USA – GEORGIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: John L. Lyon, Thomas Horstemeyer, LLP
Impacts for Georgia For practitioners prosecuting design patents on behalf of Georgia-based companies, the shift has been pal- pable. Atlanta’s emergence as a national design and innovation hub has only heightened the importance of design-centric intellectual property protection. The state’s economy is anchored by industries in which product appearance is commercially decisive, includ- ing automotive manufacturing and aftermarket parts, consumer goods and packaging, logistics-driven retail, medical devices, and a fast-growing technol- ogy sector increasingly defined by user experience and interface design. Obviousness rejections now frequently rely on multi- ple references combined under a broader rationale. Examiners are less constrained by the need to anchor their analysis to a single primary reference and more inclined to articulate reasoned combinations drawn from a wider visual field. However, despite early predictions of a dramatic decline in design patent allowance rates, empirical data to date suggests that approvals remain relatively strong. What has changed, however, is predictability. Applicants and rights-holders increasingly recognise that the real impact of LKQ may emerge not at the examination stage, but in downstream validity chal- lenges. As the law evolves, Georgia-based companies and practitioners find themselves navigating a transitional moment – one in which design patents remain power- ful assets but no longer enjoy the doctrinal insulation they once did. Unsettled expectations and retroactive risk If LKQ destabilised the future of design patent obvi- ousness, subsequent developments have cast doubt on the security of the past. Historically, courts and the Office have been reluc- tant to invalidate granted patents. Courts require that accused infringers provide “clear and convinc- ing” evidence that the USPTO erroneously granted the patent by either failing to consider particular prior art references or by incorrectly analysing the prior art references that were considered. More recently, the
USPTO has adopted a “settled expectations” doc- trine to deny the institution of post-grant proceedings where significant time has passed since the grant of the patent. This restraint has weakened in the wake of LKQ . For example, in Top Glory Trading Group Inc . v Cole Haan LLC , IPR2025-01395 (January 12, 2026), the USPTO Director instituted inter partes review pro- ceedings against a design patent issued more than a decade earlier. The decision expressly cited LKQ as a sufficient intervening change in law to justify recon- sidering whether the design patent at issue was obvi- ous in view of the prior art. The decision signalled that design patents examined and granted under the Rosen–Durling framework may now be vulnerable to renewed challenge. For Georgia companies with mature design portfo- lios – particularly in automotive, consumer goods, and manufacturing sectors – the implications are sig- nificant. Portfolio age is no longer a reliable proxy for safety. Older design patents may now face validity challenges based on expanded prior art combinations that previously would have been impermissible. This prospect has prompted many rights-holders to reassess portfolio strength proactively. For example, design patent owners may review their most impor- tant design patents to identify potential vulnerabilities before they are tested in litigation or administrative proceedings. Litigation implications in Georgia Notably, LKQ did not alter the infringement analysis for design patents. Courts continue to apply the ordinary observer test, asking whether an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art would find the accused design substantially the same as the patented design. Validity, however, has become the focal point of design patent disputes. Accused infringers now face a lower bar to show that an issued design patent is invalid due to obviousness. This lower bar makes it easier for an accused infringer to invalidate an asserted design patent. In industries where product design evolves incrementally through successive generations, prior product iterations or issued design patents may serve
407 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook