#Retail / #purchasing dilemma (may be a UK-specific thing?) - folk on here say "support small independent businesses", but particularly for #motoring related items/services, not only do they have higher prices and lower stock / customer service capabilities , you search for info on the owners and many turn out to be Reform activists.

OTOH pick middle sized chains (in #automotive there's pretty much a duopoly between #LKQ / #EuroCarParts and #GSF ) and they have a diverse staff - many women in frontline roles driving vans for deliveries, and lots of #BritishAsian and other ethnic minority workers in positions of senior management....

#LKQ has revealed one of their Canadian business units suffered a #cyberattack

The breach was detected on Nov 13, 2024, and has disrupted business operations. LKQ has engaged third party cybersecurity experts to investigate, and has alerted law enforcement.

#cybersecurity #Canada

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/auto-parts-giant-lkq-says-cyberattack-disrupted-canadian-business-unit/

it appears to be #EuroCarParts and #GSF (both owned by USA #LKQ group) that are leaking data to #Facebook about me working on more than one car (I'm not sure what they gain from doing so, as FB is equally likely to suggest ads for one of their competitors)

https://themarkup.org/blacklight?url=eurocarparts.co.uk&device=mobile&location=us-ca&force=false

New design patent decision from NDIL in Illinois Toolworks v. Termax: https://www.scribd.com/document/661271150/Illinois-Tool-Works-v-Termax-Complaint#

I haven't read this whole decision yet but since I've got § 103 on the brain...

This reference is definitely not (as the accused infringer argued here) anticipatory.

But is it (or should it be) a proper primary reference for the purposes of § 103?

I suspect that, under current law, the Federal Circuit would say "no."

But I think the answer should be "yes."

#DesignPatents #Rosen #LKQ