George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile
George Raynal

@georgeraynal

IP attorney focused on US and International design law and brand protection

ID: 358351847

linkhttp://www.altdesignpatent.com calendar_today19-08-2011 19:50:12

914 Tweet

278 Takipçi

682 Takip Edilen

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

As the importance of design rights for innovators and brand owners and the prominence virtual worlds continue expand, the question arises: can design rights be obtained and enforced against virtual infringement?

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

I'm proud to help coordinate a panel to explore this issue at the upcoming ABA-IPL Virtual Fall Institute With Charles L Mauro CHFP Mauro Usability Sci., Ivy Clarice Estoesta Sterne Kessler, Courtney Stopp (USPTO) and Beth Ferrill Finnegan October 12 Register here: lnkd.in/eskDzkWd

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Perry Saidman explains how after Int'l Seaway, USPTO design patent examiners can sidestep the more rigorous analysis of obviousness (103) and apply art which is substantially the same, as opposed to identical, for anticipation (102) #designlaw2022

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Yet Examiners aren't taking into consideration the prior art as it would be considered in infringement analysis #designlaw2022

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Next, Mark Janis picks up to expand on Perry's criticism of International Seaway to argue there is a more systemic problem with the court's rationale - the notion of symmetry between anticipation and infringement is a fallacy #designlaw2022

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Mark Janis explains, when Gorham chose the ordinary observer standard for infringement over skilled observer utility standard, Court adopted an infringement test from outside of utility law, and didn't go on to adjust anticipation standard, enshrining asymmetry #designlaw2022

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Next, Christopher Carani discusses identical forms for different products and claim scope - is a design patent claim agnostic or specific to article of manufacture? #designlaw2022

SIB (@sib_ipfirm) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Attending #aiplaAM22? Don't miss our Andrea Soldatini speaking about Global Design Protection on Friday afternoon, and Elisabetta Papa, coordinator of the discussion on UPC and Unitary Patent on Saturday morning. Looking forward to seeing you there! bit.ly/3DqibZH AIPLA

Attending #aiplaAM22?
Don't miss our Andrea Soldatini speaking about Global Design Protection on Friday afternoon, and Elisabetta Papa, coordinator of the discussion on UPC and Unitary Patent on Saturday morning.
Looking forward to seeing you there!
bit.ly/3DqibZH <a href="/aipla/">AIPLA</a>
George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

E.D. Pa. judge concludes actual baseball bats are not relevant prior art for design patent anticipation or obviousness analysis of a "drinking vessel" (article of manufacture identified in the design patent title and claim) which resembles a baseball bat shorturl.at/fjsZ6

E.D. Pa. judge concludes actual baseball bats are not relevant prior art for design patent anticipation or obviousness analysis of a "drinking vessel" (article of manufacture identified in the design patent title and claim) which resembles a baseball bat

shorturl.at/fjsZ6
George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

N.D. Il. judge concludes computer-generated design patent illustrations depict opaque; ordinary observer would not find translucent accused design substantially the same; opaque and translucent objects are categorically different, plainly dissimilar shorturl.at/oQT34

N.D. Il. judge concludes computer-generated design patent illustrations depict opaque; ordinary observer would not find translucent accused design substantially the same; opaque and translucent objects are categorically different, plainly dissimilar

shorturl.at/oQT34
George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

New post Fielding and Labelling Designs explores the significance of identifying the article(s) of manufacture for a design patent altdesignpatent.com/posts/fielding…

New post Fielding and Labelling Designs explores the significance of identifying the article(s) of manufacture for a design patent

altdesignpatent.com/posts/fielding…
George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Federal Circuit affirms IPR finding design patent valid, declines to depart from obviousness precedent requiring a "primary" reference with basically the same design characteristics before turning to secondary references. cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-order…

Federal Circuit affirms IPR finding design patent valid, declines to depart from obviousness precedent requiring  a "primary" reference with basically the same design characteristics before turning to secondary references.

cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-order…
George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Pleased to share that AIPLA's Innovate Magazine includes an article on IP protection related to Augmented and Virtual Reality, including a section I contributed on design patent protection. aipla.org/innovate/2022-…

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Big news for US design patents today - Federal Circuit has granted rehearing en banc to reconsider longstanding obviousness analysis, first requiring a primary reference with basically the same design characteristics, now challenged as too stringent cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-order…

George Raynal (@georgeraynal) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Motion to dismiss design patent infringement denied - district court declined to apply ordinary observer test on its own without a properly construed patent claim to provide the backdrop for the application of the test Flipsi, Ltd. v. TOMY Int'l, Inc., N.D. Ill., 1-23-cv-00745

Motion to dismiss design patent infringement denied - district court declined to apply ordinary observer test on its own without a properly construed patent claim to provide the backdrop for the application of the test

Flipsi, Ltd. v. TOMY Int'l, Inc., N.D. Ill., 1-23-cv-00745