I can't wait for oral argument in this one: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66672045/gorge-design-group-llc-v-meaning-xuansheng/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

In the meantime, here are the briefs: https://www.scribd.com/document/615575243/Gorge-Design-v-Xuansheng-Fed-Cir-briefs

#ScheduleA #GorgeDesign #FederalCircuit #UtilityPatents #Trademarks #Copyrights

Lead Creation just filed an amended complaint and, yes, it still improperly demands § 289 damages: https://www.scribd.com/document/620526276/Lead-Creation-v-Schedule-A-8-23-cv-00049-Amended-Complaint

#ScheduleA #UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands #LeadCreation

And another one from the same company/attorney: https://www.scribd.com/document/618707287/Lead-Creation-v-Schedule-A-8-23-cv-00049-Complaint

Remember, Section 289 damages are only available for design patent infringement, *not* for utility patent infringement. See Brown v. Generac Power Sys., Inc., No. 20-22434-CIV, 2021 WL 1030229, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 20-22434-CIV, 2021 WL 1022872 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 17, 2021).

#ScheduleA #UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands #LeadCreation

U.S. Patent No. 91,473 - issued in 1869 for a "postal-currency envelope": https://patents.google.com/patent/US91473A/en?oq=us91473 (h/t @zvirosen)

Note that although this front page looks a bit like a design patent, it's actually a utility patent.

#Patents #UtilityPatents

U.S. Patent No. 91,473 - issued in 1869 for a "postal-currency envelope": https://patents.google.com/patent/US91473A/en?oq=us91473 (h/t @zvirosen)

Note that although this front page looks a bit like a design patent, it's actually a utility patent.

#Patents #UtilityPatents

U.S. Patent No. 91,473 - issued in 1869 for a design for a "postal-currency envelope": https://patents.google.com/patent/US91473A/en?oq=us91473 (h/t @zvirosen)

Note that although this front page looks a bit like a design patent, it's actually a utility patent.

#Patents #UtilityPatents

Here's the District Judge's decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pawd.271422/gov.uscourts.pawd.271422.76.0.pdf

This part is particularly galling because, as @hewittlaw has explained, it's really hard for defendants to publicly fight back in these cases. The normal playbook seems to be: Show some spine, get dismissed.

So the fact that there are "many other cases" like this doesn't mean they're okay.

#UtilityPatents #Litigation #ScheduleA #FederalCircuit

A case I'll be watching: Gorge Design v. Xuansheng, No. 21-1695 (Fed. Cir.). This is a utility patent case but it's all about the "Schedule A" litigation scheme (this time, in the WDPA).

Defendant Neomagic asked the court to sanction the plaintiff. The court said (basically): Nah, this is a totally common type of litigation scheme.

We'll see what the Federal Circuit says.

Here are the briefs: https://www.scribd.com/document/615575243/Gorge-Design-v-Xuansheng-Fed-Cir-briefs

#UtilityPatents #Litigation #ScheduleA #FederalCircuit

Lead Creation has filed an amended complaint, in which it still improperly demands design patent damages for utility patent infringement: https://www.scribd.com/document/615692835/Lead-Creation-v-Schedule-A-1st-Amended-Complaint

#ScheduleA #UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands

Inspired by @TamarYellin, I want to make sure you all know about this absolute classic:

U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596, directed to a "a sealed crustless sandwich." https://patents.google.com/patent/US6004596A/en?oq=country:US+type:DESIGN+6004596+

#UtilityPatents #Uncrustables

I was just reminded of this absolute classic, U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596, directed to a "a sealed crustless sandwich." https://patents.google.com/patent/US6004596A/en?oq=country:US+type:DESIGN+6004596+

h/t @TamarYellin

#UtilityPatents #Uncrustables

So no, you're NOT "entitled to recover Defendants’ total profits from Defendants’ infringement."

#UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands

See these? NOT design patents.

#UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands

Oh look, another complaint seeking design patent damages for utility patent infringement: https://www.scribd.com/document/613347301/Ocugiene-v-Thermamedx-Complaint (Nope, still not a thing.)

#UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands

Oh look, a Schedule A case that seeks § 289 damages for utility patent infringement: https://www.scribd.com/document/613325328/Lead-Creation-v-Schedule-A-Complaint-SDNY (h/t @sqfreak)

In case you don't know: Section 289 damages are only available for design patent infringement, *not* for utility patent infringement. See https://www.scribd.com/document/496685616/Brown-v-Generac-Power-Sys-R-R-on-Rule-11

#ScheduleA #UtilityPatents #Remedies #ImproperDisgorgementDemands

Fun patent illustration of the day (h/t Casey Hewitt): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7653959B1/en?oq=7653959 #UtilityPatents