DESIGN PATENT BLOG POSTS
Obviousness in Automotive Part Design: Key Takeaways from a Fender Flare Application
Design patent prosecution can be a complex and nuanced process, particularly when determining whether a design for an automotive part is obvious in light of
Breaking Par on Design Patents: Using LKQ v. GM to Challenge Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) has significantly altered the framework
Keeping Time with LKQ: A Case Study on Design Patent Obviousness
The prosecution history of Design Patent Application No. 29/860,441 (US D1,057,742) provides an insightful case study on the evolving obviousness standard in design patents post-LKQ
More Than Obvious: Leveraging LKQ v. GM to Overcome Anticipation Rejections
Introduction The landmark LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) decision reshaped the landscape of design patent law
The Top 50 Most Cited Cases in Design Patent Prosecutions: What They Reveal About the Field
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.
Detailed Instructions for Using Design Patent Pro (DPP) ProSearch
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.
Design Patents and Non-Final Rejections – 2024
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
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
Exploring the Depths: Overcoming Section 112 Rejections in Design Patent Prosecution
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
Obviousness Rejection Overcome under LKQ Analysis – App. No. 29/838,012 – Litter Box – December 31, 2024
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
Indefiniteness Standard at the USPTO – App. No. 29/871,033 – Insulation Resistance Tester – December 24, 2024
USD1,054,889 – Issue Date: December 24, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, A and B paragraphs, as the claimed invention
New LKQ Obviousness Analysis – App. No. 29/911,351 – Attachment for Massage Device – December 3, 2024
USD1,053,376 – Issue Date: December 3, 2024 Rejection: The examiner rejected the design claim under Section 103 as being obvious in light of a combination