The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upended decades of case law in a recent decision involving design patents. In LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Federal Circuit established a new standard for assessing the nonobviousness of design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, holding that design patents should be subject to the same obviousness test used for utility patents.
The more flexible standard will arguably make it easier to show obviousness; however, there is uncertainty regarding how the test previously reserved for utility patents will transfer to design patents. While the Federal Circuit offered some guidance on how the new standard should be applied, it also left many issues to be addressed in future cases.
Obtaining Design Patent Protection
Design patents are unique in that they protect the appearance of an article, such as its distinct shape, configuration, or surface decoration, rather than the article itself. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 171, applicants must satisfy four requirements for design patentability: novelty, originality, ornamentality, and the subject matter must be an article of manufacture.
While design patents and utility patents are different, they are still subject to many of the same requirements, including the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103. As set forth in the statute:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Prior to the Federal Circuit’s recent decision, courts applied what is known as the Rosen-Durling test to assess nonobviousness with respect to design patents. Under the two-part test, a claimed design is obvious when the primary reference is “basically the same” as the challenged design claim, and any secondary references are “so related” to the primary reference that features from one would suggest application to the other.
New Test for Design Patent Obviousness
Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit concluded in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCthat the existing standard is too rigid, putting it at odds with the broad standard for obviousness set forth in § 103 and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It wrote:
We answer in the affirmative and overrule the Rosen-Durling test requirements that the primary reference must be “basically the same” as the challenged design claim and that any secondary references must be “so related” to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application of those features to the other. We adopt an approach consistent with Congress’s statutory scheme for design patents, which provides that the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, as well as Supreme Court precedent which suggests a more flexible approach than the Rosen-Durling test for determining non-obviousness.
The Federal Circuit largely adopted the approach set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) for evaluating the obviousness of design patent claims going forward. The so-called Graham test examines four factors: the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the challenged claim, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. The court also adopted Graham’s “analogous art” test to determine what types of references should be considered.
In its opinion, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the first factor of the two-part analogous art inquiry — whether the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention — applies to design patents. However, it did not decide whether the second factor — whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor — should similarly apply, leaving the issue to be addressed in future cases.
The Federal Circuit also acknowledged that there will be a learning curve for patent owners, practitioners, and lower courts; however, it concluded that any challenges will be brief. “This test has proven workable for utility patents and we see no reason why it would not be similarly workable for design patents,” the court wrote. “As with any change, there may be some degree of uncertainty for at least a brief period, but our elimination of the rigid Rosen-Durling test is compelled by both the statute and Supreme Court precedent.”
UPTO Design Patent Guidance
On May 22, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidance responding to the Federal Circuit’s LTK decision. Its updated guidance and examination instructions state that examiners “must apply a flexible approach to obviousness similar to that applied in utility applications.”
With regard to the first factor, the USPTO advised that since the Federal Circuit did not define how to determine whether a prior art design outside the field of endeavor of the article of manufacture is analogous, “the design examiner should consider the degree to which an ordinarily skilled designer would be motivated to consider other fields.”
When evaluating obviousness, USPTO further advised examiners that “there must be some record-supported reason (without impermissible hindsight) that an ordinary designer in the field of the article of manufacture would have modified the primary reference with the feature(s) from the secondary reference(s) to create the same overall appearance as the claimed design.” The USPTO added that it is continuing to study the Federal Circuit’s LTQ decision and further guidance will be forthcoming.
Consult With an Experienced Design Patent Attorney
The shifting legal landscape makes it even more important for patent owners and applicants to seek counsel from intellectual patent attorneys who are knowledgeable and experienced in designing patents. At Scarinci Hollenbeck, our skilled patent attorneys understand the unique and often challenging legal issues that arise in design patent protection and enforcement. We encourage entities that may be impacted by the Federal Circuit’s recent decision to contact us with any questions. We will also continue to post updates as the USPTO and the courts provide clarity on the application of the new obviousness standard.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Federal Circuit Shakes Up Test for Obtaining and Enforcing Design Patents
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upended decades of case law in a recent decision involving design patents. In LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Federal Circuit established a new standard for assessing the nonobviousness of design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, holding that design patents should be subject to the same obviousness test used for utility patents.
The more flexible standard will arguably make it easier to show obviousness; however, there is uncertainty regarding how the test previously reserved for utility patents will transfer to design patents. While the Federal Circuit offered some guidance on how the new standard should be applied, it also left many issues to be addressed in future cases.
Obtaining Design Patent Protection
Design patents are unique in that they protect the appearance of an article, such as its distinct shape, configuration, or surface decoration, rather than the article itself. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 171, applicants must satisfy four requirements for design patentability: novelty, originality, ornamentality, and the subject matter must be an article of manufacture.
While design patents and utility patents are different, they are still subject to many of the same requirements, including the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103. As set forth in the statute:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Prior to the Federal Circuit’s recent decision, courts applied what is known as the Rosen-Durling test to assess nonobviousness with respect to design patents. Under the two-part test, a claimed design is obvious when the primary reference is “basically the same” as the challenged design claim, and any secondary references are “so related” to the primary reference that features from one would suggest application to the other.
New Test for Design Patent Obviousness
Sitting en banc, the Federal Circuit concluded in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLCthat the existing standard is too rigid, putting it at odds with the broad standard for obviousness set forth in § 103 and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It wrote:
We answer in the affirmative and overrule the Rosen-Durling test requirements that the primary reference must be “basically the same” as the challenged design claim and that any secondary references must be “so related” to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application of those features to the other. We adopt an approach consistent with Congress’s statutory scheme for design patents, which provides that the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, as well as Supreme Court precedent which suggests a more flexible approach than the Rosen-Durling test for determining non-obviousness.
The Federal Circuit largely adopted the approach set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) for evaluating the obviousness of design patent claims going forward. The so-called Graham test examines four factors: the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the challenged claim, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. The court also adopted Graham’s “analogous art” test to determine what types of references should be considered.
In its opinion, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the first factor of the two-part analogous art inquiry — whether the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention — applies to design patents. However, it did not decide whether the second factor — whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor — should similarly apply, leaving the issue to be addressed in future cases.
The Federal Circuit also acknowledged that there will be a learning curve for patent owners, practitioners, and lower courts; however, it concluded that any challenges will be brief. “This test has proven workable for utility patents and we see no reason why it would not be similarly workable for design patents,” the court wrote. “As with any change, there may be some degree of uncertainty for at least a brief period, but our elimination of the rigid Rosen-Durling test is compelled by both the statute and Supreme Court precedent.”
UPTO Design Patent Guidance
On May 22, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidance responding to the Federal Circuit’s LTK decision. Its updated guidance and examination instructions state that examiners “must apply a flexible approach to obviousness similar to that applied in utility applications.”
With regard to the first factor, the USPTO advised that since the Federal Circuit did not define how to determine whether a prior art design outside the field of endeavor of the article of manufacture is analogous, “the design examiner should consider the degree to which an ordinarily skilled designer would be motivated to consider other fields.”
When evaluating obviousness, USPTO further advised examiners that “there must be some record-supported reason (without impermissible hindsight) that an ordinary designer in the field of the article of manufacture would have modified the primary reference with the feature(s) from the secondary reference(s) to create the same overall appearance as the claimed design.” The USPTO added that it is continuing to study the Federal Circuit’s LTQ decision and further guidance will be forthcoming.
Consult With an Experienced Design Patent Attorney
The shifting legal landscape makes it even more important for patent owners and applicants to seek counsel from intellectual patent attorneys who are knowledgeable and experienced in designing patents. At Scarinci Hollenbeck, our skilled patent attorneys understand the unique and often challenging legal issues that arise in design patent protection and enforcement. We encourage entities that may be impacted by the Federal Circuit’s recent decision to contact us with any questions. We will also continue to post updates as the USPTO and the courts provide clarity on the application of the new obviousness standard.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
