直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

James R. Barney

Costs, Litigation Keep AIA Reviews of Design Patents Down

March 16, 2017

Law360

Cases at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving design patents are rare. Of the more than 6,4000 petitions filed at the PTAB since 2012, only 41 have challenged a design patent. Despite the increase in the number of design patent applications over the years, and the recent high-profile Apple v. Samsung design patent case at the Supreme Court, many attorneys believe that the cost of AIA reviews has contributed to the lack of proceedings involving design patents. Law360 reached to Finnegan attorney Elizabeth D. Ferrill for her thoughts.

Ferrill said, "If there’s a lawsuit involved, then the cost of the PGR maybe makes some sense. But if there’s no lawsuit, that’s a pretty expensive proposition to take on when you also consider that typically in cases with important, marquee products, the patent owner may still have a patent pending at the patent office." She said that while the number of design patent applications has risen, cases involving design patents have remained steady over the past decade, which may also explain why there haven't been more challenges at the PTAB. "If you view IPRs as typically being tied to litigation, the fact that the [patent application] filings go up doesn’t necessarily mean that the IPRs are going to go up," she said.

Tags

America Invents Act (AIA), Apple, Inc.

Related Practices

專利局受理之無效程序

專利審理暨訴願委員會受理之無效程序: 多方複審及核准後複審

設計權利

Related Professionals

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

Related News

Commentary

East Texas Reclaims Its Patent Crown

August 21, 2026

Media Mention

Law360's Legal Lions of the Week: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

August 21, 2026

Commentary

Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial

August 21, 2026

Award/Ranking

31 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers 2027

August 20, 2026

Commentary

Why Global IP Litigants Keep Turning to English Courts

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

Federal Circuit Backs Volkswagen’s $207,500 Fees Against NPE

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

VW Wins in Patent Appeal Over Electrically Controlled Glasses

August 19, 2026

Press Release

USPTO Denies Super Lighting Reexamination Request Following PVTECH Pre-Order Submission Under New USPTO Procedure

August 19, 2026

Press Release

Federal Circuit Overrules Precedent En Banc in Finnegan Pro Bono Victory for Federally Employed Veterans

August 18, 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