U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART II— PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS › Chapter CHAPTER 16— DESIGNS

35 U.S.C. § 171

Patents for designs

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)In General.—Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.(b)Applicability of This Title.—The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.(c)Filing Date.—The filing date of an application for patent for design shall be the date on which the specification as prescribed by section 112 and any required drawings are filed.(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 805; Pub. L. 112–211, title II, § 202(a), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1535.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 73 (R.S. 4929, amended (1) May 9, 1902, ch. 783, 32 Stat. 193, (2) Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 450, § 1, 53 Stat. 1212; R.S. 4933).

The list of conditions specified in the corresponding section of existing statute is omitted as unnecessary in view of the general inclusion of all conditions applying to other patents. Language is changed.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–211 designated first and second pars. as subsecs. (a) and (b), respectively, inserted headings, and added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–211 effective on the date that is 1 year after Dec. 18, 2012, applicable to patents issued before, on, or after that effective date and patent applications pending on or filed after that effective date, and not effective with respect to patents in litigation commenced before that effective date, see section 203 of Pub. L. 112–211, set out as an Effective Date note under section 27 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 263 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1934–2026 · leading case: Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017). · cites it 2× “35 U.S.C. §§ 171 , 173 ; see also McKenna & Strandburg, Progress and Competition in Design, 17 Stan.”
Auto. Body Parts Ass'n v. Ford Global Tech., LLC, 930 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “" 35 U.S.C. § 171 (a). While established law bars design patents on primarily functional designs for lack of ornamentality, utility patents must be functional to be patentable.”
Samsung Elec. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016). · cites it 2× “" 35 U.S.C. § 171 (a). A patentable design "gives a peculiar or distinctive appearance to the manufacture, or article to which it may be applied, or to which it gives form.”
L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Co. & Melville Corp. & Pagoda Trading Co., Inc., 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “I THE DESIGN PATENT 35 U.S.C. § 171 provides that a patent may be obtained for the ornamental design of an article of manufacture.”
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “1993); 35 U.S.C. § 171 . Thus,’ Covi-dien has the burden to prove invalidity of the Design Patents by clear and convincing evidence.”
Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “(noting that “[t]he claim in a design patent must be directed to the design for an article” under 35 U.S.C. § 171 ). Curver adopted the examiner’s suggestion, replac- ing the original title with “Pattern for a Chair” and replac- ing “furniture part” with “pattern for a chair” in…”
In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980). · cites it 7× “This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 171 and entering a new rejection under 35 U.”
Kohler Co. v. Moen Inc., F/k/a Stanadyne, Inc., 12 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “Rogers: provided that a defense of functionality is recognized, there is no conflict with federal patent law, save possibly with 35 U.S.C. § 171 , which allows a 14-year patent to be granted for a nonfunctional ornamental design — a design patent.”
Best Lock Corp. v. Ilco Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “DISCUSSION Under 35 U.S.C. § 171 , a design patent may be granted for a “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.”
Cont'l Plastic Containers v. Owens Brockway Plastic Prods., Inc., 141 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “See 35 U.S.C. § 171 (1994). We conclude that it was irrelevant to triggering the “on-sale” bar that Continental had not yet manufactured a “functionally acceptable container.”
I.P. Lund Trading ApS v. Kohler Co., 163 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “§§ 101 , 154 (20-year utility patent); 35 U.S.C. §§ 171 , 173 (14-year design patent); 17 U.”
Sidewinder Marine, Inc. v. Starbuck Kustom Boats & Prods., Inc., 597 F.2d 201 (10th Cir. 1979). · cites it 5× “The court pointed out that 35 U.S.C. § 171 applies all the requirements of Title 35 for patentability to design patents, absent explicit exception therefrom.”
Show all 263 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.