When analyzing design patent prosecutions with non-final rejections over the past four years (2021-2024), we uncovered interesting insights from the top 50 most cited cases.
The first step is entering a search term in the search bar. For example, if you receive a rejection based on In re Owens, you may want to research how other design patent applicants have handled similar rejections. To search, type “In re Owens” in the search bar, leave the issue date empty, and click Search or return.
Introduction In 2024, a full one third of all issued design patents received at least one non-final rejection during prosecution (46,589 issued, 15,425 non-final rejections).
Understanding Design Patent Obviousness Principles following LKQ v GM By: Robert G. Oake Introduction Criticizing the legal framework for determining obviousness in design patent law
Failure to disclose the depth of certain design features is one of the most frequent rejections made during design patent prosecution. Rejections typically arise because applicants inadvertently overlook
This design patent application highlights how the LKQ v. GM en banc decision emphasized the requirement of a record-supported reason for combining references and that the combination
Robert is a Registered Patent Attorney and is Triple Board Certified in Patent Litigation, Civil Trial Law, and Civil Practice Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He holds two LL.M (Master of Law) Degrees, including an LL.M in Patent and Intellectual Property Law (with highest honors) from the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.
Robert served as lead trial and appellate counsel for Egyptian Goddess, Inc. in what has been called the most important design patent case in the last one hundred years. (Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa). He has tried to verdict as lead counsel cases involving design patents, utility patents, and trademarks, and has argued eleven cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals including an en banc case involving a design patent.
Robert currently serves as one of four members on the Patent Litigation Specialty Program Commission of the National Board of Trial Advocacy.