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

Five Things About Design Patent IPRs that You Probably Don’t Know

September 30, 2013

Authored and Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Michele C. Bosch

5-Things-About-Patent-IPRs

1. They are few and far between. Only five petitions for design patent IPRs have been filed (out of over 500 petitions). And only one of those petitions has been granted (out of over 140). So, the design patent IPRs currently represent just under 1% of these petitions and less than 1% of the granted petitions.

2. The world of printed publications is surprisingly vast. While IPRs are limited to challenges based on printed publications and patents, a prior art reference for a design patent needs to only sufficiently show a similar design. No description of the underlying product is required. So, helpful prior art references may include product advertising images, catalogs, and even screenshots of promotional videos.

3. If history holds true, design patent IPRs will be fairly successful. As compared to their utility patent cousins, design patent reexaminations have a considerably higher cancelation rate. From January 1999 to present, of those requests for reexamination of design patents that were granted by the USPTO, approximately 47% were cancelled. So it follows that design patent IPR petitioners will likely enjoy a similar 50-50 win rate.

4. Even a lost IPR may have a silver lining for the accused infringer. Many design patents issue without an office action, leading to a sparse prosecution history that offers little help to an accused infringer during litigation. But during an IPR, the PTAB or the patent owner may make comments about the scope of the claimed design. Moreover, the patent owner may be forced to amend the figures of its design patent, narrowing the scope of the claimed design. Either event may help the accused infringer avoid infringement when the case returns back to the district court or ITC.

5. Design patent PGRs may be even more attractive. Design patent claims are most often rejected for lack of clarity or indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Unlike IPRs, PGRs allow petitioners to directly challenge a claim on § 112 grounds. Because of the relatively short prosecution period for a design patent, more than 25 design patents have already issued that could be the subject of PGRs (because they were filed after March 16, 2013). These patents include designs for athletic shoes, a fountain, and turbine rotors. Given the additional flexibility of PGRs, it seems likely that PGRs will be even more attractive to petitioners, provided the request is made before the nine-month deadline passes.

Related Practices

Design Rights

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email
Michele C. Bosch
Partner
Washington, DC
(202) 408-4193
Email

Copyright © 2013 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. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

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