Legislation has been proposed this month that could severely limit design patent protection for automotive repair parts. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) reintroduced legislation on February 2 that could drastically reduce the term for design patent protection for repair parts from 14 years to 30 months. This is not the first time automotive parts have been targeted (as Observed here), prior legislation sought to exclude automotive repair parts from design protection entirely.
The proposal, titled the "Promoting Automotive Repair, Trade, and Sales" (PARTS - here) Act, allows for manufacture, testing, importation, and pre-sale distribution of repair parts for any automotive "component parts" that would otherwise infringe a design patent. The PARTS bill exempts acts of infringement that occur 30 months after a patented part is offered for sale.
The bill has the potential to severely limit the protection afforded to patentees of automotive parts. Under such a scheme, timely filing of a design patent application is essential to maximizing the 30 month period. We will continue to follow the legislation and report on it status.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Interesting Designs
Given the recent passing of Steven Jobs, I selected one old and one new design on which he was listed as an inventor.
Many thanks to Patently-O for reminding me of the contribution Steven Jobs made as a technology and an Intellectual Property innovator.
Many thanks to Patently-O for reminding me of the contribution Steven Jobs made as a technology and an Intellectual Property innovator.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Guest Post:The Expansion of Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights
Today's post was written by Andrew Beckerman-Rodau a Professor at Suffolk University Law School. Professor Beckerman-Rodau has also published a podcast on the same subject available here.
As a law professor, engineer, and patent attorney, I am an advocate of strong intellectual property rights (IPR). However, the extent of what is currently protectable under U.S. IP law has become too expansive. Design patent law, copyright law, and trademark law have grown significantly over the past few decades. Design patent law was first enacted in the 1800s to cover the ornamental appearance of commercial products. This is often referred to as industrial design protection. According to legislative history it was needed to fill a gap in the existing law because neither utility patent law nor copyright law provided protection for such industrial design even though protection had long been available in Europe. Copyright law originally covered only the form of expression embodied in maps, charts, and books. Trademark law – a species of unfair competition law – protected the mental association between symbols, words and short phrases that identified products or services against third party commercial uses that would create consumer confusion.
Today, copyright law covers many things including software, building designs, three dimensional commercial products such as jewelry or a lamp, directories, compilations of facts, financial reports, music, movies, pantomimes, choreography, photographs, sound recordings, and the bar examination. Almost anything, including a specific characteristic of a product, can potentially be a trademark today if it signals to consumers that the product comes from a specific producer or seller. This has enabled trademark protection to be obtained for colors, sounds, shapes, smells, feel, music, trade dress, and even putting goats on the grass roof of a restaurant to attract customers (U.S. Service Mark Reg. No. 2,007,624). Likewise, design patent protection is no longer limited to the ornamental exterior appearance of an industrial or consumer product. It is routinely granted for graphical displays such as computer icons that appear on a computer monitor or functional products such as clothing or headgear.
It has long been permissible to protect different aspects of a product under different bodies of IP law. However, the modern expansion of what is covered via patent law, copyright law, and trademark law has inadvertently resulted in overlapping IPR. This is problematic because each body of IP law has a different term of protection. And, these terms are based on a balance of competing interests. Namely, providing adequate property protection to incentivize investment in innovation and creativity while not preventing such innovation and creativity from both benefiting the public and being freely available.
Obtaining simultaneous protection under multiple bodies of IP law can interfere with this balance. Under both design patent law and copyright law the property rights end when the term of protection runs out. At the end of the 14 year design patent term the subject matter should enter the public domain. However, copyright protection typically lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years so copyright protection would interfere with the subject matter entering the public domain because copyright rights will continue to exist for many decades after expiration of a design patent. Likewise, trademark rights could interfere with subject matter protected by patent law and by copyright law because trademark rights, which can potentially last forever, can continue to exist despite expiration of any patent or copyright rights.
Examples of Overlapping IPR
Google obtained U.S. Design Patent D599,372 for the following computer interface. It also claims copyright protection for this interface.
The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected via U.S. Design Patent D295,764.
The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected by registered U.S. Copyright Office Registration no. VA0001638936.
Product containers such as the well-know Coke bottle, shown below, have been protected by U.S. Design Patent D63,657 and have subsequently been registered as a trademark (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,057,884).
Apple Computer has obtained trademark protection for both the two dimensional shape of its iPod (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,341,214) and the three dimensional shape of its iPod (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,365,816) as shown below. A trademark registration is pending for the two dimensional shape of its iPad (U.S. Trademark Reg. Serial No. 85,025,647 (filed April 28, 2010)) as shown below.
Music has long been primarily protected via copyright law. However, the song Sweet Georgia Brown has been registered as a trademark for the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team. (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,700,895). Additionally, the Loonie Toons theme song has been registered as a trademark by Time Warner Inc. (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,469,365).
Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society. Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.
Guest Column by Professor Beckerman-Rodau re-published from IPWatchdog (here)
_________________________________________________
Professor Beckerman-Rodau is a professor of law and co-director of the Intellectual Property Law Concentration at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.
_________________________________________________
For further treatment of this topic by Professor Beckerman-Rodau see The Problem with Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion, 13 Yale Journal of Law & Technology 35 (2010).
About the Author
As a law professor, engineer, and patent attorney, I am an advocate of strong intellectual property rights (IPR). However, the extent of what is currently protectable under U.S. IP law has become too expansive. Design patent law, copyright law, and trademark law have grown significantly over the past few decades. Design patent law was first enacted in the 1800s to cover the ornamental appearance of commercial products. This is often referred to as industrial design protection. According to legislative history it was needed to fill a gap in the existing law because neither utility patent law nor copyright law provided protection for such industrial design even though protection had long been available in Europe. Copyright law originally covered only the form of expression embodied in maps, charts, and books. Trademark law – a species of unfair competition law – protected the mental association between symbols, words and short phrases that identified products or services against third party commercial uses that would create consumer confusion.
Today, copyright law covers many things including software, building designs, three dimensional commercial products such as jewelry or a lamp, directories, compilations of facts, financial reports, music, movies, pantomimes, choreography, photographs, sound recordings, and the bar examination. Almost anything, including a specific characteristic of a product, can potentially be a trademark today if it signals to consumers that the product comes from a specific producer or seller. This has enabled trademark protection to be obtained for colors, sounds, shapes, smells, feel, music, trade dress, and even putting goats on the grass roof of a restaurant to attract customers (U.S. Service Mark Reg. No. 2,007,624). Likewise, design patent protection is no longer limited to the ornamental exterior appearance of an industrial or consumer product. It is routinely granted for graphical displays such as computer icons that appear on a computer monitor or functional products such as clothing or headgear.
It has long been permissible to protect different aspects of a product under different bodies of IP law. However, the modern expansion of what is covered via patent law, copyright law, and trademark law has inadvertently resulted in overlapping IPR. This is problematic because each body of IP law has a different term of protection. And, these terms are based on a balance of competing interests. Namely, providing adequate property protection to incentivize investment in innovation and creativity while not preventing such innovation and creativity from both benefiting the public and being freely available.
Obtaining simultaneous protection under multiple bodies of IP law can interfere with this balance. Under both design patent law and copyright law the property rights end when the term of protection runs out. At the end of the 14 year design patent term the subject matter should enter the public domain. However, copyright protection typically lasts for the author’s life plus 70 years so copyright protection would interfere with the subject matter entering the public domain because copyright rights will continue to exist for many decades after expiration of a design patent. Likewise, trademark rights could interfere with subject matter protected by patent law and by copyright law because trademark rights, which can potentially last forever, can continue to exist despite expiration of any patent or copyright rights.
Examples of Overlapping IPR
Google obtained U.S. Design Patent D599,372 for the following computer interface. It also claims copyright protection for this interface.
The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected via U.S. Design Patent D295,764.
The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected by registered U.S. Copyright Office Registration no. VA0001638936.
Product containers such as the well-know Coke bottle, shown below, have been protected by U.S. Design Patent D63,657 and have subsequently been registered as a trademark (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,057,884).
Apple Computer has obtained trademark protection for both the two dimensional shape of its iPod (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,341,214) and the three dimensional shape of its iPod (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,365,816) as shown below. A trademark registration is pending for the two dimensional shape of its iPad (U.S. Trademark Reg. Serial No. 85,025,647 (filed April 28, 2010)) as shown below.
Music has long been primarily protected via copyright law. However, the song Sweet Georgia Brown has been registered as a trademark for the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team. (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 1,700,895). Additionally, the Loonie Toons theme song has been registered as a trademark by Time Warner Inc. (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 2,469,365).
Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society. Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.
Guest Column by Professor Beckerman-Rodau re-published from IPWatchdog (here)
_________________________________________________
Professor Beckerman-Rodau is a professor of law and co-director of the Intellectual Property Law Concentration at Suffolk University Law School in Boston.
_________________________________________________
For further treatment of this topic by Professor Beckerman-Rodau see The Problem with Intellectual Property Rights: Subject Matter Expansion, 13 Yale Journal of Law & Technology 35 (2010).
About the Author
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Small Business Owners: Protect Your IP
If you are a small business owner, you probably have a lot to worry about, from developing your concepts, to marketing your products, to managing your employees, to growing your company. Thinking about protecting your intellectual property might not be a high priority for you, especially early on, but your intangible and innovative ideas are valuable, and protecting them is an important step in building your business that should not be overlooked.
While small businesses most commonly acquire trademarks and copyrights, there are many other ways to protect your IP, even if you did not invent the products yourself. For example, if you have come up with a clever and unique way of displaying, packaging, or selling your products, a patent could help secure rights to your design or process. Although obtaining a patent can be considerably more expensive than acquiring other forms of IP protection, as with everything else in your business, strategic up-front investments can provide significant long-term benefits, and a diverse approach to IP is often better than one that focuses only on a few types of protection.
For a quick introduction to intellectual property, take a look at this short video by MSNBC's Your Business. You may also visit the small business section of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's website.
While small businesses most commonly acquire trademarks and copyrights, there are many other ways to protect your IP, even if you did not invent the products yourself. For example, if you have come up with a clever and unique way of displaying, packaging, or selling your products, a patent could help secure rights to your design or process. Although obtaining a patent can be considerably more expensive than acquiring other forms of IP protection, as with everything else in your business, strategic up-front investments can provide significant long-term benefits, and a diverse approach to IP is often better than one that focuses only on a few types of protection.
For a quick introduction to intellectual property, take a look at this short video by MSNBC's Your Business. You may also visit the small business section of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's website.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Interesting Designs
Pet Feeder
This pen makes me smile.
Greeting card.
Alternate Volt design.
Fancy.
This pen makes me smile.
Greeting card.
Alternate Volt design.
Fancy.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Design Patents Contribute to IP Portfolio’s Value
If you anticipate selling or licensing your intellectual property – or even selling products produced using that IP – it is good to know how much the IP is worth. This is particularly true in a world where IP is often a company’s most important asset. Think Google, eBay, Facebook. For these companies, the value of the server farms, the corporate campuses, and other physical assets are not all that important. So how is the IP embodied in their products valuated? There are some valuation techniques that should be considered.
As a type of intangible asset, IP is more difficult to valuate than tangible assets. One simple technique for valuating intangible assets is to take the market value of all assets and subtract from that the value of the tangible ones. This may provide a ballpark figure, but intangible assets are more than just IP; for example, goodwill and know how can have tremendous value, but they are not necessarily forms of protectable intellectual property. For example, it may be difficult to pin down a value for a patent.
Design patents are even trickier, because they only protect certain (and not necessarily all) ornamental features of a product. What percentage of that product’s value is attributable to the patent? Compounding the problem is that design patents have a limited life of 14 years, so the patent has no value after it expires and the property enters the public domain. Furthermore, most IP, outside of perhaps pharmaceuticals, loses value over time. One reason is because the protectable knowledge becomes stale or obsolete. Another is that as the patent term nears its end, others may decide that they can wait out the patent’s expiration rather than seek rights to it.
Nevertheless, in some circumstances, design patents can be quite valuable. For instance, 2Tone Apparel of Tempe, Arizona. 2Tone Apparel, founded in 2006, makes “fan wear and sports apparel” for various customers including colleges and universities. In a recent press release, 2Tone Apparel announced a newly acquired design patent (D638,607) for a t-shirt. According to the release, the design includes “a seam that runs continuously from the neck to the end of the sleeve on both the left and right sides of the garment bringing together two different colors of the same material:”
There is no doubt that 2Tone’s design patent is a significant asset (anyone can make ordinary t-shirts), and 2Tone is distinguishing itself on this basis. Founded in 2007, 2Tone is a recent startup that is particularly motivated to grow its business, and it appears to be placing all bets on this shirt design.
In addition to the subtractive approach mentioned above, there are three traditional approaches to valuating IP: the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. The cost approach attempts to determine how much it would cost to recreate the IP. This is an unusual concept in that typically IP only needs to be created once (unless the inventor dies with his secrets), and accordingly the cost approach is generally of little use except where the IP has a very low value. Also, subsequent recreations of the IP are likely to be less expensive because many costs have already been sunk, or the IP has become obsolete.
The market approach is typically used for valuating real estate, where sales of comparable homes are used to valuate the house up for sale. In real estate it is said that the most useful comparisons are between houses of similar size, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc., and that the ornamental features of the house (flooring, fixtures, and so forth) are only used to make adjustments from the sale prices of the comparable home(s). The trouble with IP is how do you find a comp? And even if you do, how do you identify how much that IP is selling for (especially with non-public companies)? There may not be enough information for the market approach to work.
The income approach is generally considered by far the most useful of the three approaches, especially when the IP is already producing a stream of income. The value of the IP is based on the cash flow that the IP generates or is expected to generate in the future. This can be predicted based on past sales, current orders, and other trends. If the product incorporating the IP has proven market success, it is likely to produce more income than if it is still fledging. Furthermore, the value of the IP can be supplemented by other factors, such as marketing, quality control, and even, presumably, celebrity endorsements or good old fashioned word-of-mouth.
For 2Tone, getting the word out about its new design patent can help drive sales if the design proves to be popular among consumers. Yet fashion is a fleeting thing, and whether or not 2Tone can capitalize on its design may depend more on current trends than anything else. The income approach can help determine if 2Tone should license its IP, sell it outright (while the market is hot), or hold on to it until the time is right.
As a type of intangible asset, IP is more difficult to valuate than tangible assets. One simple technique for valuating intangible assets is to take the market value of all assets and subtract from that the value of the tangible ones. This may provide a ballpark figure, but intangible assets are more than just IP; for example, goodwill and know how can have tremendous value, but they are not necessarily forms of protectable intellectual property. For example, it may be difficult to pin down a value for a patent.
Design patents are even trickier, because they only protect certain (and not necessarily all) ornamental features of a product. What percentage of that product’s value is attributable to the patent? Compounding the problem is that design patents have a limited life of 14 years, so the patent has no value after it expires and the property enters the public domain. Furthermore, most IP, outside of perhaps pharmaceuticals, loses value over time. One reason is because the protectable knowledge becomes stale or obsolete. Another is that as the patent term nears its end, others may decide that they can wait out the patent’s expiration rather than seek rights to it.
Nevertheless, in some circumstances, design patents can be quite valuable. For instance, 2Tone Apparel of Tempe, Arizona. 2Tone Apparel, founded in 2006, makes “fan wear and sports apparel” for various customers including colleges and universities. In a recent press release, 2Tone Apparel announced a newly acquired design patent (D638,607) for a t-shirt. According to the release, the design includes “a seam that runs continuously from the neck to the end of the sleeve on both the left and right sides of the garment bringing together two different colors of the same material:”
There is no doubt that 2Tone’s design patent is a significant asset (anyone can make ordinary t-shirts), and 2Tone is distinguishing itself on this basis. Founded in 2007, 2Tone is a recent startup that is particularly motivated to grow its business, and it appears to be placing all bets on this shirt design.
In addition to the subtractive approach mentioned above, there are three traditional approaches to valuating IP: the cost approach, the market approach, and the income approach. The cost approach attempts to determine how much it would cost to recreate the IP. This is an unusual concept in that typically IP only needs to be created once (unless the inventor dies with his secrets), and accordingly the cost approach is generally of little use except where the IP has a very low value. Also, subsequent recreations of the IP are likely to be less expensive because many costs have already been sunk, or the IP has become obsolete.
The market approach is typically used for valuating real estate, where sales of comparable homes are used to valuate the house up for sale. In real estate it is said that the most useful comparisons are between houses of similar size, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc., and that the ornamental features of the house (flooring, fixtures, and so forth) are only used to make adjustments from the sale prices of the comparable home(s). The trouble with IP is how do you find a comp? And even if you do, how do you identify how much that IP is selling for (especially with non-public companies)? There may not be enough information for the market approach to work.
The income approach is generally considered by far the most useful of the three approaches, especially when the IP is already producing a stream of income. The value of the IP is based on the cash flow that the IP generates or is expected to generate in the future. This can be predicted based on past sales, current orders, and other trends. If the product incorporating the IP has proven market success, it is likely to produce more income than if it is still fledging. Furthermore, the value of the IP can be supplemented by other factors, such as marketing, quality control, and even, presumably, celebrity endorsements or good old fashioned word-of-mouth.
For 2Tone, getting the word out about its new design patent can help drive sales if the design proves to be popular among consumers. Yet fashion is a fleeting thing, and whether or not 2Tone can capitalize on its design may depend more on current trends than anything else. The income approach can help determine if 2Tone should license its IP, sell it outright (while the market is hot), or hold on to it until the time is right.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Road Trip!!! An International Survey of Design Protection of Computer Screen Displays
Previous posts of the Ordinary Observer (such as this) describe how design patents can be utilized to protect computer icons and screen displays under U.S. law. During a recent conversation with a client, I was asked to compare and contrast how U.S. law differs from the law of other jurisdictions in this regard. After a bit of research, I pulled together the following sampling of international design patent law.
Canada
We start our world tour just north of the border in Canada, where industrial designs are registered, not examined. Perhaps unsurprisingly given Canada’s close ties to the U.S., computer-generated icons are eligible for industrial design protection in Canada, provided that they are embodied in a finished article and meet the following requirements:
The icon must be visible when the article is used for its intended purpose;
The features of the icon must not be dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article;
The title must identify the finished article in which the icon is embodied (e.g., computer monitor, washing machine); and
The drawings or photographs must show the entirety of the finished article in which the icon is embodied.
Successfully registered computer-generated icons are protected for a 5 year term, with an additional 5 year extension available in exchange for payment of a maintenance fee.
Europe
Our next stop is Europe, where registered community designs (RCDs) can be used to protect screen displays and other “graphic symbols.” This broad definition of design embraces the screen displays without reference to the display hardware. Successfully registered graphic symbols are protected for a 5 year term, with 4 additional 5 year extensions available for a total of 25 years of potential protection. Given the Ordinary Observer’s coverage of RCDs to date (including this post from my colleague Keith Noe and this post from my colleague Mathew Grady), our stop here will be a brief one. One point worth noting, however, before we continue is that some large players in this space are actively acquiring the rights provided by RCDs.
