Design Patents

Subscribe to Design Patents via RSS

Like many patent owners or aspiring patent owners, at some point you may have found yourself in a situation where design protection was needed, but all you had was narrow utility protection. Perhaps a decision had been made years ago to forgo a design filing in favor of a utility application, and in retrospect, that decision was a costly mistake. Sure, your disclosure may have been robust and your drawings comprehensive, but the available claim scope is not as broad as you would like, and now a competitor is selling a product that looks a lot like your product but does not infringe any of your utility claims.Continue Reading While There is an Active Utility Application, There is Design Hope

The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) is the examination manual used internally at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to guide examiners in the process of examining patent applications. In practice, patent applicants frequently rely on the contents of the MPEP during patent prosecution to guide their arguments and hold examiners accountable to their legal obligations during patent examination.Continue Reading Recent Examination Manual Update Includes Guidance on Protection of Computer-Generated Designs

While obtaining a design patent is often quicker than obtaining a utility patent, current design patent application pendency is often still a lengthy period of time. Based on data released by the USPTO in July 2024 and shown below, over the previous year the average length of time from a design application filing date to the date that a first Office action was mailed was 16.7 months (Figure 1, below). In the month of July 2024, that average had crept up to 17.1 months. In the consumer product space especially, given the sometimes short shelf-life of a product, such a long examination pendency may not be suitable for a design patent applicant.Continue Reading Rocket Docket: Fast Track to Examination

As outlined in our previous post, partial design claiming in China continues to be a moving target, as variations in the interpretation of partial design claims persist among Chinese examiners. As of this writing, the Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has still not yet released formal guidelines or recommendations detailing partial claiming that is and is not acceptable after partial claiming in Chinese design patents became permitted on June 1, 2021. Still, trends have begun to emerge in some aspects of partial claim interpretation with respect to design titles, independent and complete design units, surface indicia and patterns, dividing lines, and simple geometric shapes. This post provides an update regarding the interpretation of independent and complete design units for partial design claims and offers guidance for protecting articles of varying sizes. Continue Reading The Moving Target of “Complete Design Units” in Chinese Law

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.Continue Reading R.I.P. Mr. Rosen: Federal Circuit Upends Longstanding Design Patent Obviousness Test

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