Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness – USPTO Follows Quickly with Guidance

June 3, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

By: Megan R. Mahoney, Michael P. Kahn, Daniel L. Moffett, Kayla Flanders (Law Clerk)

In a highly anticipated decision, the en banc Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents.  The challenged framework, derived from two cases, In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388 (CCPA 1982) and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100 (Fed. Cir 1996), required (1) a primary reference to be “basically the same” as the challenged design, and (2) any secondary reference to be “so related” to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application of those features to the other.  That test was deemed “improperly rigid” and was overruled in favor of KSR’s application of the more flexible Graham factors to utility patents.

The dispute arose when LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (“LKQ”) filed a petition for inter partes review of GM Global Technology LLC’s (“GM”) design patent for a vehicle’s front fender.  LKQ argued that GM’s design is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board applied the Rosen-Durling test and determined that LKQ failed to identify a reference that created “basically the same” visual impression as the patented design.  On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision and declined to overrule Rosen or Durling without a “clear directive from the Supreme Court.”

In support of its petition for en banc review, LKQ argued that the Rosen-Durling test adopts a strict rule that is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR.  LKQ further argued that the test should be replaced by the factual Graham inquiry.  GM argued that LKQ had forfeited this argument by not raising it before the Board and, even if it were not forfeited, KSR does not overrule Rosen or Durling.

The court did not find forfeiture and determined that the petition was sufficient to preserve LKQ’s argument, which was a pure question of law presenting a “question of significant impact.”  On the merits, the en banc court held that 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness conditions apply to design and utility patents alike and, on that basis, adopted the Graham approach.

Under the Graham analysis, the fact finder considers the “scope and content of the prior art” within the knowledge of an ordinary designer in the field of design.  While there is no “basically the same” requirement to qualify as prior art, an analogous art requirement applies to each reference.  The court maintained that the continued requirement of a primary reference will help prevent undue confusion while avoiding “rigid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense.”

For utility patents, a two-prong analysis is applied when considering whether a reference qualifies as analogous art.  The Federal Circuit declined to “delineate the full and precise contours” of the analogous art requirement when applied to design patents.  The court held the “same field of endeavor” first prong can be applied to design patents but left open the question as to whether the “pertinent to the particular problem” second prong applies to design patents.  The majority recommended a case-by-case approach.

The day after the en banc decision, on May 22, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum “to provide updated guidance and examination instructions, effective immediately, on evaluating obviousness in design patent applications and design patents.”  Director Vidal explained that USPTO personnel “must apply a flexible approach to obviousness similar to that applied in utility applications.”  This approach involves factual inquiries into (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the design as claimed at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations. Director Vidal provided detailed instructions concerning each factual inquiry and promised to issue further guidance, examples, and training consistent with LKQ.

Practice Tip: Upending over 40 years of precedent, this decision is expected to have a significant impact on the landscape of obtaining and enforcing design patents.  Design patent owners and challengers alike should follow post-LKQ decisions and the relevant USPTO guidance closely to understand how this more-flexible obviousness analysis will impact design patent invalidity and patentability determinations moving forward.

LKQ Corp., Keystone Auto. Indus., Inc., v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, Case No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (Stoll, J.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.