Design patent obviousness was a hot topic in the recent LKQ v. GM decision by the Federal Circuit. The court’s decision on May 21, 2024, brought changes to the existing Rosen-Durling test, which required the primary reference to be “basically the same” as the challenged design. Additionally, secondary references needed to be “so related” that features in one would suggest applying those features to the other. This ruling has significant implications for design patent cases moving forward.
The decision in the LKQ v. GM case marks a departure from the previous standard, signaling a shift in how design patent obviousness will be assessed. The court’s decision to overrule the Rosen-Durling test opens up new possibilities for arguing design patent obviousness in future cases.
Erin Bries, a summer associate at Jones Day’s Cleveland Office, contributed to the preparation of this blog post. Her insights and analysis have helped shed light on the implications of the LKQ v. GM decision and what it means for the future of design patent law.
It’s essential to note that the insights provided in this blog post are not intended as legal advice. They are meant for general informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to seek advice from legal professionals if they require specific guidance on their unique circumstances.
The views expressed in this blog post are personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of Jones Day as a firm. It’s crucial to consult with legal experts to understand how the changes in design patent obviousness may impact individual cases.
For more in-depth analysis and information on design patent law and recent court decisions, you can visit the PTAB Litigation Blog. Stay informed about the latest developments in patent law and how they may affect your intellectual property rights.
Remember that the content on the Jones Day website is for general informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. The transmission of information via email does not establish an attorney-client relationship. If you require legal representation or advice, it’s best to contact a qualified attorney to discuss your specific situation.
In conclusion, the LKQ v. GM decision has significant implications for design patent obviousness and how future cases will be evaluated. By staying informed and seeking guidance from legal professionals, individuals and businesses can navigate the complexities of design patent law effectively.
