From 43(b)log: Arguing that conceptual separability is simply a coda to physical separability, dealing with situations in which physical separation couldn’t be accomplished without destroying the useful article–regardless, there must be something other than the design of the article itself that can be identified as a protectable work. The existence of design patent also sheds important light on the limited role Congress intended copyright to play for useful articles.

[embeddoc url=”https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/833/2016/07/star-v-varsity-s-ct-amicus-separability-1.pdf”]