January 16, 2015

Carani to Present FREE Webinar for ABA’s Section of Litigation on Design Patent and Trade Dress Litigation

The Trademark Litigation and the Patent Litigation Subcommittees of the IP Litigation Committee of the ABA Section of Litigation will host a FREE webinar entitled “Design Patent and Trade Dress Litigation: More than Meets the Eye.”  A description of the program is set forth below.

Title: Design Patent and Trade Dress Litigation: More than Meets the Eye

Date and time: Wednesday, January 21st from 1pm to 2pm (EST).

Note: ABA membership is not required. Details below. REGISTER HERE.

Design Patent and Trade Dress Litigation:
More than Meets the Eye

Christopher V. Carani, Esq., McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.

Description: From the design houses of New York City, to the storied industrial design firms of Chicago, to the cutting-edge think tanks of Silicon Valley, the desire for effective and enforceable design protection is at an all-time high. Simply put, looks matter. Recently released statistics show that applicants are securing U.S. design patents at record rates. With more design patents issued, there also has been a marked uptick in design patent litigation filings. While design patents share much in common with utility patents and trade dress, they have significant and distinct differences from those rights, which if not understood, can present unique traps for the unwary when it comes to litigation. In this CLE, leading Design IP attorney Christopher V. Carani will discuss design patent-specific litigation issues, including best practices for asserting, and defending against, claims of design patent infringement, the design patent infringement standard, design patent claim construction, the ins and outs of design patent drawings, design patent defenses of prosecution history estoppel, anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness. Along the way, Mr. Carani also will offer insights and strategies for cases involving both trade dress and design patent infringement claims.

Speaker: Christopher V. Carani is a partner at the Chicago-based intellectual property law firm of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. For over 15 years, Chris has been a leading voice in the field of Design IP, which regards the intersection of design rights, trade dress and copyright law.  Chris counsels clients on strategic design enforcement and protection issues; he is often called upon to render infringement, validity and design-around opinions and serve as a legal consultant/expert in Design IP cases.  Carani has extensive experience litigating Design IP cases, including representations before U.S. district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the landmark design patent case Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, he authored amicus briefs on behalf of the AIPLA at both the petition and en banc stages. In Calmar, Inc. v. Arminak & Assoc., Carani authored a brief on behalf of the Industrial Design Society of America in support of a petition for writ of certiori to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Chris is the former chair of the ABA’s Design Rights Committee, and also the AIPLA’s Committee on Industrial Designs.  Chris is currently the U.S. delegate for AIPPI’s Design Law Committee.  Chris received his J.D. from The University of Chicago and his B.S. in Engineering from Marquette University. He is registered to practice before the USPTO. He is a frequent contributor to CNN and Bloomberg TV on IP issues, and often called upon to provide comment to other media outlets, including The New York Times, NPR and The Wall Street Journal.

Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 2:05 pm

January 13, 2015

Carani Interviewed on Bloomberg TV Regarding IBM’s Record Breaking Patent Tally in 2014




Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 5:23 pm

November 12, 2014

Design Patent Functionality: A Sensible Solution


Here is a link to my recent article Design Patent Functionality: A Sensible Solution that was published in in the Nov/Dec 2014 edition of the ABA’s Landslide® publication.  FULL ARTICLE  

The article is an in-depth analysis of functionality doctrine as it applies to design patents.  The are two distinct topics, each have been percolating in my head for the last dozen years.  Specifically, I discuss (1) the subject matter eligibility provision of “ornamental” for design protection under 35 U.S.C. § 171 (the analogous provision for utility patents being “useful” under 35 U.S.C. § 101), and (2) the 800lb gorilla in the room – how/whether to excise out functional aspects of a design patent claim from protection.   As each case passes, more and more confusion is generated in the design patent jurisprudence on these topics. Here is a short synopsis of the two major topics discussed in the article.

