In a pending legal matter before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a vital question about patent law is being presented: Should obviousness tests for design and utility patents be one and the same? This query is pertinent in the LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations case.
Legal professionals and parties involved in litigation are hearkening back to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from 2007 in the case of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. This case, hailed for its impact on utility patents, brings forth the argument that the principles regarding patent obviousness set through this ruling should equally apply to design patents.
The foundation of this viewpoint rests on the fact that both utility and design patents are restricted by the same prohibition against obviousness. Therefore, the belief is that they should indeed be subjected to the same obviousness test. This sentiment is shared by professionals Alexander Chen and Katja Grosch at InHouse Co. Law Firm.
Revisiting these high-stakes, historic court decisions — including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 judgement and the 1982 and 1996 rulings from the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Federal Circuit — provides a fresh perspective on how patent law should be interpreted and applied today.
As discussions continue and precedents are reviewed, this case unfolds further nuances integral to patent law, with far-reaching implications for corporations, inventors, and legal professionals alike.
For more in-depth coverage of this case, click here.