{"id":7524,"date":"2026-11-12T08:11:04","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T08:11:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dexpatent.com\/insights\/?p=7524"},"modified":"2026-11-12T08:11:42","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T08:11:42","slug":"lkq-v-gm-design-patent-obviousness-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dexpatent.com\/insights\/2026\/11\/12\/lkq-v-gm-design-patent-obviousness-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Your Design Patent Survive an Obviousness Challenge? Understanding The Landmark LKQ vs. GM Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Design<\/p>\n

Can a design patent<\/a> be invalidated simply because its ornamental features can be found across multiple earlier designs? A landmark 2024 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has significantly changed how this question is answered.<\/p>\n

In the United States, design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, safeguarding the visual features that distinguish one product from another. However, obtaining such protection requires more than creating an attractive or distinctive design. The claimed design must also satisfy the statutory requirements of patentability, including novelty and non-obviousness under the U.S. Patent Act.<\/p>\n

For decades, courts applied the Rosen-Durling test<\/strong>, a relatively strict framework that made it difficult to establish obviousness by combining multiple prior-art designs. This long-standing approach changed dramatically in May 2024, when the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc<\/em>, delivered its landmark decision in LKQ Corporation v.<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong> GM Global Technology Operations LLC<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In a significant departure from established practice, the court overturned the Rosen-Durling test and adopted a more flexible, fact-based approach to assessing design patent obviousness, bringing it in line with the principles applied to utility patents under Section 103.<\/p>\n

The decision has reshaped the landscape of U.S. design patent law, potentially making existing design patents more vulnerable to obviousness challenges based on combinations of prior-art references. For design patent applicants, patent owners, competitors, aftermarket manufacturers and IP professionals, this ruling raises an important question: How distinctive must a design be to withstand an obviousness challenge?<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Background of the Dispute<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The dispute was between LKQ Corporation, a supplier of aftermarket automotive parts, and General Motors (GM), which owned a design patent for the front fender of a Chevrolet Equinox.<\/p>\n

    \"design<\/p>\n

    The patent, U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625<\/a>, protected the ornamental appearance of the vehicle’s front fender. LKQ challenged the patent, arguing that the design was obvious because similar features were already available in earlier vehicle designs.<\/p>\n

    To support its obviousness challenge, LKQ relied on two prior-art references: U.S. Design Patent No. D773,340<\/a> (Lian), which disclosed an earlier vehicle fender design, and a promotional brochure depicting the front fender of the 2010 Hyundai Tucson (Tucson). LKQ argued that the claimed design could be derived from Lian alone or by modifying Lian using features disclosed in the Tucson reference.<\/p>\n

    The main question was whether GM’s fender design would have been obvious to an ordinary designer by looking at the available earlier designs.<\/p>\n

    This dispute raised an important question in U.S. design patent law: Should a design patent be considered obvious only when an earlier design is almost identical, or can different earlier designs be combined to challenge its validity?<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      Understanding the Earlier Rosen-Durling Test<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Before the LKQ decision, U.S. courts generally applied the Rosen-Durling test to determine whether a design patent was obvious.<\/p>\n

      This framework consisted of two important requirements:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \n

        Primary reference \u2013 The Rosen requirement<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The challenger first had to identify a single prior-art reference that was \u201cbasically the same\u201d as the claimed design. In other words, the primary reference had to be substantially similar in overall visual appearance to the patented design.<\/p>\n

        If no such reference could be identified, the obviousness challenge would generally fail without proceeding to the next step.<\/p>\n

         <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. \n

          Secondary reference \u2013 The Durling requirement<\/h3>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          If a suitable primary reference was identified, the challenger could rely on secondary references to demonstrate that additional ornamental features could be incorporated into the primary design.<\/p>\n

          However, the secondary references had to be sufficiently related to the primary reference, such that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest applying those features to the other.<\/p>\n

          These requirements created a relatively restrictive framework for challenging design patents. Even when multiple earlier designs disclosed individual features resembling those of a patented design, combining them was difficult unless the challenger satisfied the strict primary-reference and secondary-reference requirements.<\/p>\n

          \"framework<\/p>\n

          Consequently, a design patent could remain valid even where its overall appearance appeared to be an obvious combination of features from previously existing designs.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. \n

            The Federal Circuit’s Landmark Decision in May 2024<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            On May 21, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc (meaning all eligible judges of the court participated), delivered its decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC.<\/p>\n

            The court concluded that the rigid requirements of the Rosen-Durling test were inconsistent with the statutory framework governing design patents and the principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.<\/p>\n

            The court specifically rejected two important requirements:<\/p>\n