Statutory-Functionality  35 U.S.C. § 171 (Overall Appearance of Claimed Design)

With respect to the § 171 issue (i.e. “Statutory-Functionality”), although there are some minority views on the topic that lace through the case law, courts largely, and rightfully, have coalesced around the “dictated solely by” standard for determining whether a design claim passes muster under the subject matter eligibility provision requiring a design to be “ornamental.” 35 U.S.C. § 171   Under the “dictated solely by” standard, a design is deemed ornamental so long as the overall appearance of the claimed design is not “dictated solely by” its function. By framing the issue this way, the courts effectively assume that a design has enough ornamental quality to pass statutory muster, unless it is shown that the design is dictated solely by its function. In other words, the test asks did the designer exercise any independent design judgment in arriving at the design or was the overall appearance dictated solely by the functional requirements of the design? For if the entire appearance was preordained by the functional requirements of the article of manufacturer, then, in fact, nothing was designed and no patent reward should grant.

The current prevailing approach wisely side-steps the hairy task of deciding whether a design is “ornamental enough.” The approach recognizes the reality that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and thus it is futile for the law to qualitative assess ornamentality, including the relative merit of design movements such as art Bauhaus, functionalism, art deco, minimalism, maximalism, etc.  At the same time, the approach provides sufficient safeguards against the rare, but still unwanted, backdoor monopolization of functional ideas through design patent protection. Lastly, this approach leaves the door amply open to accommodate the boundary-pushing creativity of the world of design.

Claim Construction-Functionality (Attempts to Weed out Functional Aspects)

Design patents do not protect functional attributes, concepts or characteristics of the underlying article of manufacture to which the claimed design is applied.  (Some courts have used the phrase “functional aspects” as an umbrella term for functional attributes, concepts or characteristics.)    In trying to stay true to this principle, however, an increasing number of courts are wrongly using claim construction to coarsely lop off visual features, elements and portions from the claimed design under the reasoning that they are “functional.” (e.g. construing a design patent claim to not include things like handles, locking mechanisms, rivets, etc.)  This approach is wrongheaded.  No attempt should be made to factor out visual features, elements and portions of a claimed ornamental whole. The claim is the overall appearance of the claimed design including all portions thereof, regardless of whether a visual feature is new/old, functional/ornamental or significant/insignificant.  (Imagine a court lopping off portions of utility patent claim.)  A design patent is directed to the tout ensemble of all elements directed in solid lines.

Design patent claim construction methodology that purports to separate functional and ornamental elements of the overall claimed design is wrongheaded. Like the now defunct point of novelty approach (which sought to separate out new and old elements), the point of ornamentality approach (which seeks to separate out ornamental and functional elements) conflicts with the tenet that a design patent protects the overall appearance of the claimed design, and is fraught with logistical problems. Instead, claim construction functionality concerns could be addressed with an instruction to the fact-finder (whether judge or jury) that design patents only protect the appearance of the overall design depicted in the drawings, and not any functional attributes, purposes or characteristics embodied in the underlying article of manufacture embodying the claimed design.  Without this fundamental tenet firmly in place, design patent jurisprudence will continue to operate in a state of confusion.

Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 4:02 pm

Design Law 2014 Conference, November 21, 2014, Washington, D.C.

The Indiana University Maurer School of Law Center for Intellectual Property Research and George Washington University Law School will co-host a FREE design law symposium on Friday, Nov. 21, at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.

Design Law 2014 will bring together design leaders from industry, government, private practice and academia to explore the legal and business issues resulting from recent developments in design-patent law. The symposium will include panels addressing three important aspects of design law: remedies, functionality and prior art. (I will be a panelist on the session discussing the impact of prior art on design patent infringement and validity analyses.)   The program will conclude with a town hall discussion on the effectiveness of the current design patent system.

The symposium will take place from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the George Washington University Law School, Lerner Hall 201, 2000 H Street NW.

Information on the conference can be found here:  www.designlaw2014.com

Here is a the schedule for the symposium:


Issues surrounding monetary and injunctive relief are now front and center following design patent infringement due to recent high profile litigation. The debate over the meaning of “infringers’ profits” under Section 289 is being hotly contested with Amicus briefs having been filed on both sides of the issue. Further, a recent decision seems to make injunctive relief harder to procure for design patent owners. This panel will discuss the law of design patent remedies and address the practical impact they have on designs and the design patent system.


