DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Law Developments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit During 1992

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Law Developments in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit During 1992 PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DURING 1992 KENDREW H. COLTON* MICHAEL W. HAAS** TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................ 911 I. Jurisdiction, Procedure, and Practice ................. 912 A. Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit ............... 912 1. The Federal Circuit's appellate jurisdiction... 912 2. Perfection of Federal Circuit jurisdiction- Rule 54(b) .................................. 919 B. Declaratory Judgments .......................... 921 C. Standing and Mootness ......................... 924 D. General Civil Procedure Issues .................. 937 1. Waiver of inconsistent jury findings .......... 938 2. Amending a complaint ....................... 939 3. Law of the case doctrine ..................... 941 4. Timeliness of general-verdict-multiple- defense argument ........................... 942 E. Judicial Estoppel and Settlement Estoppel ....... 942 F. Standard of Review for Rule 50(b) Motions ...... 944 G. Jury Trials-Seventh Amendment ............... 944 H. The Attorney-Client Privilege ................... 946 * Partner, Cushman Darby & Cushman, Washington, D.C.: J.D., Case Western Re- serve University; B.A., Colby College. ** Associate, Cushman Darby & Cushman, Washington, D.C.: J.D., University of Pitts- burgh School of Law; B.S.E.E., Ohio Northern University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions and assistance provided by Adam R. Hess, Harlan B. Williams, Thomas M. Blasey, and Kenneth R. Corsello. 909 910 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42:909 I. Sovereign Immunity-Eleventh Amendment ..... 947 J. Frivolous Appeals Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ................... 948 K. Modifying Consent Decrees ..................... 950 II. Patentability and Validity ............................ 953 A. Patentable Subject Matter-35 U.S.C. § 101 ..... 953 B. Anticipation-35 U.S.C. § 102 ................... 957 1. Public use and on-sale bars .................. 957 2. Prior printed publication .................... 962 3. Identity of invention and claim interpretation 962 4. Jury findings with respect to patent validity .. 965 5. Foreign patents as prior art .................. 966 C. Obviousness-35 U.S.C. § 103 .................. 967 1. Analogous prior art .......................... 967 2. Suggestion to combine or modify the prior art .......................................... 969 3. Secondary considerations .................... 975 4. Admissions as to obviousness ................ 976 5. Design patents .............................. 977 D. Enablement, Written Description, Best Mode- 35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................. 977 1. W ritten description .......................... 978 2. Enablement ................................. 980 3. Best m ode ................................... 981 4. Means-plus-function claims .................. 983 E. Inventorship and Derivation-35 U.S.C. § 116 and § 102(f) .................................... 986 1. Joint inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 116 .... 986 2. Derivation of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) ..................................... 987 F. Double Patenting ............................... 988 1. Claim interpretation ......................... 988 2. Terminal disclaimers ........................ 991 G. New Matter-35 U.S.C. § 132 ................... 994 III. Interferences Under 35 U.S.C. § 135 ................. 995 A. Application of Interference Rules ............... 995 B. /Preclusive Effect of Interference Judgments ...... 1001 IV. Infringement-35 U.S.C. § 271 ...................... 1003 A. Claim Interpretation and Construction .......... 1003 1. Interpreting claim terminology ............... 1004 2. Prosecution history estoppel ................. 1011 B. Literal Infringement ............................ 1014 1993] 1992 AREA SUMMARY: PATENTS 1. Establishing literal infringement ............. 1014 2. Evidentiary considerations ................... 1018 C. Doctrine of Equivalents ......................... 1021 D. Design Patent Infringement ..................... 1023 E. Product-by-Process Claims ...................... 1025 F. Exceptions to Infringement ..................... 1032 1. Experimental use under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e) .. 1032 2. "Crop exemption" under 7 U.S.C. § 2543 ... 1034 V. Rem edies ............................................ 1037 A. Lost Profits-35 U.S.C. § 284 ................... 1037 B. Willful Infringement and Exceptional Cases-35 U.S.C. § 284 and § 285 ......................... 1039 C. Design Patents-35 U.S.C. § 289 ................ 1047 D. Limitations on Damages-35 U.S.C. § 286 ....... 1048 E. Injunctions-35 U.S.C. § 283 ................... 1050 1. Preliminary injunctions ...................... 1050 2. Modifying permanent injunctions ............ 1052 VI. Equitable Defenses to Patent Infringement ........... 1053 A. Laches and Equitable Estoppel .................. 1053 B. Fraud and Inequitable Conduct ................. 1062 C. Patent Misuse ................................... 1067 INTRODUCTION During its 1992 term, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered a broad range of patent-related subjects ranging from its appellate jurisdiction to equity-based factors affecting pat- ent enforceability. For the most part, the court preserved the status quo and continued to apply well-established patent law principles in reaching its decisions. However, there have been a number of inter- esting cases that have served to clarify for the practitioner various principles of patent law, such as the laches and equitable estoppel defenses to patent infringement. The court has also confronted new issues involving exemptions to patent infringement. Finally, the court's effort to grapple with certain jurisdictional and claim inter- pretation issues demonstrates that there will be more interesting de- cisions to come in succeeding years. This Article provides an overview of the 1992 Federal Circuit de- cisions in the area of patent law, highlighting the more significant aspects of those cases. For the purpose of discussion, the Article is divided into six major sections. Section I focuses on Federal Circuit decisions pertaining to its appellate jurisdiction, as well as practice before the court. In Section II, the discussion summarizes the Fed- 912 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42:909 eral Circuit decisions relating to patentability and validity issues. Section III deals with interference practice and the effect of interfer- encejudgements. Section IV presents selected aspects of 1992 Fed- eral Circuit patent infringement decisions. Section V discusses the court's rulings on remedies for patent infringement. Finally, in Sec- tion VI, we conclude with a discussion of various Federal Circuit rulings involving application of equitable defenses to patent infringement. I. JURISDICTION, PROCEDURE, AND PRACTICE A. Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit 1. The Federal Circuit's appellatejurisdiction The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision' or certain interlocutory orders or decrees2 of a dis- trict court if the jurisdiction of the district court was based, in whole or in part, on 28 U.S.C. § 1338.3 During the past year, the Federal Circuit announced no significant doctrinal shifts concerning its ap- pellate jurisdiction in patent cases. The Federal Circuit decisions show an acute awareness of the critical role § 1338 plays in its appel- late jurisdiction. Indeed, the Federal Circuit decisions suggest that the court will continue to review the basis for its appellate jurisdic- tion in accordance with established paradigms in ascertaining whether the district court from which an appeal is taken had juris- diction under § 1338. In Wang Laboratories,Inc. v. Applied Computer Sciences, Inc. ,4 the Fed- eral Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to enforce a patent infringe- ment settlement agreement because the district court retained jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) over the consent decree that concluded an earlier infringement action.5 The events leading to 1. 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (1988) (providing that "Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a final judgement of a district court... if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338"). 2. Id. § 1292(c)(1) ("Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree over which ... the court would have jurisdiction of appeal under § 1295 .. "); id. § 1292(c)(2) ("Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgement in a civil action for patent infringement which would otherwise be appealable ... and is final except from an accounting."). 3. Id § 1338(a) (1988) ("District courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil ac- tion arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents .... Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states .... ). 4. 958 F.2d 355, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also infra notes 247-55 and accompanying text (discussing case with regard to judicial estoppel issue). 5. See Wang Lab., Inc. v. Applied Computer Sciences, Inc., 958 F.2d 355, 356, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1055, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing district court's enforcement of un- executed settlement agreement concerning patent infringement). 1993] 1992 AREA SUMMARY: PATENTS 913 the Federal Circuit's involvement in Wang began with Wang Labora- tories, Inc.'s 1986 patent infringement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Designwrites 2014 April Welcome to the Third Edition of Designwrites
    & DesignWrites 2014 April Welcome to the third edition of DesignWrites At Bird & Bird we’re passionate about design. DesignWrites will unravel and explore the seemingly complex world of design protection, offering practical advice by looking at recent design cases, hearing from industry experts and sharing stories from the wider design community. If you would like advice on how best to protect your designs or take action to stop copycats, please contact Ewan Grist via [email protected] for a complimentary consultation. In this edition... Armchair design found to have individual character ..........3 Q&A with designer Julia Landsiedl ....................................18 The new German Design Act: more than just a new name? ...4 Registered Community design for corkscrew invalid due to earlier design ............................................20 For the love of fashion: protecting the beauty of fashion through Community design rights .....................................6 No design right protection for heart-shaped tomatoes .......21 Benelux: online design applications now possible ..............9 Italy special report: protecting your rights at Il Salone del Mobile of Milan ........................................ 22 Court of Appeal overturns first instance decision in Trunki design case ...................................................... 10 Design Museum: Designs of the Year 2014 ........................ 24 Upcoming industry events and awards ............................ 26 Registered UK design for a beer glass infringed .................12
    [Show full text]
  • An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts
    SPRINGER BRIEFS IN LAW Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 SpringerBriefs in Law SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic. Typical topics might include: • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques • A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles, and a contextual literature review • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic • A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make independent contributions SpringerBriefs in Law showcase emerging theory, empirical research, and practical application in Law from a global author community. SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10164 Dana Beldiman • Constantin Blanke-Roeser An International Perspective on Design Protection of Visible Spare Parts 123 Dana Beldiman Constantin Blanke-Roeser Academic Director and Founder, Center Researcher, Center for Transnational for Transnational Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Bucerius Law School Bucerius Law School Hamburg Hamburg Germany Germany and UC Hastings College of the Law San Francisco USA ISSN 2192-855X ISSN 2192-8568 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Law ISBN 978-3-319-54059-7 ISBN 978-3-319-54060-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54060-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2017934314 © The Author(s) 2017 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interdisciplinary Approach Towards Defining the Individual Character of Industrial Design “
