Design Patent Post-Grant: Is Anticipation Easier to Prove Than Obviousness?

Download IconDownload Print IconPrint

Design Patent Post-Grant: Is Anticipation Easier to Prove Than Obviousness?

Publication

Related Documents

Related Solutions

A global team handling highly complex and sensitive matters in all aspects of litigation.
Providing comprehensive solutions for the acquisition, enforcement and protection of IP.
Clients trust us to protect their most important intellectual property matters.

By patenting their innovations, our clients increase the value of their intellectual property and enhance their ability to compete in the marketplace. We work with laboratory and research teams and R&D and product development groups to determine whether, when and where it is in our clients’ business and technical interests to seek patent protection. And we don’t just file patent applications. Drawing on our experience with patent litigation, corporate financings and technology transactions, we implement IP strategies that conserve resources, add measurable value and give our clients a cost-effective and commercially practical competitive edge.

We help clients obtain more than 750 US and foreign patents each year, covering innovations that span the technological spectrum, including aerospace, biochemistry, biotechnology, business methods, chemistry, computer science, fuel cells, genetics, high-speed data communication, integrated circuits, materials science, medical devices, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals, semiconductor devices and processes, and software.

We also prepare and prosecute patent applications internationally under the Patent Cooperative Treaty and by working with a network of seasoned patent lawyers around the world. Our experience extends to appeals, interferences and opposition proceedings within the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the European Patent Office.

We advise clients on the smartest, most cost-effective ways to challenge or defend issued patents.

An article by Ben Fernandez and Mark Selwyn, published by Bloomberg BNA's Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal, introduces and compares the standards for design patent anticipation and obviousness, explores the interplay between anticipation and obviousness at the PTAB, and summarizes practical takeaways from the current design patent IPR landscape.

Since the advent of AIA post-grant practice four years ago, only 26 inter partes review petitions have been filed for design patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued 23 institution decisions, instituted 10 of those petitions, and rendered final decisions in six. The Federal Circuit and the PTAB have articulated and applied different standards for design patent anticipation, the former seemingly narrower than the latter. Notably, each of the 23 petitions receiving institution decisions raised some type of obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. § 103, whereas only 12 of the 23 raised some type of anticipation ground under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Read the full article

Authors

Notice

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link.(The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.

I Accept Cancel