  • Sarah Burstein, University of Oklahoma      College of Law
  • Natalie Hanlon-Leh, Faegre Baker Daniels
  • Mark D. Janis, Indiana University Maurer      School of Law
  • Robert S. Katz, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.      (co-moderator)
  • John M. Whealan, Associate Dean for      Intellectual Property Law George Washington University Law School      (co-moderator)


Functionality has quickly become the defense of choice for accused infringers in design patent litigation. It is also being raised more frequently by the United States Patent & Trademark Office in examination. Further, functionality has been a strategy with mixed success used to dissect a design claim to strengthen invalidity and non-infringement arguments. This panel will discuss recent case law in all relevant arenas and will further address whether any industrial designs satisfy the non-functional requirement for patentability of a design.


  • John J. Cheek, Caterpillar Inc.
  • Michael Risch, Villanova University School      of Law
  • Perry Saidman, Saidman Design Law
  • Richard Stockton, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
  • Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Sterne, Kessler,      Goldstein & Fox (moderator)


The America Invents Act has widened the field of prior art available to invalidate patents. Technological advances have also made the creation and publication of prior art, including prophetic prior art like mock-ups of existing designs, more common. This panel will consider the challenges these developments have created, as well as the application of prior art in infringement litigation post Egyptian Goddess.


  • Christopher V. Carani, McAndrews Held & Malloy
  • Mark A. Charles, The Procter & Gamble Company
  • Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Finnegan, Henderson,      Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Brian E. Hanlon, United States      Patent and Trademark Office (invited)
  • Jason Du Mont, The Center for Intellectual      Property Research at the Maurer School of Law (moderator)


Most provisions governing the design patent laws were enacted many decades ago and emanated from the utility patent system. Since that time, the Courts and the USPTO has struggled with mixed results to create a body of design law consistent with itself and shared provisions with utility patent system. However, since that time, designs have evolved, the way products are made and sold has evolved, and even the infringers have evolved. This town hall session will exchange ideas relating to these issues including the issues of whether the design patent system is working, whether changes are needed, and how should any changes be made.


  • Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, Sterne, Kessler,      Goldstein & Fox (co-moderator)
  • Robert Katz, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.      (co-moderator)
Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 3:36 pm

August 24, 2014

2014 AIPPI Toronto – World Intellectual Property Congress – Design Rights to Get Spotlight

AIPPI’s World Intellectual Property Congress will be held inToronto, Canada from September 14-17, 2014. Design rights will be front and center with two high profile spots on the main program.

First, on Monday, September 15, from 12:30-14:00, there will be a lunchtime panel entitled “The Extension of the Hague International Design Protection System.”  Here are the panelists and some topic details:

Christian Archambeau, Vice-President of OHIM, will give a keynote address outlining the history and experience of OHIM with the Hague International Design Protection System.

Gregoire Bisson, Director of the Hague Registry at WIPO will provide an overview of the Hague System and comment on the changes needed for it to be workable for countries having an examination system.

It will be followed by a panel discussion by representatives who will provide a brief overview of the current status of matters in their respective offices. This panel comprises Hideo Hato, Advisor to the Commissioner and Former Commissioner, JPO; Joon Seok Lee, Deputy Commissioner, KIPO; and David R. Gerk, Office of Policy and External Affairs, USPTO.

ALSO, on Monday, September 15 from 4-6:30pm DESIGN LAW will be the subject matter of the Mock International IP Arbitration.  (I will be one of the counsel.)  The AIPPI Boston Congress in 2008 featured a mock patent trial that focused on five different jurisdictions.  At the AIPPI Paris Congress in 2010 an international panel of judges discussed selected patent law issues. The Seoul Congress in 2012 featured a mock patent trial with judges and lawyers from leading jurisdictions conducting the trial of an IT case. Following on from the success of these mock trial presentations, the Toronto Congress will showcase a mock International IP arbitration.  Further evincing the arrival of design rights into mainstream IP discourse, the arbitration will regard design rights! 

Specifically, the parties will arbitrate the landmark Canadian industrial design case of Bodum USA Inc and PI Design AG v Trudeau Corporation (1889) Inc, 2012 FC 1128under U.S. Design LawBodum is to Canada design law, what Gorham v. White is to the U.S. design law.  (One of the counsel involved in the Mock Arbitration, Francois Guay, was lead counsel for Trudeau (the prevailing party) in the actual case.)