    EXPOSE INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTORAL DISSERTATION AT THE COURSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW „ AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TOWARDS DEFINING THE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN “ Author: SAŠA KRAJNC, University Graduate in Laws MENTOR: Univ. Prof. Dr. WALTER DILLENZ Ptuj, Slovenia, 16.3.2012 INDEX: 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter................................................................................. 2 2. Main Topics, Issues and Questions................................................................................. 2 3. Aims and Implications of the Dissertation..................................................................... 4 4. Boundaries, Problems and Challenges........................................................................... 5 5. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 6. Time-line and Study Stages ............................................................................................. 7 7. Structural Outline ............................................................................................................ 8 8. Literature and Sources .................................................................................................... 9 1 1. Introduction to the Subject Matter Since the European Council regulation on Community Designs (EC 6/2002, dated 12.12.2001) came into force in 2002 it pretty much unified the legislative systematic of design as an intellectual property right across all
    [Show full text]
  • Limitations in the Field of Designs
    IIC (2018) 49:41–62 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0660-4 ARTICLE Limitations in the Field of Designs Natalia Kapyrina Published online: 21 December 2017 Ó Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2017 Abstract Considering the weight given to exceptions and limitations in current intellectual property research, this paper endeavours to explore sui generis design rights from the standpoint of limitations to their scope of protection. This paper focuses on the current EU framework with insights from its travaux pre´paratoires, comparing it to several other legislations and international instruments. A primary assessment shows that these limitations have a reduced interference with the scope of protection, and stem from a copyright or patent approach to the hybrid subject matter of designs. This paper further explores situations where the interaction between the scope of design protection and its limitations to design rights triggers conflicts. It examines in particular the recent autonomous interpretation by the ECJ of the limitation authorising reproduction for the purpose of citation. Keywords Design Á EU law Á Limitations Á Exceptions Á Scope of protection This research was partially undertaken during the author’s stay at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (MPI), with a generous scholarship granted by the MPI. The author expresses gratitude to Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Annette Kur and Professor Dr. Christophe Geiger for enlightening discussions. This paper was completed within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of a subsidy by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement *
    PRIOR ART INVALIDITY DEFENSES TO E-PATENT INFRINGEMENT * Harold C. Wegner ** Detailed Table of Contents ..................................................................................2 I. OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 4 II. E-COMMERCE PRIOR ART — THE STATUTORY GROUNDS ................................... 5 III. WEBSITE AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ............................................................ 7 IV. E-MAIL AS A "PRINTED PUBLICATION"............................................................... 14 V. USE AND KNOWLEDGE OF AN E-INVENTION ...................................................... 15 VI. THE DOMESTIC "ON SALE" BAR ......................................................................... 23 VII. DERIVATION ..................................................................................................... 27 VIII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 27 _____________________ * Paper prepared for SOFTIC 2001 Symposium, November 20-21, 2001, Tokyo Prince Hotel, Tokyo, Japan, Joint Direct Infringement, Indirect Infringement, Session C-1, 9:00 AM, November 21, 2001. ** Former Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program and Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. Foley & Lardner. contact: halwegner @ hotmail.com Wegner, Prior Art Invalidity Defenses to E-Patent Infringement Detailed Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Ways to Creative Funding Workshop
    Ways to Creative Funding Workshop Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangar- Malaysia 10.01.2017 ADVANSE Capacity Building – Trainings for Trainers Different ways of funding 28.06.2019 Seite 2 We keep in mind… … 10% of what we read. … 20% of what we hear. … 30% of what we see. … 50% of what we see and hear. … 70% of what we say. … and 90% of what we do. 28.06.2019 Seite 3 World Café creativity CAROUSEL OF IDEAS ways IDEAS possibilities Utopia new thinking team work 28.06.2019 Seite 4 Services Facilities Teaching What for? Research Properties 28.06.2019 Seite 5 Guests Students Stuff Researchers Target Private persons group? Alumni Alumni Teachers Business/companies/industry 28.06.2019 Seite 6 Examples Leuphana University, Germany Graduate ceremony together with companies Mannheim University, Germany Renovation of the libary with donations (10 Mio €) Zeppelin University, Germany Crowdfunding of seating 28.06.2019 Seite 7 THREE GROUPS - THREE TABLES - THREE Rounds Round 1 • Creating ideas Round 2 • Rating the ideas • Work out ideas 1-3 Round 3 • Rating the ideas • Launch a campaign for idea 1 28.06.2019 Seite 8 What is the difference between fundraising and beggary? What has the Uni- versity to offer/to sell? Why do some people give and others don`t? A person who gave already is more likely to give again. What are the benefits forthosewhohavetopayfees? An alumni starts with the enrollement of the student. 28.06.2019 Seite 9 Presentation of the campaigns • What is your goal? • What is your target group? • What are your methods and instruments? • What are your ressources? • Who are your partners? • What is your time frame? How do you convince? 28.06.2019 Seite 10 Thank you very much for your cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Is US Law Ready for a New Model High Tech?
