Mock arbitration shines light on designs
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Mock arbitration shines light on designs

An arbitration tribunal consisting of Dan Bereskin, Richard Kreindler and Richard Tan unanimously found that a design patent for a glass with a double wall was not infringed, following a mock proceeding at the AIPPI Congress in Toronto

The proceeding comprised some procedural questions, followed by opening statements by counsel for each party, evidence from two witnesses with direct evidence and cross-examination, witness conferencing (so-called hot tubbing) and closing arguments.

The audience of AIPPI attendees then witnessed a short deliberation between the panel. Bereskin said he relied on the evidence before his eyes rather than legal precedent: “My initial reaction is that the designs are not substantially the same. We would come close to giving the claimant a monopoly in liquid in a glass that appears to float. That is a functional feature and should not be protected.”

Tan added: “The bottom line is we need to determine whether there is substantial similarity or not. I would have thought not similar, so no infringement.” As they had found that there was no infringement, the panel was spared the challenge of deciding whether they had jurisdiction to rule on validity, something that the parties had strongly disputed.

The arbitration process was compressed into three hours, with strict time limits for each part. Nevertheless there were numerous noteworthy points raised, including an opposition to one of the arbitrators, a challenge to the testimony of one of the expert witnesses, and some vigorous cross-examination.

Much of the evidence centred on whether the design patents and the alleged-infringing products were similar in the eyes of an ordinary observer, and whether the double wall was a functional or ornamental feature.

Iván Poli and Mario Franzosi, who played the parts of the expert witnesses, provided entertaining testimony for the audience. Poli, witness for the claimant, said he had asked his ex-wife her opinion as she is a typical consumer: “She’s a very committed purchaser of things. She’s an authority.” Franzosi however said that, as a man, he was more interested in “what’s inside the glass”.

The facts of the dispute mirrored a real case, Bodum USA, Inc v Trudeau Corporation (1889) Inc, decided by Canada’s Federal Court in 2012. In that case Mr Justice Boivin also dismissed the infringement claim, and allowed the counter-claim of invalidity.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In a seminal ruling, the Beijing Internet Court said images generated by Stable Diffusion counted as original works
Boston-based John Lanza is hoping to work more with life sciences colleagues on the ‘exciting’ application of AI to drug discovery
The Delhi High Court has expressed its willingness to set global licensing terms in the Nokia-Oppo dispute, but it must deal with longstanding problems first
Some patent counsel are still encountering errors even though the USPTO has fully transitioned to the new system
A senior USPTO attorney spoke at a Nokia-sponsored event on the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation today, November 29
IP counsel are ‘flooded’ with queries from clients worried about deepfakes, but the law has so far come up short
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Mathys & Squire has filed a test case that the firm hopes will make UPC pleadings available by default
Multiple representatives and their teams can now work on cases using the online CMS, but not everyone can submit documents
James Lawrence, partner at Addisons, explains how he convinced the full Federal Court of Australia to back his client in a patent dispute concerning mining safety equipment