直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Supreme Court Review Sought From First Federal Circuit Ruling in Design Patent IPR

September 01, 2015

Authored and Edited by Robert C. MacKichan III; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

Design patent owner, Luv n’ Care, has sought Supreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s ruling affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s invalidation of Luv n’ Care’s design patent for a baby sippy cup.  This is the first case on design patents at the PTAB to reach the Federal Circuit, and now the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision without opinion.

In its petition for certiorari, Luv n’ Care argues that the Federal Circuit failed to address the PTAB’s violation of what Luv n’ Care urges is a “fundamental” rule of administrative procedure and due process—that agencies must not switch theories midstream without giving proper notice and an adequate opportunity to respond.  During the IPR proceeding, Luv n’ Care claims that the PTAB improperly raised two new issues—one in the final hearing, and one in the final written decision—to which it was not given an adequate opportunity to respond.  Luv n’ Care looked to the precedents of ten other Circuit Courts in arguing that the Federal Circuit is out of step on a “vital procedural safeguard.”  The petition also relies on a body of jurisprudence requiring fair play and no unfair surprise.  Luv n’ Care claims that the issues presented in its petition are important because “as the busiest patent litigation tribunal in the country, [the PTAB] needs to understand that limits exist on the issues it may rely upon in its determinations.”

Tags

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), rules and rules of practice

Related Practices

Design Rights

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

Singapore IP Week 2026

August 26-27, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP