Executive Summary: This article compares U.S. design-patent law after LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC with the European Union’s unitary design regime, highlighting the different perspectives of the U.S. “ordinary designer” and the EU “informed user.” Although LKQ replaced the rigid Rosen-Durling obviousness test with a more flexible framework, recent decisions—including Dynamite Marketing and Range of Motion—show that challengers must still identify an actual

Executive Summary: U.S. continuation practice is a uniquely powerful portfolio-management tool because it allows applicants to keep a patent family pending and pursue additional same-disclosure claim sets as markets, competitors, prior art, licensing needs, and litigation positions evolve. By contrast, Europe, China, Korea, and Japan offer important but more constrained follow-on mechanisms—principally divisionals, Korea’s narrower split/separate application procedure, and po

Executive Summary: This article compares how the USPTO and EPO treat “secret prior art”—earlier-filed patent applications that were not public when a later application was filed but later acquire prior-art effect after publication. In the United States, AIA § 102(a)(2) treats qualifying U.S. patent documents, including certain PCT publications designating the United States, as prior art as of their effective filing dates if they name another inventor; such references may be u

Executive Summary: Examiner interviews are a valuable prosecution tool, but their strategic significance varies sharply by jurisdiction. The central question is not simply whether an examiner will communicate with the applicant, but whether that communication carries procedural consequence, decisional authority, file-history effect, or merely informs the next formal filing. At the USPTO, interviews are routine and often powerful, but they must be recorded and may create prose

Executive Summary: This article compares U.S. analogous-art doctrine with the EPO problem-solution approach through Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., where the Federal Circuit rejected an obviousness challenge because the petitioner linked a cross-field automotive reference to another prior-art reference rather than to the claimed drug-delivery invention. Under U.S. law, each relied-upon reference must be in the same field of endeavor as the claim