Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Overrules 'Improperly Rigid' Obviousness Test
In an eagerly anticipated en banc decision involving the proper standard for assessing when a claimed design is obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the Rosen-Durling test that courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have been applying for nearly 30 years, calling the test "improperly rigid" and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. LKQ v. GM Global Tech Operations, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Rejecting concerns that the decision would lead to uncertainty, the court found that design patent obviousness should be assessed under the same flexible approach used in the utility patent context. Because a claimed design must be nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 for a design patent to issue, some believe that replacing the Rosen-Durling test with a more liberal standard will make it more difficult to obtain design patents and defend them against invalidity attacks in litigation. But whether the "new" standard will prove significantly less stringent in practice is just one of many open questions that practitioners and companies with design patent portfolios may have moving forward.
The 'LKQ' Decision
The LKQ decision followed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the validity of a design patent, in which a panel of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) found the petitioner had not carried its burden of demonstrating that the claimed design for a vehicle's fender was obvious under the Rosen-Durling test. Under part one of that test, there must be a primary prior art reference (or Rosen reference) having design characteristics that are "basically the same as the claimed design." Durling v. Spectrum Furniture, 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996). If no Rosen reference is found, the inquiry ends, and the claimed design satisfies the non-obviousness requirement. If a Rosen reference exists, its design may be modified based upon design features of one or more secondary references to arrive at (and render obvious) the claimed design, but only if the secondary references are "so related [to the Rosen reference] that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other." Id.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?