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: A patent application is legally evaluated through the lens of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but its practical success depends on a much broader audience: patent examiners, continuation counsel, foreign associates and national-phase examiners, judges, opposing counsel, juries, and licensing and business teams. This article argues that the solution is not to write different versions of the invention for different readers, but to develop one coherent

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: For inventions developed in or across the United States and China, the first patent filing decision should begin with a territorial invention-location analysis, not with inventor nationality, corporate headquarters, or preferred filing venue. The United States generally requires a foreign filing license before filing abroad for an invention made in the United States, unless a U.S. filing has been pending for at least six months without a secrecy order or an