 The arbitrators, counsel and expert witness have been selected and are as follows:

Arbitral Tribunal:

 Chair: Richard Kreindler, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP –Germany

 Co-Arbitrator: Richard Tan, Tan Arbitrators –Singapore

 Co-Arbitrator: Dan Bereskin – Bereskin & Parr LLP –Canada

Plaintiff Team:

Counsel: François Guay, Smart & Biggar /Fetherstonhaugh –Canada

Counsel: Brian Gray, Norton Rose Fulbright –Canada

Expert: Iván Poli – Marval, O’Farell & Mairal –Argentina

Defendant Team:

Counsel: Christopher Carani – McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. -USA

Counsel: Steve Bauer, Proskauer Rose – USA

 Expert: Mario Franzosi, Franzosi Dal Negro Setti – Italy

FACTS: In the Mock Arbitration the Complainant is named Fancy Glass Designs Inc.  The Respondent is named Useful Glass Designs Inc.  There are two U.S. Design Patents at issue.  There are two accused glass designs.  Both the patented and accused designs incoporate a double-walled desing feature.  The feature has both utilitarian and design aspects.  A central issue in the arbitration will be how this feature should be dealt with when considering claim construction.  (aka “scope of protection.”) Below are some at-a-glance slides of the facts of the case. 

Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 10:14 pm

August 5, 2013

Carani Interviewed on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street Regarding President Obama’s Veto of Import Ban on iPhones and iPads


Christopher Carani, McAndrews, Held & Malloy attorney, on CNBC Squawk on the Street discussing the Obama administration’s decision to overturn the U.S. International Trade commission’s ban on the sale of older iPhones and iPads.  Obama overturns Apple ban

Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 8:51 pm

July 10, 2013

Carani to Present on Design Law at 8th Annual Door County Intellectual Property Academy

Product Image


July 18, 2013 – July 19, 2013

Stone Harbor Resort & Conference Center
107 North First Ave
Sturgeon Bay , WI

About the Program
The IP Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin presents our Eighth Annual Door County IP Academy. Join your colleagues in beautiful Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin on Thursday, July 18 and Friday, July 19, 2013 for a continuing legal education program focusing on cutting edge analysis of today’s hottest IP issues. Link to program: http://marketplace.wisbar.org/Pages/eventDetails.aspx?category=&cat=&pid=SA5213

This year’s IP Academy will feature world-renowned speakers, including chief judges, USPTO officials, leading in-house counselors, jury consultants, and IP subject matter experts, all presenting best-in-class IP CLE sessions.

Christopher Carani - McAndrews Held & Malloy

Chief Judge Randall Rader – United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Manny Schecter – Chief Patent Counsel at IBM

Chief Judge James Smith – Chief Administrative Patent Judge over the Patent Trial and Appeal Board  

Mike Dillon – General Counsel of Adobe Systems, Inc.

Ted Davis –  Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

Tom Irving – Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Eric Rudich - Senior Litigation Consultant with Magna Legal Services


Bios for Faculty: 2013 Intellectual Property Academy

Christopher Carani is a partner & shareholder with McAndrews Held & Malloy, a Chicago-based IP firm. For 15 years, he has been a leading voice in design law, counseling clients on strategic design protection and enforcement issues. Chris currently chairs the ABA’s Design Rights Committee and is the past chair of the AIPLA’s Industrial Designs Committee. He has a nation-wide audience as a frequent contributor to CNN on IP issues, and other media outlets as well, including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NPR, PBS TV, CNBC TV, BBC, Bloomberg TV, and Reuters. In the landmark design patent case of Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Chris authored amicus briefs on behalf of AIPLA at both the petition and en banc stages, taking positions that helped set forth the ultimately re-shaped law on design patents by the Federal Circuit.