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 20 | Issue 2 Article 10 January 2004 Protecting the Form but Not the Function: Is U.S. Law Ready for a New Model High Tech? Dana Beldiman Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Dana Beldiman, Protecting the Form but Not the Function: Is U.S. Law Ready for a New Model High Tech?, 20 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 529 (2003). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol20/iss2/10 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Form andfunction should be one, joined in a spiritualunion" FrankLloyd Wright PROTECTING THE FORM BUT NOT THE FUNCTION: IS U.S. LAW READY FOR A NEW MODEL? Dana Beldiman Introduction As our society develops, it produces new and different kinds of intangible goods. However, many of the mechanisms available to protect such goods date back hundreds of years and are inadequate and in desperate need of an overhaul in order to adapt to the new realities of our world. Overly rapid doctrinal expansion can result in negative collateral effects, such as lack of precisely defined standards and blurring of boundaries between doctrines. Such side-effects risk disturbing the delicate balance between free competition and protection that underlies the structure of our intellectual property laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Cases and Materials on Patent Law Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner, 1St Edition
    Cases and Materials on Patent Law (Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner) Reading notes compiled by David J. Stein, Esq. Cases and Materials on Patent Law Adelman, Rader, Thomas, Wegner, 1st Edition Chapter One: Introduction §1.1 Casebook Overview • Overview: Patent system is basically a bargain: disclosure of technology to public in exchange for the right to exclude others from using it – useful because it encourages technological development in a distinctly American way; spread of this American system throughout the world is a testament to its success – Hank Morgan, English administrator: “the very first official thing I did… was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn’t travel any way but sideways or backwards” – patent policies demonstrate societal goals and priorities, and some basic Constitutional principles minimally changed over 200+ years • Organization: Study focuses on current patent statute, enacted in 1952 (35 USC § 101 et seq) – since patent law is truly an international field, much of this text is comparative, and some is judgmental of differences between foreign and U.S. patent systems – also, historical development of patent law doctrines will be covered §1.2 Foundations of the United States patent system • U.S. Constitution: Article I, §8: Congress has the power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” – balances the rights of inventors over their inventions against the right of the public for freedom from unhelpful monopolies: patents must be for useful arts for limited duration, and Congress can’t “remove knowledge from the public domain, or restrict free access to materials already available” (Graham v.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomarbeit Die Rechtlichen Schutzmöglichkeiten Modischer
    Diplomarbeit Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Rechtswissenschaften an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Die rechtlichen Schutzmöglichkeiten modischer Neuschöpfungen Vorgelegt von Elisabeth Stephanie KRENN Beurteiler: Ao. Univ. Prof. Dr. Alfons Grünwald am Institut für Unternehmensrecht und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht Graz, Juli 2017 Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung Ich erkläre hiermit ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht benutzt und die den Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen inländischen oder ausländischen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen Version. Graz, Juli 2017 i Vorbemerkung An dieser Stelle möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass aus Gründen der besseren Lesbarkeit in der folgenden Arbeit von der gleichzeitigen Verwendung weiblicher und männlicher Sprachformen abgesehen wird und sämtliche personenbezogenen Bezeichnungen geschlechtsneutral zu verstehen sind. ii Meinen Eltern iii Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Einleitung ........................................................................................................ 1 2. Hauptteil .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1. Patentrecht ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Of Nonobviousness in Design Patents Janice M
