Upending decades of continuity in the world of design patents, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”), sitting en banc in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturned the Rosen/Durling standard for obviousness of design patents, originally set forth in In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (C.C.P.A. 1982) and further refined in Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996), to align the test for obviousness for design patents with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent for utility patents originally set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and refined in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).  In so doing, the CAFC outlined the new framework by which design patent obviousness is to be determined at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) during examination and post-grant proceedings, as well as during district court litigation involving infringement or invalidity challenges of design patents.

The LKQ Opinion

Focusing on Supreme Court precedent, the en banc CAFC discussed KSR, Graham, and Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 (S. Ct. 1893), the latter of which pre-dates the statutory implementation of 35 U.S.C. §103 (1952) by nearly sixty years.  While it will take years to flesh out various aspects of the test set forth by the en banc court in LKQ in the context of design patents, the overall framework by which obviousness is to be determined is well-known to utility practitioners since it finds its roots in the Supreme Court’s Graham decision.

At the first step, the LKQ court held that “[t]he primary reference will likely be the closest prior art, i.e., the prior art design that is most visually similar to the claimed design[, and] [t]he more visually similar the primary reference design is to the claimed design, the better positioned the patent challenger will be to prove its § 103 case.”  LKQ v. GM at *31. Providing flexibility to the inquiry, the CAFC further held that “[t]he primary reference will typically be in the same field of endeavor as the claimed ornamental design’s article of manufacture, but it need not be, so long as it is analogous art.” Id.  At the second step, the fact finder should “determin[e] the differences between the prior art designs and the design claim at issue,” id., and the differences between the art and the claimed design are compared “from the perspective of an ordinary designer in the field of the article of manufacture.”  Id. at *32. Unsurprisingly, the CAFC held that at step three, when “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art [is] resolved” Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, the person of ordinary skill is an ordinary designer in the field to which the claimed design pertains.  See LKQ, at *33. Finally, the CAFC held that at step 4, “the obviousness inquiry for design patents still requires assessment of secondary considerations” with an emphasis that some secondary considerations will be determined by future cases. Id. at *36

What comes next?

Several open questions remain in the wake of the LKQ opinion. For starters, the district courts and USPTO will need to wrestle with a standard for what will typically satisfy as a primary reference upon which an obviousness rejection can be predicated.  While the Rosen standard of “something in existence [with] basically the same” design characteristics has been abrogated as too strict, the LKQ court was careful to rule that a suitable primary reference must still be identified to protect against hindsight because “almost every new design is made up of elements which, individually, can be found somewhere in the prior art.” Id. at *23 (internal citation omitted).  That is, the court was clear to hold that a primary reference must be an actual design already in existence, rather than some Frankenstein-like monster of design features stitched together from various prior art references.  Therefore, it appears that some new standard must be established for what will generally qualify as a suitable primary reference, since if no single prior art reference has at least a reasonable baseline similarity in overall design to the claimed design, then it would be impermissible to predicate an obviousness rejection on that reference without violating the prohibition on hindsight combination of individually-appearing design features, as noted above.

Another open question—which is perhaps the most difficult of all in the context of industrial designs—is what will be considered suitably “analogous” art.  For utility patents, a two-part test is used to determine the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.  While the first part of this test has a relatively straightforward application to the design context, we predict that the USPTO and district courts (and very likely the CAFC again on appeal at some point in the future) will struggle to articulate a sensible doctrine for application of the “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem” prong of this test to the design context.  Clearly lacking for an answer, the LKQ court explicitly left the contours of this question to be addressed on a case-by-case basis in future matters. Thus, design patent stakeholders will have an important role to play in advocating for sensible application of the Graham obviousness factors to the design context, in particular the contours of the imputed knowledge of a “designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved,” as well as establishing which secondary considerations as indicia or obviousness or nonobviousness are logical in this context.

The Quarles design rights legal team is nationally-recognized for its extensive knowledge and practice experience in this complex and important field. For questions about this article or on how to incorporate design-related legal rights into your intellectual property portfolio, please contact the author(s) of this post directly or send a message to the team via our Contact page. To subscribe to our mailing list and receive updates that highlight issues currently affecting the design rights legal field, click here.

Quarles & Brady Partner and editor-in-chief of the firm’s Protecting the Product design rights blog, James Aquilina, Partner Michael Piery, Associate Rachel Ackerman, and patent professionals Harrison Powell and Audrey Jacobson attended the 17th Annual USPTO Design Day on May 9, 2024 at the USPTO’s Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.

Continue Reading RECAP – 17th Annual USPTO Design Day

Over the past two decades, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been working on a Design Law Treaty focused on aligning examination and procedural guidelines associated with what have historically been referred to as “industrial designs.” One main goal of the Design Law Treaty is to help designers in domestic and foreign jurisdictions obtain design protection faster, easier, and cheaper. In theory, the Design Law Treaty would help to streamline the registration formalities in jurisdictions that are signatories to the treaty and reduce the amount of “red tape” that comes with obtaining design protection across different jurisdictions.

Continue Reading USPTO Request for Public Comments Regarding the WIPO Design Law Treaty

The beauty industry is ever changing, and makeup trends and viral product releases can drastically increase a company’s profits.  However, without proper legal protection, competitors can quickly replicate a product, eating into those profits. 

In this post, we will address how design patents and trade dress can be employed to provide protection for various beauty-related tools and products.

Continue Reading Protecting the Product: Beauty Products

As outlined in our previous post, securing a partial design claim in China is akin to hitting a moving target, as the interpretation of partial design claims in China has varied among cases and examiners.  Since the rule change allowing partial claiming for Chinese design patents took effect on June 1, 2021, the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has still not yet released formal guidelines detailing what is and is not permitted.  However, certain patterns have emerged from the tranche of partial design claims that have been refused or allowed so far, especially regarding design titles, independent design units, patterns/surface indicia, unconnected claims, dividing lines, and simple geometric shapes.  From these patterns, there are several guideposts that applicants can use to navigate the uncertain waters of partial design claiming until a formal statement from the CNIPA is released.

Continue Reading The Moving Target of Partial Design Protection Under Chinese Law

As we have previously written about here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has granted a petition for an en banc rehearing of LKQ Corp. et al v. 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. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), which significantly broadened the obviousness inquiry for utility patents beyond the classic Teaching Suggestion Motivation (“TSM”) test.  The Rosen/Durling Standard was originally set forth in In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982) and both upheld and further clarified by the Federal Circuit in Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  The Standard first requires the identification of a proper primary or Rosen reference, which is “a single reference, ‘a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design’” and then the modification of the primary reference with a secondary reference. Durling, 101 F.3d at 103 (quoting Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391). 

Continue Reading Design Patent Obviousness Inquiry Is Up for Review at the CAFC

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is amending the rules of practice in patent cases by creating a separate space for individuals with educational backgrounds in design-related disciplines to qualify to practice before the USPTO in the limited capacity of design patent application proceedings. This new rule does not impact those already registered to practice any patent matters before the USPTO. The USPTO, with this rule amendment, will now recognize applicants to the design patent bar that have degrees in any of industrial design, product design, architecture, applied arts, graphic design, fine/studio arts, art teacher education, or a degree equivalent to one of the listed degrees. This list of educational backgrounds matches those sought out by the USPTO to fill out the ranks of the design patent examination corps.

Continue Reading New USPTO Design Patent “Bar” to be Created in 2024