New design patent decision from NDIL in Illinois Toolworks v. Termax: https://www.scribd.com/document/661271150/Illinois-Tool-Works-v-Termax-Complaint#

I haven't read this whole decision yet but since I've got § 103 on the brain...

This reference is definitely not (as the accused infringer argued here) anticipatory.

But is it (or should it be) a proper primary reference for the purposes of § 103?

I suspect that, under current law, the Federal Circuit would say "no."

But I think the answer should be "yes."

#DesignPatents #Rosen #LKQ

Illinois Tool Works v. Termax - Complaint | PDF | Ashcroft V. Iqbal | Prior Art

Illinois Tool Works v. Termax - Complaint

Scribd
Not to say that the claimed design is definitely rendered obvious by this reference. Just that this is a case where we should have gotten to Durling step two.