Design patents are incredibly stupid as a concept, yet Patently Apple celebrates these again because Apple habitually uses such patents against rivals like Samsung. Why does the USPTO even grant these? Yesterday Patently-O wrote about another example of such patents. It says that "Advantek’s U.S. Design Patent No. D715,008 covering the above-pictured “pet gazebo” that Advantek also sells as its flagship product. Long-Walk allegedly copied the design in its “pet companion” product. However, the district court dismissed the case on the pleadings — finding that the prosecution history barred any infringement finding. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit has reversed. This is one of the few cases considering prosecution history of a design patent."

"...many such patents ought not exist in the first place."We're still hoping that SCOTUS -- not only the Federal Circuit -- will thoroughly explore and revisit this subject. Like we said months ago, many such patents ought not exist in the first place. They're not even 'proper' patents and they're sometimes referred to as "registered designs" (similar to trademarks or a subset of these). They also exist in the EPO. ⬆