And I don't see a picture of the bottom of the accused Google device. But I strongly suspect it lacks the "transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective" quality required by the oblique line shading in this claim.

Cf. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 920 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (discussing the construction of oblique lines in design patents).

#DesignPatents #Litigation #DMass #ConceptFallacy

Note that the narrower patent here explicitly claims a design for a "dual screen mobile device."

(Yes, the words in the claim matter. See Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019).)

I don't see a second screen in the Google device.

#DesignPatents #Litigation #DMass #ConceptFallacy

This is one of the worst design patent infringement claims I've seen in a while.

Luckily, Google is a rich, sophisticated company and can defend itself.

But courts, which tend to not see a lot of these claims, seem to be loathe to sanction even the worst ones.

That makes me worried for smaller targets, who lack Google's resources & legal talent.

#DesignPatents #Litigation #DMass #ConceptFallacy

New design patent case in the D. Mass:

Ocean Shore Properties brings two design patent claims against Google; both should fail as a matter of law. https://design-law.tumblr.com/post/706242761773481984/a-company-called-ocean-shore-properties-has-filed

Remember, a design patent covers the shape that is claimed, not the larger design concept. So here, the claim covers a slim, disk-like electronic device--not any round electronic device.

#DesignPatents #Litigation #DMass #ConceptFallacy #OceanShoreVersusGoogle