直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

‘Designed’ to Scale? Design Application Pendency Down Despite Increased Filings

May 13, 2016

Authored and Edited by Justin N Mullen; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

On May 5, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Patent Public Advisory Committee held their quarterly meeting at the USPTO’s Alexandria headquarters. Of a number of topics, the meeting included a patent operations update. Particularly, their slides (reproduced below) highlighted a few trends in design patent application filings.

5.13.16 Post Image  

At the halfway mark in the USPTO’s fiscal year, almost 20,000 design applications have been filed for 2016. Moreover, as shown in the chart, the Office forecasts that the total number of design application filed this year will exceed 40,000 applications for the first time. For comparison, the year-over-year increase in design application filings amounted to 3.4% and 1.8% in 2014 and 2015, respectively. A total of 40,000 filings would surge to an 8.4% increase for 2016.

5.13.16 Post Image_2

As one could likely foresee, such a surge has caused a parallel uptick in the USPTO’s unexamined design application inventory, as shown below. While inventory appeared to flat-line throughout FY2015, the first quarter of 2016 has brought the unexamined application inventory to a high mark, crossing the 40,000 application line for the first time in recent history.

5.13.16 Post Image_3

However, despite the potential record number of filings and increased inventory, both first action pendency and total pendency for design applications has decreased slightly in FY2016 Quarter 2 to 13.7 months and 19.9 months, respectively. While still historically high for design application, this pendency is well below average pendency for non-design applications (i.e., utility, reissue, and plant applications), which was 26.6 months in FY 2015.

As we reported back in March, this pendency for design applications remains historically high, despite the large increases in the workforce at TC2900, the technology center that examines design patent applications.  But this dip in pendency in Q2 suggests that perhaps the pendency will trend downward as the new examiners finish their training and come up to speed. The new examiners are quite welcome given the potential record number of application filings this year.

As with other events, the USPTO has provided the presentation materials to the public, selections from which were incorporated into this post.

Tags

patentability

Related Practices

Prosecution and Portfolio Management

Design Rights

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Prosecution First Blog

USPTO Tightens “Unintentional Delay” Petitions — 1-Year Time Period Now Triggers Heightened Scrutiny

June 23, 2026

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP