Design Patent Obviousness, One Year After LKQ

innovation and industry, and today we’re diving into the evolving world of design patent law—specifically, what’s happened in the year since the Federal Circuit’s landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech Operations.

One year ago, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made waves by overturning the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness. In its place? A more flexible standard aligned with the utility patent framework. This was the court’s first en banc patent decision in six years—and it signaled a major shift.

Read the full article: Design Patent Obviousness, One Year Later

About the author

Jace D. Williams

Transcript

Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.

With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.

Welcome back to Womble Perspectives, where we break down the legal shifts shaping innovation and industry, and today we’re diving into the evolving world of design patent law—specifically, what’s happened in the year since the Federal Circuit’s landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech Operations.

One year ago, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made waves by overturning the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness. In its place? A more flexible standard aligned with the utility patent framework. This was the court’s first en banc patent decision in six years—and it signaled a major shift.

But has the legal landscape changed dramatically since then?

Let’s take a look at what’s happened in Year One.

Despite early predictions of a surge in post-grant challenges, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—or PTAB—hasn’t granted a single post-grant proceeding under the new standard. All three petitions filed since LKQ have been denied. Why? In each case, the challengers failed to show a clear motivation to combine earlier designs, and their arguments leaned too heavily on hindsight.

Meanwhile, district courts have also been cautious. No design patents have been invalidated for obviousness in the past year. In fact, courts in Indiana and Illinois have upheld design patents, finding that defendants didn’t meet the burden of proof—even under the new standard.

So, what does this tell us?

It suggests that change is coming—but slowly. Courts and the PTAB are still feeling out the boundaries of this new framework. Many of the big questions left open by the LKQ decision—like what counts as “analogous art” or how to define a motivation to combine—haven’t been fully addressed yet.

And let’s not forget: design patent cases are relatively rare compared to utility patents. That means it could take years before we see a robust body of case law that truly tests and defines this new standard.

So, while the LKQ decision was a seismic moment in design patent law, its aftershocks are still building. We’ll be watching closely as courts continue to interpret and apply this new standard.

Thanks for tuning in to Womble Perspectives. If you found this episode helpful, be sure to subscribe and share it with a colleague.

Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.

Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.