The flexible approach of In re Maatita to definiteness embodies the idea that designs can be depicted in a variety of ways while still being reasonably understood by the ordinary observer. The standard also strikes a balance between allowing infringement and patentability to be assessed and allowing applicants to claim their design in the way that best reflects how that design is likely to be viewed in the real world, or focusing on what the applicant deems to be the most important aspects of their design. While an applicant may choose to claim three-dimensional aspects of design from one or more points of view, there is no requirement that every detail must be fully shown in multiple views from a variety of perspectives so that its three-dimensional nature can be exactly ascertained. But the Federal Circuit could not help but muddy the waters by providing its infamous teapot example.
Recent Posts
- Mixed UK High Court Ruling Fails to Answer Fundamental Questions of AI Copyright Infringement
- Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works
- Squires Emphasizes AI, Dubs Inherited Backlog ‘An Absolute Dumpster Fire’ and a ‘Betrayal’
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Precedent on Pre-AIA Prior Art ‘By Another’
- Squires Restores PTAB’s RPI Identification Requirement to Exacting Pre-SharkNinja Standard
