35 U.S.C. § 173
Term of design patent
Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of 15 years from the date of grant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1974–2011 · leading case: I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998).
I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998). “Although Lund may have been able to obtain a design patent and so protect its VOLA faucet in that way, at least for a period of fourteen years, see 35 U.S.C. § 173 , it chose not to. Rather, it chose to turn for protection to legal doctrines of trademark and trade dress,…”
Park B. Smith, Inc. v. Chf Indus. Inc., 811 F. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “See 35 U.S.C. § 173 (“Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of fourteen years from the date of grant.”
Stormy Clime Ltd. v. Progroup, Inc., 809 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1987). “§ 154 (1982), and fourteen years for design patents, 35 U.S.C. § 173 (1982) — the patent laws encourage progress in science and the useful arts.”
Kohler Co. v. Moen Inc., F/k/a Stanadyne, Inc., 12 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1993). “§ 154 (1988), and design patents extend for fourteen years, 35 U.S.C. § 173 (1988).' The innovation passes into the .”
Fuji Kogyo Co., Ltd v. Pac. Bay Int'l, Inc., 461 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 2006). “For example, while the product described in the ’714 design patent is almost identical to that in the ’488 utility patent, the utility patent presents a presumption of functionality and the design patent presents a presumption of nonfunctionality.”
Norris Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp. & David L. Ladd, Register of Copyrights, 696 F.2d 918 (11th Cir. 1983). “35 U.S.C.A. § 173 . Copyright protection endures for 50 or 75 years, depending on the date of the work’s creation and whether the copyright was subsisting on the effective date of the 1976 Act.”
Murray v. Franke-Misal Tech. Grp., LLC (In Re Supernatural Foods, LLC), 268 B.R. 759 (Bankr. M.D. La. 2001). “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.”
In Re Sung Nam Cho, 813 F.2d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “§ 172 , and patent term, 35 U.S.C. § 173 . In applying the pertinent law, the PTO and the courts confront the practical difficulty that arises when the design of an article of manufacture is not readily distinguished from the functional features of the article.”
Telebrands Direct Response Corp. v. Ovation Commc'ns, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1169 (D.N.J. 1992). “35 U.S.C. § 173 . Therefore, the functionality necessary to invalidate a design patent constitutes an understandably more rigor *1178 ous showing than that required to defeat the trade dress right.”
Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., & Pat. License Corp., 601 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1979). “Other grounds for invalidity and the counterclaim for infringement are left for the district court to consider on remand. In light of the recent expiration of the ’380 patent and the already lengthy course of proceedings, we urge the district court to rule on the remaining…”
In re Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1974). “§ 24 ; whereas a design patent has a maximum term of fourteen years, 35 U.S.C. § 173 . But the mere fact that the copyright will persist beyond the term of any design patent which may be granted does not provide a sound basis for rejecting appellant’s design patent application.”
Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Sangiacomo N.A. Ltd., 187 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 1999). “See 35 U.S.C.A. § 173 (West Supp. 1999). But the trade dress plaintiff must establish likelihood of customer confusion in order to be protected at all “which the design patent owner need not do; there is therefore no necessary inconsistency between the two modes of protection.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.