A number of designs have a sharp or crisp edge between the sides and the front face, such as Ozolins, Bloomberg 1 and Bloomberg 2, but these also have sharp or crisp edges at the rear face as well and the appearance is completely different. Ellis, T. W., Schmidt, F. A., & Jones, L. L. (1994) Methods and Opportunities in the Recycling of Rare Earth Based Materials. Metals and Materials Waste Reduction, Recovery, and Remediation, (eds) K.C. Liddell, TMS, Warrendale, PA, 199–208. Photo: Sir J. J. Thomson, who discovered that electrons were negatively charged particles, at Cambridge University, in 1897. Thomson won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1906 for his work. Photo by Bain News Service courtesy of US Library of Congress. As to the first element, Mr Sherman's view was that display devices are historically rectangular and biaxially symmetrical. There is no doubt that display screens are rectangular for functional reasons, but although the screen itself is strictly rectangular in shape, designers have freedom as regards the shape of the device itself. Mr Ball illustrated this point with a number of examples. I will use one, the Viewsonic Airpanel V150, February 2003:

Goonan, T. G. (2011) ‘Rare Earth Elements — End Use and Recyclability’, Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey. Earlier, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported that Olympus was scouting out the electronics industry for a friendly investor to take a minority stake in the company, and that Olympus had drawn up a short-list of five potential partners.In paragraph 49 the Court of Appeal explained the legislative policy relating to "special grounds" and drew attention to certain features of this case which might be relevant. The policy is concerned with the problem that allowing the infringement proceedings to continue opens up the possibility of parallel proceedings on the same issue and a risk of inconsistent judgments on the same point between a Community design court and OHIM. The "special grounds" have to be sufficient to justify that risk. The features of this case the Court drew attention to are: first that these proceedings do not include validity therefore there is no risk of an inconsistent validity judgment; second that there is a need for a speedy determination of the claim, although whether that justifies allowing the counterclaim to proceed rather than only the claim may require thought; third, that the parties agree or do not object, although not determinative, is a relevant factor. ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim Alonso, E., Sherman, A. M., Wallington, T. J., Everson, M. P., Field, F. R., Roth, R., & Kirchain, R. E. (2012) ‘Evaluating Rare Earth Element Availability: A Case with Revolutionary Demand from Clean Technologies’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (6): 3406–3414. doi: 10.1021/es203518d iv)(b) Occurrence in the design corpus• Irrespective of the matter of design freedom, to my eye, feature (iv) would strike the informed user as a rather common feature. Disney already has second-screen apps for movies such as “The Lion King” and “Bambi,” while multiple TV networks have similar offerings: We can expect many, many more to be released in 2012.

Apple did not contend that either of its famous iPad products should be used as concrete examples of the Apple design. Neither the original iPad nor the iPad 2 are identical to the design. Whether either of them is or is not within the scope of protection would be a matter of debate. To use either as an example of the Apple design would be to beg the question of the true scope of Apple's rights. Gu, B. (2011) ‘Mineral Export Restraints and Sustainable Development—Are Rare Earths Testing the WTO’s Loopholes?’, Journal of International Economic Law, 14 (4): 765–805. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgr034

Electronic circuits and circuit boards

In the judgment of the Dutch Court of Appeal in the Hague dated 24 th January 2012 Stevenson is referred to there as Design '155 (see paragraphs 6.17 to 6.20). I believe those passages are based on Samsung's interpretation of Stevenson which it appears Apple did not dispute in that court. The Dutch court held that this prior design had what were called features F1 and F2. Together those are "a predominantly flat rear which bends at the sides to form the very thin edge mentioned in C [ i.e. the rim around the front face]". The Dutch court held that Stevenson has a large number of elements of Apple's design. I would agree with that if Stevenson is understood as Samsung submit. However I reject Samsung's interpretation of Stevenson. I will deal with Stevenson's relationship to the Apple design below along with the rest of the design corpus.