35 U.S.C. · Part II · Chapter 16, Designs

35 U.S.C. 171: Patents for designs

In plain English

Section 171 allows a patent for any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. It protects how something looks, not how it works. A design that is dictated by function is not ornamental. The article can be a whole product, a part of one, or a graphical user interface shown on a display screen.

Under section 171(b) the rest of Title 35 applies to designs unless something else is provided. The main differences are these: the filing date is the date the specification and any required drawings are filed (section 171(c)), so the drawings are needed on day one; there is a single claim, to the ornamental design as shown; priority is 6 months instead of 12 (section 172) and cannot be based on a provisional; design applications are not published before grant; the term is 15 years from grant (section 173); and there are no maintenance fees.

Design patent infringement uses the ordinary observer test: whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art designs, would be deceived into thinking the accused design is the same as the patented design. Section 289 adds a design-specific remedy: the infringer's total profit on the article of manufacture to which the design was applied.

Annotation by Raj Sutariya, Co-founder, PatentAssist.ai. General information, not legal advice; the statute below governs.

Text of 35 U.S.C. 171

Current text, quoted from the official United States Code.

(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.

Key cases

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). The ordinary observer test, applied in light of the prior art, is the sole test for design patent infringement. The separate “point of novelty” test was abandoned.
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016). The “article of manufacture” for total-profit damages under section 289 can be a component of a multicomponent product, not only the end product sold to consumers.
LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc). Overruled the rigid Rosen-Durling test for design obviousness. Obviousness of a design is judged under the flexible Graham and KSR framework, adapted to designs.

Practical notes

The drawings are the claim. Solid lines define what is claimed; broken lines show environment or unclaimed parts. Claiming only the distinctive portion of a product in solid lines, with the rest in broken lines, often gives broader and more useful protection than claiming the whole article.

Because drawings fix the filing date and later drawings cannot add new matter, file a full set of views at the start (37 CFR 1.152). Inconsistencies between views are a common reason for rejections under section 112.

Design and utility patents can protect the same product from different angles. A design application is a fast, low-cost complement to a utility filing for consumer products, and it is the US route for protecting graphical user interfaces as designs.

Related rules and guidance

37 CFR: § 1.151, § 1.152, § 1.153, § 1.154, § 1.84
MPEP: 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504