China
Next up is China, where (according to this presentation authored by the Industrial Design Examination Department, SIPO of P.R.C) industrial design protection does not embrace screen displays or any pattern that is displayed when the product is electrified. However, as discussed by Yuying Guan here, Chinese industrial designs are not substantively examined. Thus, as a practical matter, including screen display elements in Chinese industrial design applications may not result in refusal and may provide additional, easy-identifiable characteristics of the registered product vis-à-vis potential infringers. Apple, Inc. appears to agree, as evidenced by this post. In China, successfully registered industrial designs are protected for a 10 year term.
Japan
The final stop on our whirlwind tour is Japan. Japanese design law appears to be quite particular in regards to screen displays. According to Design Examination Standards published by the Japanese Patent Office, “a graphic image itself is not to be regarded as a protectable subject matter but to be protected as a part of an article under the Japanese Design Act.” Japanese law further restricts protection to graphic images to those displayed when the article rendering the display is in “a state in which the article is enabled to perform its functions.” This has lead at least one commentator to the conclusion that the only screen displays covered by Japanese design law are those displayed after initial boot of the device. Designs successfully registered under Japanese law have a 15 year term.
As described above, the scope of protection afforded to computer screen displays under design patent law varies remarkably between jurisdictions. These variations underscore the need for careful consideration and planning when fashioning a strategy to protect products with innovative and commercially valuable screen designs.
Canada
We start our world tour just north of the border in Canada, where industrial designs are registered, not examined. Perhaps unsurprisingly given Canada’s close ties to the U.S., computer-generated icons are eligible for industrial design protection in Canada, provided that they are embodied in a finished article and meet the following requirements:
The icon must be visible when the article is used for its intended purpose;
The features of the icon must not be dictated solely by a utilitarian function of the article;
The title must identify the finished article in which the icon is embodied (e.g., computer monitor, washing machine); and
The drawings or photographs must show the entirety of the finished article in which the icon is embodied.
Successfully registered computer-generated icons are protected for a 5 year term, with an additional 5 year extension available in exchange for payment of a maintenance fee.
Europe
Our next stop is Europe, where registered community designs (RCDs) can be used to protect screen displays and other “graphic symbols.” This broad definition of design embraces the screen displays without reference to the display hardware. Successfully registered graphic symbols are protected for a 5 year term, with 4 additional 5 year extensions available for a total of 25 years of potential protection. Given the Ordinary Observer’s coverage of RCDs to date (including this post from my colleague Keith Noe and this post from my colleague Mathew Grady), our stop here will be a brief one. One point worth noting, however, before we continue is that some large players in this space are actively acquiring the rights provided by RCDs.
China
Next up is China, where (according to this presentation authored by the Industrial Design Examination Department, SIPO of P.R.C) industrial design protection does not embrace screen displays or any pattern that is displayed when the product is electrified. However, as discussed by Yuying Guan here, Chinese industrial designs are not substantively examined. Thus, as a practical matter, including screen display elements in Chinese industrial design applications may not result in refusal and may provide additional, easy-identifiable characteristics of the registered product vis-à-vis potential infringers. Apple, Inc. appears to agree, as evidenced by this post. In China, successfully registered industrial designs are protected for a 10 year term.
Japan
The final stop on our whirlwind tour is Japan. Japanese design law appears to be quite particular in regards to screen displays. According to Design Examination Standards published by the Japanese Patent Office, “a graphic image itself is not to be regarded as a protectable subject matter but to be protected as a part of an article under the Japanese Design Act.” Japanese law further restricts protection to graphic images to those displayed when the article rendering the display is in “a state in which the article is enabled to perform its functions.” This has lead at least one commentator to the conclusion that the only screen displays covered by Japanese design law are those displayed after initial boot of the device. Designs successfully registered under Japanese law have a 15 year term.
As described above, the scope of protection afforded to computer screen displays under design patent law varies remarkably between jurisdictions. These variations underscore the need for careful consideration and planning when fashioning a strategy to protect products with innovative and commercially valuable screen designs.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)