Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
Thanks Jon, My comments were regarding utility patents... which is what I thought we were discussing here...
from the patent office website (below)
The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents
In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.
--- On Sat, 11/24/12, Jon Elson <elson@...> wrote:
From: Jon Elson <elson@...>
Subject: Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] Re: patents? You haven't seen anything yet...
Date: Saturday, November 24, 2012, 2:36 PM
Mike Polcyn wrote:
> I am not an attorney but I do understand a bit about U.S. patent law
> as an inventor and as one who has had to defend against infringement
> claims. The bottom line is that "Claim Language" is binary; you
> infringe or you don't infringe particular claims.
OK, one thing to remember is the PTO handles both design patents and
patents. The innovation or invention patents involve claims bearing on
processes and functions. The design patents involve design elements
colors, fonts and similar things. So, the Nike "swoosh" and the shape
old Coke bottle are design patents, and the claim is the physical object.
Defending design patents is very different from the other type.
Jewelry patterns would also come under the design type.
- Kenneth Lerman wrote:
>The specific patent they refer to by number deals with some kind of
> One thing I noticed in the complaint was a section saying that there
> was no non-infringing use of the allegedly infringing device. Since
> the patent under discussion seems to relate to exposure for supports,
> it is clear that making objects that don't require support would be a
> non-infringing use.
of the resin to support overhangs. I'm not sure if that partially
hardened stuff is later
dissolved, scraped away, or hardens completely later. But, it seems to
a very specific concept that I doubt formlabs is using. So, at least to
it is not dealing with ordinary support structures, but something more
to support overhangs WITHOUT dedicated support structure from the bottom
up. This directing the court to a SPECIFIC patent, while only mentioning
that there are others, might be enough to scotch the whole suit. (I
but I'm NOT a lawyer.)