A Patent Infringement Case We Won for Our Client - Chicago Patent Attorney Rich Beem Discusses

www.beemlaw.com
Chicago patent attorney Rich Beem discusses a patent infringement case in which another company was making a product which was extremely similar to our client.
Our client had made a very handy carrying case for pet food called the Traveltainer. It breaks down into several bowls and easily comes back together for easy travel. Another company had developed a very similar product in which the design was nearly copied completely except for a different shape. We sent a complaint regarding the design aspect being infringed upon. We were able to settle it quickly and without a lawsuit. Watch the video to learn more.

For more information about patent law and my firm, visit our educational website at www.beemlaw.com, where you can view testimonials from our happy clients. If you have legal questions, I want you to call me at [phone]. I welcome your call
Beem Patent Law Firm
53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1352
Chicago, IL 60604-3787
[phone]
[e-mail]

[@arrowstheorem1881]

Another judge may not find this an infringement, right? Two different judges need not have same judgement. I do not think this is a DESIGN Infringement. If this were a Utility patent infringement case , yes, I would say it's an infringement despite the different designs.

[@WaxWitch]

Look, you went over this with other commenters already. He doesn't even say the words "design infringement" together, in that order. He said he filed a patent infringement and the other company settled, basically admitting fault. They had it settled with the supreme court magistrate where the judge agreed that it was an infringing product. There is no appeal if there is a settlement. He probably forgot to make a distinction, but it probably didn't matter much to the case if the judge thought it was a copy off the bat. If you really want to keep talking about utility vs design, this is more of a design instance as there are so many different products that functionally hold pet food and bowls together. The appeal of the product is how it looks and the visual appearance as displayed in the patent. If anything, this would be infringing on both utility and design, but utility would be secondary.

[@MR_RW]

​@xXCresentMoonXIIIXx a judge doesn't do anything when a settlement is involved. They didn't win based on merit. They won because the other side was scared. I dont think this is infringement. They clearly look different now utility I would agree.

[@kenjerkenjer9576]

Thank you

[@joshJ-AQ]

i can almost guarantee this lawyer filed a lot of ADA cases too. scammer

[@tusharg2751]

Wow.. and earned millions by lawyer.

[@MR_RW]

A settlement and a win are not really the same thing.

[@arrowstheorem1881]

But why is there infringement when the DESIGN is different? design patents are useless! Had it been an utility patent, i would have supported you.

[@thommytwotoestimesthree847]

Cosmo John. I believe it WAS a utility due to the handle and it's functionality. Also the double bowl design allowed for function.

[@P272-e9k]

It's frigging identical product, what are you talking about. And why do you think they settled and PAID UP.

[@arrowstheorem1881]

@@thommytwotoestimesthree847 Mr Beem said it's a design patent.

[@bunnytyme5604]

Making it heart shaped was not enough to differentiate the product.

[@stojanovik69]

Are you still in business ? Can I ask few simple question ? You already have my E-Mail. Thank you

[@paradoxpubgm3918]

I think, he just quit with the YT channel