In his most recent New York Law Journal article titled “The Elusive Primary Reference for Evaluating Non-Obviousness of Design Patents”, Scott. D Locke, Esq., writes: As with utility patents, the grounds for invalidating a patented design include both lack of novelty and obviousness.

The novelty analysis is often straightforward, but as a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit illustrates, determining whether a design is obvious over the prior art can be challenging.

To read the full article click here: