Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 21, 2024, Federal Circuit sitting en banc issued an opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Petitioner LKQ appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) final written decision in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding that found a design patent claim: 1) not anticipated under the ordinary observer test; and 2) not obvious under the long-standing Rosen-Durling test. Because the Rosen-Durling test is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Circuit overruled In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982) and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and adopted the same framework established for utility patents, including the application of the factors enumerated in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966),and the flexible analysis under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's finding of no anticipation, and consistent with the change in the applicable framework, vacated the Board's non-obviousness determination and remanded for further proceedings.
LKQ challenged GM's design patent covering a vehicle's front fender in an IPR proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103. Slip Op. at 5. The Board found that the challenged claim not anticipated under the ordinary observer test. Id. at 6-7. The Board further found that the challenged claim not obvious under the long-standing Rosen-Durling test because the prior art reference failed to meet the threshold Rosen requirement. Id. at 7-8. On appeal, a Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Board's decisions. Id. at 8. The Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc. Id. at 10.
The en banc court (court) first addressed whether the two-part Rosen-Durling test for evaluating obviousness of design patents is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and found that it is. Id. at 15. The court first examined the Rosen requirement, i.e., the primary reference be "basically the same" as the challenged design claim, and found it "improperly rigid." Id. at 15-17. The court noted that the Supreme Court, in its 1893 Whitman Saddle opinion, held that combining the front half of a first prior art saddle design and the back half of another prior art saddle design was not inventive even though neither prior art design would have met the rigid Rosen requirement. Id. The court also concluded that the rigid Rosen requirement is "inconsistent with the Supreme Court's general guidance in KSR," which "emphasized … an expansive and flexible approach." Id. at 17. The court then examined the Durling requirement, i.e., a secondary reference cannot be relied on to supply ornamental features missing in the primary reference unless the secondary reference is "so related to the primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other" and found it improperly rigid. Id. The court noted that the Durling requirement finds no support in 35 U.S.C. §103, which requires consideration of the differences between the claim and the prior art and an inquiry into whether those differences would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. Id. at 17-18. The court also found Durling's inflexible approach to be: 1) analogous to the rigid application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation test rejected by the Supreme Court in KSR; and 2) inconsistent with Whitman Saddle, in which the Supreme Court did not ask whether the prior art references were "so related" and also grounded its decision on the "knowledge and practice" of a skilled artisan. Id. at 18-19. Because of these inconsistencies with Supreme Court precedent, the court overruled Rosen and Durling. Id. at 19.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
To gauge the level of risk and uncover potential gaps, compliance and privacy leaders should collaborate to consider how often they are monitoring third parties, what intelligence they are gathering with and about their partners and vendors, and whether their risk management practices have been diminished due to cost and resource constraints.