the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.


Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

Get to know our


Get to know our History

Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

A few of our


A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.




From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +

Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +


Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.

Design Patent Litigations Chart Their Own Course

  • July 28, 2015
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Practices

Associated Technologies

Design patent litigations have frequently been in the news the past few years, particularly since Apple and Samsung began battling against each other in the Northern District of California. With the America Invents Act (AIA) also affecting the number of utility patent cases that have been filed, we wondered whether the number of design patent litigations has increased or decreased over the past few years. While the statistics we reviewed indicate no clear trend, we suggest three conclusions that might be drawn from the statistics.

The following statistics were compiled using the DocketNavigator™ analytics tool as of July 14, 2015. The district court cases were identified by searching for complaints or counterclaims of infringement or declaratory judgment, and limited to either design patents, or to all utility patent cases (i.e., excluding plant and design patents).
Design Litigation Image 1
Design Litigation Image 2
These statistics suggest three conclusions. First, perhaps surprisingly, theApple v. Samsung litigations do not appear to have significantly increased the number of design patent litigations over time. In fact, the highest number of design patent litigation suits filed came in 2010, the year before the AIA was signed into law and Apple first filed suit against Samsung in the Northern District of California.

Second, the AIA did not result in a spike in design patent litigations. While the number of design patent cases appears to have declined somewhat in recent years, the number is estimated to be higher at the end of 2015 as compared to 2012 to 2014. Unlike utility patent cases, however, there was no increase in design patent cases following implementation of the AIA. We speculate that this is because nonpracticing entities (NPEs, often referred to as patent trolls) rarely assert design patents. For utility patent infringement litigation, the AIA requirement that plaintiffs file separate suits for separate defendants apparently contributed to a sharp increase in the number of utility patent suits in 2012 and 2013.

Third, it is also not clear that the dramatic rise in the use of IPRs to challenge patents has had any effect on the number of design patent litigations. While the number of inter partes reviews (IPRs) involving design patents has increased from 1 in 2012 to 12 (including 1 post grant review (PGR)) in 2014 with 8 so far in 2015, the number of design patents involved in IPRs is still so low that it seems unlikely to have influenced design patent litigation statistics.

Whether design patent litigations will increase or decrease in the future remains to be seen. For example, if Congress or the courts were to change the law that currently allows a design patent owner to collect total infringer’s profits for an accused article rather than apportioning damages to account for the relative contribution of the design as compared to other features in the article, design patent litigation might be less attractive. On the other hand, product design is an increasingly important differentiator in a number of crowded markets, and the number of design patent litigations could very well increase. Either way, it appears that design patent litigations will continue on a trajectory that is somewhat independent of utility patent litigation filings.