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
- CAFC Finds IPR Petitioner Did Not Rely on AAPA as Basis for Obviousness Grounds in Affirming PTAB Invalidation
- Foreign Price Controls: A Risk to U.S. Medical Innovation and Patient Access
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 11: EGC Affirms Annulment of Rubik’s Cube Marks; Sysco Trade Secret Case Dismissal Affirmed by Fourth Circuit; and EU Advocate General Finds Member States Can Impose Measures to Protect News Content on Meta Platforms
- EU Publishes Code of Practice as Deadline for AI Act’s Provisions on General-Purpose AI Models Nears
- Will the Federal Circuit Finally Follow Supreme Court Holdings on the Unavailability of the Laches Defense?