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 99 | Issue 3 Article 2 2011 Overcoming the "Impossible Issue" of Nonobviousness in Design Patents Janice M. Mueller University of Pittsburgh Daniel Harris Brean The Webb Law Firm Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Mueller, Janice M. and Brean, Daniel Harris (2011) "Overcoming the "Impossible Issue" of Nonobviousness in Design Patents," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 99 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol99/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kentucky Law Journal VOLUME 99 2010-2011 NUMBER 3 ARTICLE Overcoming the "Impossible Issue" of Nonobviousness in Design Patents Janice M. Mueller andDaniel Harris Brean ABSTRACT The United States offers legal protectionfor designs-the overall aesthetic appearances of objects-through the patent system. To obtain a U.S. design patent has long required something more than novelty. Just as the patentability of a utilitariandevice mandates a "nonobvious" advance over earlier technology, the patentability of a new and ornamental design requires that it differ from priordesigns to an extent that would not have been "obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved." Ostensiblypromoting progress in design, Congress in 1842 shoehorned design protection into the existing utility patent system.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Protection in Domestic and Foreign Copyright Law: from the Berne Revision of 1948 to the Copyright Act of 1976
    PUh6 Iaftl hiurna1 VOLUME 1983 DECEMBER NUMBER 6 DESIGN PROTECTION IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COPYRIGHT LAW: FROM THE BERNE REVISION OF 1948 TO THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 J. H. REICHMAN* This is thefirst of two articlesthat study the complex interactions of the diferent branches of intellectualproperty law that seek to regu- late the degree ofprotection to be accorded ornamentaldesigns of use- ful articles. A circularpatterncan be discernedin the treatment ofthese designs in both foreign and domestic law. Traditionally, the right to copyrightprotection is premised on a claim that certain indtustrialde- signs are entitled to legal recognition as art in the historicalsense. The economic repercussionsof such recognitionflowprincipalyfrom the in- dustrialcharacter of the materialsupport in which ornamentaldesigns are embodied The incidence of these repercussionsupon any given sys- tem varies with the extent to which the claim to recognition as art is itself given effect As copyrightprotection for designs of useful articles expands, the economic effects ofthis expansion on the generalproducts market induce countervailingpressuresto reduce the scope ofprotection acquiredin the name ofart. Asprotection in copyright law correspond- ingly contracts,pressure for recognition of industrialart as a legaly protectibleform of industrialpropertynormally increase. The tendency of industrialpropertylaw to breedstillfurther instances of underprotec- tion or overprotectionthen fosters renewedpressures for the regulation of industrialart within theframework of the laws governing literary and artisticproperty. © J.H. Reichman 1983 * A.B. Chicago (1955), J.D. Yale (1979); Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University; formerly Senior Editor, International Trade Centre, UNCTAD/GATT, Geneva. This project has greatly benefited from the advice and encouragement of Professors Ralph Sharpe Brown, Alan Latman, William T.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Protection in Managing Sustainable User-Driven Innovation in Smes
    Journal of Japanese Management Vol.3, No.1, November 2018 ISSN 2189-9592 Design protection in managing sustainable user-driven innovation in SMEs Gunnar Prause Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Email: [email protected] Laima Gerlitz Wismar Business School, Germany Email: [email protected] Thomas Hoffmann Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Email: [email protected] Abstract Innovative products and services – which are an essential precondition to economic prosperity and welfare in society as such – result increasingly from cross-sectorial combination of technologies, design and business models. The recent design “wave” in management and innovation gained growing attention in the context of entrepreneurship and innovation. In recent decades, design became also part of the discourse of social responsibility. Designers interpreted their social role as complementarity to business strategies, and design was meant to bridge pure industrial thinking and social responsibility. Today, design adopts a comprehensive holistic thinking and addresses social, cultural, environmental, political and economic provinces in the context of globalisation, industrial expansion, increasing consumption. Numerous approaches came to light under design management or design-driven innovation provinces. Indeed, they have been a promising key to develop, perform competitively and grow in a sustainable way. Yet, sustainable and responsible innovation development and the outputs thereof on the product, service or marketing level embrace also issues that are linked to the ownership and stakeholders involved in the innovation process, namely, intellectual property right (IPR) aspects – in both national and international contexts. From an IPR perspective, it has to be taken into account that design-driven innovation is becoming a more and more prominent example of user-driven innovation, resulting in the challenge of how to distribute to prosumeristic users a “fair share” of the company’s profit based on the economic exploitation of the prosumer’s contribution.
    [Show full text]