Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mastodon.social/users/design_law/statuses/111002788017805863">Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein (design_law@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:11 JST</a><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law" title="design_law@mastodon.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/22838-48-20221111001622.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein</a></section><article><p>I can't even believe what I'm reading. WTAF, y'all.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/2020724#notice-3965994">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-09-04T04:27:11+09:00" title="Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:11 JST">about a year ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111002788017805863" rel="external" title="Sent from mastodon.social via ActivityPub">mastodon.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111002788017805863">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1481836">"A. The Current Misalignment
In general, “it has been well established for over a century that the
same test must be used for both infringement and anticipation.” Int’l
Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1239 (Fed. Cir.
2009). That general principle stems from the old maxim of “‘[t]hat which
infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.’” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (quoting Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 F. 319, 321
(S.D. Ohio 1884)). That maxim urges the same analytical symmetry in
the design-patent context, whether for infringement or validity, including
novelty and nonobviousness. But that, unfortunately, is not the case
for design-patent obviousness."</a></label><br><a href="https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/784/656/194/102/original/88ae2c053be94ab2.jpg" rel="external">https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/784/656/194/102/original/88ae2c053be94ab2.jpg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein (design_law@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 04-Sep-2023 04:27:11 JST Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein
I can't even believe what I'm reading. WTAF, y'all.
In conversationabout a year ago from mastodon.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. "A. The Current Misalignment In general, “it has been well established for over a century that the same test must be used for both infringement and anticipation.” Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That general principle stems from the old maxim of “‘[t]hat which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.’” Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (quoting Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 F. 319, 321 (S.D. Ohio 1884)). That maxim urges the same analytical symmetry in the design-patent context, whether for infringement or validity, including novelty and nonobviousness. But that, unfortunately, is not the case for design-patent obviousness."
  https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/002/784/656/194/102/original/88ae2c053be94ab2.jpg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice