Patent Lodge

Last Spring, we reported on a case before the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating to U.S. design patents, LKQ Corp. v. G. M. Global Technologies. As we noted then, the Federal Circuit, in agreeing to take up the case, would be deciding whether change was needed for the long-standing, established test for invalidation of U.S. design patents. That case has now been decided.

Ever hear the saying, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade?” When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office renders a Final Office Action, or in this analogy, a “lemon,” some practitioners believe responding with a written response and Request for Continued Examination is an automatic course of action. However, why not try and turn the setback into a step forward?

Well, the Summer Olympics are almost upon us and that got me thinking. Technology plays an important part in sport, such as with the development of sport equipment, gear and clothing. Many aspects of this equipment, gear and clothing may be patented, and thus there is a connection between the Olympics and patents. However, what about a connection between Olympians and patents? Put another way, has any Olympian also been a patent holder? 

As part of the overall dynamic involved in pursuing U.S. patents and trademarks, an adversarial undercurrent can often materialize between applicant and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is no surprise that the intensity of that undercurrent can be a function of the total time/expense before a patent is granted or a trademark is registered. And, if grant/registration is ultimately not achieved, what once was adversarial can be later viewed as unfairly subjective.