@dahukanna Great question. It's a design patent, so it will only be infringed in cases of exact (or very close) visual duplication--based on the image(s) in the patent. So any vagueness or lack of detail will benefit of the patent owner.
@dahukanna More great points. Because this patent uses color drawings, the claim is limited to the colors shown. No details on the boundaries other than the photos, which define the scope of the claim.
The ultimate question is whether the jury would think the accused candle looks "the same" as the candle shown in the photo upon regular observation (i.e., no magnifying glass, color tests, etc.) So while using a color photo creates a narrower claim, there's still some wiggle room.
@dahukanna The short answer is that the ambiguity is the point: They give the patents a broader scope. Our design patent system has always let applicants get design patents that cover more than just their exact commercial embodiment (if any).
@dahukanna In theory, applicants could include Pantone numbers in the descriptions of the drawings but they don't because they don't want to further limit the scope of the claim.
@dahukanna Note that claims made using one of the traditional forms of design patent claiming, black-and-white line drawings are not limited to any color(s) and can provide even more scope than photos.
It's half term here in the UK so I've being doing well, not really doing much social media type stuff.
I've just got wind of a Minecraft schedule A hearing tomorrow, and as I haven't listened in to an NDIL hearing this year, I may just have to have a listen, see how things are going in Illinois courts see if any defendants show up. Doubt it but maybe worth a listen to a judge I've not heard before in these cases.
"An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired."
The transcript from a February hearing in one of those EDVA #ScheduleA cases is now out.
The judge clearly has some concerns: "while, certainly, the courts are here to facilitate the voluntary resolution of matters through settlements and licenses, it is not appropriate to abuse the court's process by creating and pursuing litigation in which people don't have a fair opportunity to get to the merits of them."
The plaintiff dismissed the complaining defendant, so the judge seems to think they couldn't rule on the issues that defendant raised. I'm not sure about that, since the defendant apparently raised concerns about "the litigation as a whole." But in any case, it's interesting that the judge went out of his way to make these comments about the #ScheduleA model.
They've filed the design patent and the images of the accused products under seal, so we have no way of knowing if these (extremely conclusory) allegations have any merit: