summary judgment in favor of the patent owner (i.e., concluded that the accused infringer has failed to prove that the patent is invalid); and

- Denied summary judgment on the issue of infringement.
https://design-law.tumblr.com/post/706337736627470336/design-law-does-this-drinking-vessel-infringe

#DesignPatents #Litigation #BeverageBat