In May, the Federal Circuit eliminated the long-standing test for design patent obviousness. In its place, the Federal Circuit emphasized a flexible approach to the design patent obviousness analysis, grounded in the Graham...more
In a recent en banc decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled its prior test for nonobviousness of design patent inventions, holding that design patents are subject to the same test as utility patents. LKQ...more
Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article. The protection granted by a design patent is primarily indicated by illustrations. Since the first grant in 1842, the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more
In the recent case of LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the en banc (for the first time in five years) Federal Circuit overruled the long-established Rosen-Durling test used for evaluating the...more
In its recent en banc decision issued in LQK v. GM Global, the Federal Circuit overruled the Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, jettisoning decades-old precedent and loosely outlining a design patent...more
In a highly anticipated decision, the en banc Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents. The challenged framework, derived from two cases, In re Rosen, 673 F.2d...more
Before Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
On May 21, the Federal Circuit, in an en banc decision of LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, has overruled the Rosen-Durling test applied in evaluating obviousness of design patents. Instead, the CAFC applied the...more
Last week, the full Federal Circuit overruled its decades-old test for deciding whether a design patent is invalid as obvious. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728 (Fed. Cir. May 21,...more
In its first en banc patent decision since 2018, the Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding obviousness test for design patents under 35 U.S.C. 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, No. 21‑2348 slip op. (Fed....more
In a considerable shift in the law, the Federal Circuit has discarded the long-standing test for determining whether a design patent is invalid as obvious, in favor of the more flexible obviousness test historically applied...more
In a recent en banc panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled a decades-old test for obviousness of design patents. Reasoning that the old test was “improperly rigid,” the Federal Circuit...more
For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....more
Yita LLC petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by MacNeil IP LLC. This summary focuses on the proceedings on MacNeil’s patent relating to vehicle floor trays that “closely conform[]” to certain walls of the vehicle foot...more
In a precedential opinion issued last month, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that when the single issue presented on appeal is whether a prior art reference teaches a particular claim...more
Without naming names or technology, I wanted to share an interesting rationale for obviousness I came across recently. The rejection was an “obvious to try” type rejection, based on the assertion that it would have been...more
On February 26, 2021, the PTAB found in favor of Fox Factory, Inc. (“Fox”) on remand and cancelled the challenged claims of SRAM LLC’s (“SRAM”) U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (the ’027 Patent), directed towards anchoring a...more
Design patents–why now? We are in 2019. Aesthetics matter. Products that look good sell better. Hardware companies are investing increasing amounts of resources into design teams that create sleek and modern products that...more
On April 2, 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision in Fox Factory finding that the petitioner failed to carry its burden in showing the instituted claims were unpatentable as obvious. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...more
In Merck v. Hospira, the only precedential case decided this week, a majority of the panel affirms a determination of obviousness, noting that despite the objective indicia supporting patentability, the claimed process was...more
Like Johnny Cash’s famous tune “A Boy Named Sue,” “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness suffer for their name. Courts have historically relegated this 4th Graham factor to a “secondary” status, considering objective...more
Travelocity.com L.P. v. Cronos Technologies LLC - Addressing the showing required to institute covered business method (CBM) proceedings based on obviousness, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and...more
Tiger Woods Misses the Cut in Golf Memorabilia Dispute - Tiger Woods skipped The Masters this year for the first time in 20 years because he was recuperating from back surgery. But his back may not be the only source...more
[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors -- including objective evidence of secondary considerations -- must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the...more
[W]e have emphatically rejected any formal burden-shifting framework in evaluating the four Graham factors [including the objective considerations of nonobviousness]. The district court's failure to consider the evidence...more