Mmm, mmm, no good: Refocusing on the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Obviousness of Design Patents
While Campbell’s canned soup is appetizing to many, patent attorneys may not have an appetite for the law of obviousness. In the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) process, a petitioner often attempts to invalidate patent claims using the sword of obviousness. When defending a patent in an IPR, a patent owner must apply evidence supporting patent validity to the invention itself. Why even have the requirement to link evidence to a patented invention in the first place? Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. attempted to answer this question.
Avery J. Welker,
Mmm, mmm, no good: Refocusing on the Article of Manufacture Requirement for Obviousness of Design Patents,
87 Mo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol87/iss3/19