Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patents. Show all posts

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Fashion designers look to patents to fight knockoffs

By Erin Geiger Smith

NEW YORK | Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:32am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Design companies tending to the details of fashion shows have more to think about than skirt lengths and handbag clasps - they must decide whether to seek U.S. patent protection for their looks.

Diane von Furstenberg, famous for her wrap dresses, has a design patent on a chain mail-style bag. The popular French line Celine has one on the envelope-style handbag sported by countless fashion experts at New York Fashion Week.

This summer alone, brands including Alexander Wang, Balenciaga and Tod's all were granted design patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on accessory designs, records show.

Because U.S. copyright and trademark laws often do not apply to new, logo-free designs, designers are applying for design patents to protect clothing and accessories from being targets for knock-offs, industry attorneys said.

While some brands, such as Gucci, have been obtaining design patents for decades, it is becoming more the norm for fashion companies to do the same, said intellectual property attorney Steve Nataupsky.

Design patents protect the way something looks, as opposed to more commonly known utility patents, which protect the way something is used and works.

Design patents have garnered attention in recent years due to the high-profile, high-stakes legal battles between Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co over smartphones and tablets.

A jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion last year, although a federal judge eventually cut the award by 40 percent and ordered a retrial on some of the damages.

While statistics are not available for all fashion-related design patents specifically, design patent applications have increased overall each year since 2009.

Because design patents are only available for creations with some originality, companies must carefully evaluate which designs, or portions of designs, deserve protection, said attorney Harley Lewin, who represents brands including Wang and von Furstenberg.

Fashion companies patent designs that they anticipate are going to be "big style setters" and "have a lifetime of at least a couple of years," said attorney Stephen Soffen, who has worked with Valentino and Versace.

Wang, for example, in 2011 was granted a patent for a "stud with grooves." He wanted a patent because he intended to use the studs on handbags and garments and felt they would be identifiable to his brand, Lewin said.

Wang also got patents for several other versions of studs, as well as a shoe with a cape flowing from the ankle strap, U.S. patent records show.

Savvy fashion brands also evaluate what not to patent, said attorney Elizabeth Ferrill.

If a design patent covers an entire design, those who copy it can generally escape liability as long as there are some differences between its product and the original.

And if part of a design, such as a complicated purse handle, is particularly expensive or complex, it is less likely a company seeking to make a cheaper version will copy that portion, Ferrill said.

As a result, companies might exclude that element from the patent application, so if someone copies the rest of the item, the brand will have leverage to stop them.

Design patents, which last 14 years, also offer an advantage to designers who want to keep their looks secret until they hit the runway, lawyers said.

Although applications are generally filed before goods are shown to the public, the U.S. patent office does not publish the applications until a patent is granted.

That publication typically happens a year or more after the filing, giving the goods time to find space on boutique shelves.

(Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Leslie Adler)


View the original article here

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Gene Patents Spark Debate in High Court

Register Today

Earn Free CME Credits by reading the latest medical news in your specialty.

Sign Up
By David Pittman, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices lobbed hard questions Monday about whether a company could patent isolated human genes in a case that looms large in the personalized medicine arena.

During arguments before the court, several justices expressed doubt that Myriad Genetics could rightfully patent segments of human genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, genes in which mutations are indications of increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

Products of nature aren't patentable. Only inventions are, but Salt Lake City-based Myriad argued that because the genes have been isolated from the body, they are no longer a product of nature and can be patented.

"Now, yes, you can have a patent on the process of extracting that small part, but I don't understand how a small part of something bigger isn't obvious," Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Meanwhile, Myriad can stop others from making, using, selling, and offering to sell genetic testing to determine if an individual has such a genetic mutation.

A number of organizations including those led by physicians, researchers, clinicians, and other health professions were initially involved in the case.

"There might be a million things you can do with the BRCA genes, but nobody but Myriad is allowed to look at it and that's impeding science rather than advancing it," Christopher Hansen, who argued against Myriad, said.

A district court in 2010 ruled the patents invalid because they were products of nature. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2011 disagreed, setting up the case for the Supreme Court.

The Federal Circuit likened Myriad's case to that of a baseball bat. A tree isn't patent eligible, but a bat -- once extracted from the tree and carved -- is eligible.

Roberts disagreed with that analogy. "The baseball bat is quite different," Roberts said. "You don't look at a tree and say, 'well, I've cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I've got a baseball bat.' You have to invent it, if you will."

Justices repeatedly turned to the analogy of extracting a molecule from a tree leaf that is known for medicinal use. The leaf itself is a product of nature and not patentable, but the extracted molecule may be, Justice Samuel Alito said, seeming to support Myriad.

"The isolated DNA has a very different function than the DNA as it exists in your body," he added, just like the extracted molecule and the leaf. "And although the chemical composition may not be different, it certainly is in a different form."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took a different tact and said the genes might be obvious -- not novel -- and therefore not patentable, which is a different argument from saying the genes are found in nature and not patent eligible.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he supported allowing companies like Myriad to be able to patent the process by which they find and extract certain gene segments -- just not genes themselves.

"It's important to keep products of nature free of the restrictions that patents there are," Breyer said.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued thousand of patents similar to that of Myriad's BRCA1 and BRCA2 and the company argued that a ruling against it could mean less investment in the field if they and others can't protect their work -- an argument justices questioned.

"What does Myriad get out of this deal? Why shouldn't we worry that Myriad or companies like it will just say, well, you know, we're not going to do this work anymore?" Justice Elena Kagan asked.

The High Court could rule in the case -- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics -- before its current term ends in late June.

David Pittman

David Pittman is MedPage Today’s Washington Correspondent, following the intersection of policy and healthcare. He covers Congress, FDA, and other health agencies in Washington, as well as major healthcare events. David holds bachelors’ degrees in journalism and chemistry from the University of Georgia and previously worked at the Amarillo Globe-News in Texas, Chemical & Engineering News and most recently FDAnews.