Judges on the Federal Circuit are expressing doubts about the decades-old Rosen-Durling test, a determining factor in establishing when a patent on an ornamental design is too obvious to be granted. This test, used for 40 years, recently came under scrutiny during a case between General Motors Co. (GM) and aftermarket parts maker, LKQ Corp.
GM, a global leader in automobile manufacturing, was defending its patent on a front fender design. LKQ Corp argues against the viability of the Rosen-Durling test, claiming that it sets an excessively high standard. According to LKQ Corp, the rigorousness of the test gives automakers an undue advantage, permitting them to secure patents and set above-market prices for parts featuring only minor, non-ground-breaking design modifications over earlier versions.
The Rosen-Durling test originates from a 1982 case, In re Rosen, and has been a key component in design patent authorization in the United States. However, the arguments made during this recent hearing did not resolve what could potentially replace the disputed test if it were to be discarded or substantially revised.
This ongoing legal dispute illustrates how longstanding patent standards may need to evolve in response to industry dynamics and technological advancements. Intellectual property laws and regulations across the globe continue to face challenges and require updates to maintain a balance between protecting genuine innovation and inhibiting monopolistic practices.
View the full details of the case in the original report.