Design Patent Obviousness Analysis: The Path Forward Following LKQ v. GM

  • Registration Closed

On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc issued its opinion in LKQ v. GM, striking down the forty-plus year-old Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness, and announcing a new framework based on Graham v. John Deere.  This webinar will explore where stakeholders go from here. The discussion will include a comparison of how the Graham analysis has affected utility patent determinations of obviousness, and what this could mean for design patent applications during prosecution. Panelists will also consider how the new framework may affect design patent litigation, including claim construction, discovery, summary judgment, and trial. Finally, speakers will consider whether a new system for protecting designs could offer an alternative to the uncertainties created by the LKQ decision.

Elizabeth Ferrill

Partner

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Beth Ferrill is a partner in Finnegan’s Washington DC officeShe counsels clients who hold design patents as well as those accused of infringement. Her practice includes prosecution of families of design patents before the USPTO, directing prosecution in foreign countries, arguing appeals before the PTAB, and taking design patent infringement cases through trial in district courtBeth is the recipient of Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)’s Carl B. Horton Distinguished Service Award and has been recognized by Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000 as a leader in patent litigation and transactions in the D.C. area, and nationally for design patents. She is the Editor-in-Chief of Comparative Global Design Law, published by Bloomberg law, leads Finnegan’s veterans pro bono program, and serves as co-chair of Finnegan’s litigation section. 

Brendan O'Dea

Partner

Womble Bond Dickinson

Brendan O'Dea is a partner at Womble Bond Dickinson with a patent practice focused in the mechanical and electromechanical arts, as well as in industrial designs.  In guiding his clients from their initial concepts to concrete strategies for managing their intellectual property portfolios, Brendan practices at all stages before the U.S. Patent Office, provides legal opinions on patent validity and non-infringement, and advises with regard to commercialization and licensing.  Outside of his work with clients, Brendan teaches a course on patent prosecution in the engineering department at Georgia Tech.  Brendan received his B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from Lafayette College and his J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School. 

Perry J. Saidman

Of Counsel

Saidman DesignLaw Group, LLC

Perry Saidman is a recognized pioneer in design law. He has more than 40 years of experience providing design protection and enforcement strategiesHis expertise in design patent prosecution issues facilitates resolution of difficult or unusual cases when it comes to enforcement. As a prolific author and speaker, and in his private practice, Perry takes on many seemingly intractable design law issues of the day, including functionality, anticipation, obviousness, infringement and damages. He is very active in bar associations, including the Design Rights Committee of the IPO and AIPLA’s Industrial Designs Committee which he founded in 1989. He has taught Design Law as an adjunct professor at G.W. Law School, and testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the auto replacement parts bill. His most recent papers involve the hot button issues of design patent anticipation, the written description requirement under sec. 112, functionality, and determining the article of manufacture under  35  U.S.C.  289.  He also  authors  a  blog  at designlawperspectives.com covering recent design law cases and happenings.

Key:

Complete
Failed
Available
Locked
Design Patent Obviousness Analysis: The Path Forward Following LKQ v. GM
06/20/2024 at 1:00 PM (EDT)  |  60 minutes
06/20/2024 at 1:00 PM (EDT)  |  60 minutes
Evaluation Survey
11 Questions
CLE Credit
4 Questions
4 Questions CLE credit will be available for registered attendees only. If you would like CLE credit for this webinar, please complete the following questions. IPO will apply for CLE for all live programs in the majority of the states that require CLE. IPO will not be applying for CLE in the states of Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia, or Texas (attorneys in TX may submit up to 3 hours of self-study credit). Once IPO has received approval from the state(s) CLE boards , certificate(s) of attendance will be available for download from your dashboard.
IL Certificate of Attendance
Up to 1.00 CLE credits available  |  Certificate available
Up to 1.00 CLE credits available  |  Certificate available Illinois has approved this course for 1 hour of CLE credit. Only registered attendees that viewed the course are eligible to claim credit. To claim credit, select "Claim Credit" then "View/Print Certificate" for your records.
NJ Certificate of Attendance
Up to 1.20 CLE credits available  |  Certificate available
Up to 1.20 CLE credits available  |  Certificate available New Jersey has approved this webinar for 1.2 hours of CLE credit. Only registered attendees that viewed the program are eligible to claim credit. To claim your credit, select "Claim Credits" and then "View/Print your certificate" for your records.
Design Patent Obviousness Analysis: The Path Forward Following LKQ v. GM (RECORDING)
Open to view video.  |  60 minutes
Open to view video.  |  60 minutes