Remove 2007 Remove Design Patent Remove Designs Remove Invention
article thumbnail

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

The IP Law Blog

Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,

article thumbnail

Obviousness Test for Design Patents Unchanged

LexBlog IP

Design patents and utility patents are two different things. Design patents protect ornamental designs, such as the shape of a perfume bottle or the design on flatware. To be patentable, however, both designs and functional inventions must satisfy two requirements. Telflex, Inc.,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit to Decide Whether KSR Applies to Design Patents

LexBlog IP

1] LKQ, an auto parts repair vendor for GM, successfully petitioned for inter partes review of GM’s design patent for a front fender design, [2] arguing it was anticipated by a prior art reference (Lain) and obvious over Lian alone or in combination with a brochure for the 2010 Hyundai Tucson. Operations LLC. [1]

article thumbnail

Reevaluating Design Patent Obviousness

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch Design patents continue to rise in importance, but the underlying law full of eccentricities. The crux of the issue lies in the manner patent law decisions are typically written. 398 (2007), overrule or abrogate In re Rosen, 673 F.2d The case under scrutiny is LKQ Corp. GM Global Tech , 21-2348 (Fed.

article thumbnail

Design Patent Obviousness Inquiry Is Up for Review at the CAFC

LexBlog IP

GM Global Technology to rule on the issue of whether the current test for determining obviousness of design patents, i.e., the Rosen/Durling Standard, is proper in view of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. Under the current Standard, the range of applicable prior art combinations in design cases is limited.

article thumbnail

Junker v. Medical Components, Inc.: Pre-filing Offers for Sale Trigger Patent “On-Sale Bar”

LexBlog IP

10, 2022), serves as a warning to prospective filers that making pre-filing offers for sale, or engaging in discussions for future sales, can be detrimental to one’s ability to obtain both design and utility patents. Design Patent No. D450,839 (the D‘839 Patent) for a catheter introducer sheath.

Patent 52
article thumbnail

Fish Principals Author Law360 Article “How to Succeed in Design Patent Cases at the PTAB”

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

Fish Principals Craig Deutsch , Jennifer Huang , and Grace Kim , discuss challenging design patents at the PTAB in their Law360 Expert Analysis article. Challenging design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is difficult — nearly two-thirds of petitions directed to design patents have been denied institution.