Kitchen glove design; Duncan Kitchen Grips; U.S. Design Pat. No. D647,252

U.S. Design Patent No. D647,252, issued on October 18, 2011 to Duncan Kitchen Grips of Tustin, CA, discloses a design for a kitchen glove.

  

According to its website, the raised nub surface texture of Duncan’s kitchen gloves provide various advantages, such as “more insulation between the hand and the heat source” and ”a better, safer, non-slip grip.”  In addition, its material is water-repellent, flexible, stain resistant, and non-porous (so it is resistant to bacteria buildup).

As a design patent, the ’252 patent only covers the decorative, non-functional aspects of the design shown in the figures of the patent.  Therefore, it doesn’t cover the raised nub surface texture itself, which is a functional feature of the glove, but it does cover the particular design or pattern of nubs that are shown in the figures.  Also, the protected design does not include the zig-zag stitching along the outside edge of the glove, or the “KG” insignias all over the glove, since these features are shown with dashed lines in the figures of the ’252 patent.

In early 2009, Duncan Kitchen Grips was acquired by Browne & Co. of Ontario, Canada.  According to the USPTO database, Duncan owns five U.S. design patents, all issued in 2011, for various designs of kitchen mitts, gloves, and trivets. 

Anti-slip mount for flat panel video display; Premier Mounts; U.S. Pat. No. 8,035,757

U.S. Patent No. 8,035,757, issued on October 11, 2011 to Premier Mounts of Anaheim, CA, discloses an anti-slip system for mounting a flat panel video screen on a wall.

According to the ’757 patent, existing mounting system are prone to over-torquing of the mounting screws and shearing of the mounting holes in the flat panel video screen being mounted to the wall.  In addition, there is no standardization of the mounting holes across the various models, so general mounting systems use slots in the mounting brackets, but these slots can allow slippage if not correctly tightened.  Dedicated mounting systems designed for particular brands of screens are available, but these dedicated systems do not generally provide the desired level of flexibility in how to adjust or align the screen on the wall.  The ’757 patent discloses a mounting system that “does not suffer from the drawbacks” of over-torquing or shearing, and can be used to adjustably mount and align various models of flat panel video screens.  

According to its website, Premier Mounts was founded in 1977 “as an audiovisual manufacturer’s representative and within three years, began to fill a gap in the A/V marketplace by creating its own durable, high-quality mounts and carts.”  The company “developed one of the first after-market plasma-display mounts …, and holds many patents for ground breaking features that have become the standard for mounting products.”  The company has announced that the ’757 patent is directed to its Griplate™ mounting system.  According to the USPTO database, Premier Mounts owns eight U.S. patents, three of which were issued in 2011.

Premier Mounts was able to use the “first to invent” aspect of U.S. patent law to get the USPTO to issue the ’757 patent.  The USPTO had initially rejected Premier’s application (under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) based on a published U.S. patent application that was (i) filed before Premier’s application was filed, but was (ii) published after Premier’s application was filed.  Premier was successful in explaining to the USPTO, using an affidavit by the inventor, that the company had actually invented its mounting system before the U.S. filing date of the cited publication.  Thus, while Premier was not the “first to file” its patent application at the USPTO, it was the “first to invent,” so the cited publication could not be used in the rejection.   

Modifications that are part of the “America Invents Act” recently enacted into law will be changing the U.S. patent laws from a “first to invent” regime to a “first inventor to file” regime.  Under the new laws, scheduled to be effective March 16, 2013, Premier’s earlier invention date would not overcome the fact that the company was second to file its patent application.  In other words, after the March 2013 effective date, the fact that the applicant was not the first to file its patent application can prevent the application from issuing as a U.S. patent.  The ’757 patent is therefore a good example of the heightened importance of filing your patent application as early as possible. 

U.S. patents awarded to Orange County companies increased by 14% in 2011

A review of the statistics of U.S. patents awarded by the USPTO to entities in Orange County shows that, in 2011, Orange County experienced success that significantly outpaced the small increase in the total number of U.S. patents granted by the USPTO during the year.

Orange County entities were awarded 2709 U.S. patents in 2011, an increase of about 14% over the total for 2010.  For comparison, this success occurred in a year in which the total number of U.S. patents granted by the USPTO only increased by about 1.35%.  Orange County’s patents represent about 1.1% of the total number of U.S. patents (246,698) granted by the USPTO in 2011.

About 9% of these Orange County patents were design patents, which is nearly the same as the percentage of design patents awarded overall by the USPTO.  Historically, this percentage represents a slight decrease from Orange County’s 10-12% in the previous four years.

The eight OC companies awarded the highest numbers of U.S. patents in 2011 had the following numbers of U.S. patents and percentages (as compared to their 2010 results):

  • Broadcom: 1074; +24%
  • Allergan: 133; +27%
  • Western Digital: 86; +28%
  • AMO: 75; +83%
  • Edwards Lifesciences: 40; +33%
  • Newport Media: 38; +90%
  • Masimo: 36; +125%
  • QLogic: 34; -11%

Other OC companies that had a prolific 2011 in patents were Beckman Coulter (29), GP Medical (27), Conexant (26), Oakley (24), BSH Home Appliance (23), Applied Medical (22), and Emulex (22).  These 15 companies represent about 62% of the U.S. patents granted to Orange County in 2011.

My firm, Knobbe Martens, had a successful year for our Orange County clients, obtaining 276 U.S. patents for our more than 80 Orange County clients, across a wide range of technical areas.   This number of OC patents represents an increase of about +37% over 2010.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers