The court held that the two-part test's requirements for assessing obviousness of design patents impose limitations absent from § 103's broad and flexible standard, inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
The decision will make design patents harder to obtain and easier to invalidate, but they will continue to be significant in protecting product design.
In place of Rosen-Durling, the court adopted the analytical framework for design patent obviousness outlined for utility patents by Graham v. John Deere Co., with distinct considerations for design patents.
The reinterpretation of the law will have immediate effect on pending and issued design patent applications, shaping the future application of design patent obviousness principles.
[
add
]
[
|
|
...
]