Ted Davis is a partner in the Atlanta office of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, where he divides his practice between client counseling and litigation in the fields of TM, copyright, false advertising, and unfair competition law.  Ted is also currently the CFO for the ABA’s IP Section, as well as a former member of the Board of Directors of INTA, for which he has provided primary representation for a number of amicus curiae briefs filed with the US Supreme Court.  He has taught as an adjunct professor at Emory University, the University of Georgia, and the John Marshall law schools, and has testified numerous times before Congress on substantive TM and Internet issues.  Ted is also a former Editor-in-Chief of the Georgia Bar Journal and, while in law school, he also served as Notes Editor for the Virginia Law Review.  His articles on IP subjects and matters have appeared in at least the Minnesota Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Washington & Lee Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the Wake Forest Law Review, the Florida Law Review, and the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, as well as in numerous specialized publications, such as the Trademark Reporter and the Journal of IP Law.

Mike Dillon joins us from San Jose, CA, where he is currently serving as the GC of Adobe Systems, Inc. This is Mike’s 4th GC role, after having also done so for Silver Spring Networks, Sun Microsystems, Inc. (“Sun”), and ONI Systems Corp. With full responsibility for all legal functions at these organizations, he also managed all of the legal support for Sun’s $7.4B sale to Oracle Corporation. Mike will be sharing some of the perspectives he has gained during his career as a GC and in-house counsel.

Tom Irving is a partner in the Washington DC office of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, for whom he has practiced IP law for some 38 years in their DC and Belgian offices.  His practice includes patent counseling, design-arounds, due diligence, enforceability and infringement analyses, interferences, litigation and pre-litigation analyses, prosecution, re-examinations, re-issues, and validity analyses, particularly in the chemical and pharmaceutical fields, as well as Orange Book listing patents covering FDA-approved drugs.  Tom has lectured to an estimated some 20,000 people on the American Invents Act (“AIA”), and he is apparently an original and sole inventor of a Jedi Master Mixer, which utilizes both AIA transition sections 3n1 and 3n2.  In addition, Tom has also, for some 20 years, served as a principal teacher of a PRG Chemical Patent Practice Course.  He also originated PRG’s Orange Book and Due Diligence courses.  Tom frequently presents to many state bar associations, national bar associations, and law schools.  Tom also lectures extensively in China on US patent law.  Tom has also published law review articles in Dayton, Santa Clara, and Virginia law journals.  He is a long running selectee of America’s Best Lawyers and IAM.

Chief Judge Randall Rader joins us from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He was appointed to the Federal Circuit by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 and assumed the duties of Chief Judge on June 1, 2010.  He was appointed to the United States Claims Court (now the US Court of Federal Claims) by President Ronald W. Reagan in 1988.  Chief Judge Rader’s most prized title may well be “Professor Rader,” however, and there probably isn’t an IP practitioner, world-wide, whose daily practice has not been affected by our esteemed Chief!

Eric Rudich is a Senior Litigation Consultant with Magna Legal Services in New York, New York.  He is an expert in jury psychology and specializes in identifying and testing trial themes and strategies, creating persuasive visual graphics, developing sophisticated juror profiles, and preparing trial witnesses. Dr. Rudich has consulted on hundreds of civil and criminal cases throughout the US, and he has developed a unique niche of consulting on IP jury trials.  He has also appeared as an invited guest on CourtTV and MSNBC, conducted numerous CLEs, spoken at numerous litigation conferences, and published several articles in leading legal journals.

Manny Schecter is the Chief Patent Counsel at IBM, the #1 recipient of US patents for 20 consecutive years. He believes that the patent system is not broken, but can certainly be improved. He also believes that we can reduce patent litigation by promoting certainty early in the patent life cycle, particularly by enhancing claim clarity. Manny also organized a Peer-to-Patent project, a highly-regarded patent quality initiative, elements of which were ultimately incorporated into the AIA’s patent examination procedures.

Chief Judge James Smith is the Chief Administrative Patent Judge over the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is, as of September 16, 2012, the successor to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).  Appointed by Director David Kappos and beloved by all, he began this new role on May 8, 2011, having most recently served as the Chief IP Counsel for Baxter International.  Chief Judge Smith replaced Chief Judge Michael Fleming, who stepped down in 2010, and Jay Moore who had been the Acting Chief Judge for several months.  And Chief Judge Smith marked the transition from the BPAI to the PTAB by keeping the PTAB open and staffed during the entire 24-hour period of its first day!

Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 11:04 pm

June 6, 2013

Carani Interiewed on BloombergTV regarding ITC’s Import Ban on Certain iPhones and iPads for Violating Samsung FRAND Patent

(Bloomberg) — Christopher Carani, a partner at McAndrews, Held Malloy, talks about a U.S. trade agency’s decision that Apple Inc. infringed a patent owned by Samsung Electronics.
Apple Inc. faces a ban on imports of some older devices, including the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G made for ATT Inc. Carani speaks with Jon Erlichman on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)





Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 10:32 pm

May 28, 2013

Carani to Present at Chicago Bar Association


CLE Description: In the world-wide battle royale between consumer tech titans Apple and Samsung, design rights have taken center stage.  The lion share of the $1.05B jury award in the U.S. case relates to Samsung’s infringement of design patents.  In the wake of this blockbuster verdict, companies and practitioners the world over are taking a second, hard look at design rights. In this CLE, leading design patent attorney Christopher V. Carani of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. will discuss (1) cutting edge design prosecution techniques to protect not only the industrial design, but also the graphic user interfaces and icons, and (2) various design-specific litigation issues, including design patent infringement, functionality, claim construction, obviousness, anticipation and remedies.  Further, the presentation will include a discussion of recent design patent cases, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in In Re Owens and the USPTO’s first grant of an inter partes review of a design patent in Munchkin v. Luv n’ Care.  Lastly, the presentation will include suggested best practices for filing for design protection under the Hague Agreement.

online job search
office mac

Time: 12:15-1:30pm

The Chicago Bar Association
321 S Plymouth Ct
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 554-2000
Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 11:58 pm

May 22, 2013

Intellectual Property Owners Association Webinar, 5/23, 2pmET, Advanced Design Patent Prosecution Topics, Speakers: Carani (McAndrews), Maksym (Nike) and Sincavage (USPTO)

online teaching jobs
os x 10.5
Register Now!
IPO’s weekly one-hour webinar series on current topics in IP; hosted by Pamela Sherrid, former editor of IP Law & Business magazine.
Registration Fee
$120 per user per webinar
Government/Academic rates are
available upon request

Design Patent Prosecution: Advanced Topics
Thursday, May 23, at 2:00PM ET

The number of applications for design patents at the USPTO is growing rapidly, with some of that increase coming from corporations and IP practitioners with relatively little experience with that form of IP protection. Design filings are expected to surge more after the U.S. joins the Hague Agreement, an international design filing treaty, later this year. Our panel, which includes a leading U.S. design patent practitioner, an in-house counsel at a corporation recognized as making effective use of design patents, and a USPTO design practice specialist, will offer useful advice on:

  • USPTO’s view of common pitfalls in design patent prosecution   
  • In-house perspective on best practices for filing design patents  
  • Advanced technical prosecution techniques
  • Recent design patent jurisprudence, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in In Re Owens and the USPTO’s first grant of an inter partes review of a design patent in Munchkin v. Luv n’ Care 
  • USPTO’s controversial proposed tightening of amendment and continuation practice based on insufficient written description support



Christopher V. Carani is a partner at McAndrews Held & Malloyin Chicago and active member of IPO’s Industrial Designs Committee.  Chris is a leading voice in the field of design law, counseling clients on a wide range of strategic design protection and enforcement issues.  Chris currently chairs the ABA’s Design Rights Committee, and is the past chair of AIPLA’s Industrial Designs Committee.   In the landmark U.S. design patent case Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, he authored amicus briefs on behalf of the AIPLA at both the petition and en banc stages; he also penned amicus brief in other significant design patent cases including Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int’l LLC, Calmar, Inc. v. Arminak & Assoc., and Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
Katie Maksym is a design patent counsel for Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike is among the top five design patent holders in the U.S. Katie is responsible for Nike’s design patent filing and litigation strategy. She also works in the marketplace to enforce Nike’s IP against counterfeiters and infringers and therefore prefers not to publish her photograph.
Joel Sincavage is a supervisory design patent examiner at the USPTO, serving as a Teaching Quality Assurance Specialist. He trains examiners of design patents and advises the USPTO on practice, procedure and legal implementation of design patent laws, rules and court decisions. He joined the USPTO in 1989.
Filed under: Press — ChrisCarani @ 10:40 pm
Older Posts »