Much has been written about the Apple v. Samsung patent dispute, with some claiming it goes too far and others claiming 'transparent' copying should justly be punished.  One thing that cannot be disputed is the value of a design patent.  As seen below, when consumers like the way something looks, others will migrate to that look, setting up a potentially strong case for design patent infringement, even as lawyers argue over the meaning of words in a related utility patent. Oh, and by the way, if you win, no need to settle for a reasonable royalty, as by statute, design patent infringement damages are set as profits.

While perhaps far from over given the routine appeals of patent infringement decisions, the August 24, 2012 verdict awarding Apple $1 Billion in damages against Samsung in U.S. District Court signaled a major event in the evolving global patent landscape for mobile device technology. This particular case involved patents and trade dress for Apple’s iPhone and iPad and, in addition to the jury’s monetary damages award, Apple is also seeking to stop sales of several competing products offered by Samsung.

Composition claims to "isolated" DNA molecules are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 as nonnaturally occurring compositions of matter -- this, among other decisions, is what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") published in its opinion of August 16, 2012.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has published a set of new patent-related forms which will accommodate new rules that will soon go into effect under the America Invents Act ("AIA").