Skip to Content

Design & Utility Patents

Patent lawyers obtain two different kinds of patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: utility patents and design patents.  Utility patents and design patents differ in various important ways.  Utility patents are what most people think of as patents. They protect an invention: “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”  35 U.S.C. § 101.  By contrast, design patents cover “any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.”  35 U.S.C. § 171.  That is, a design patent covers how something looks.  You can tell the difference between the two types by their numbering system.  Design patent numbers start with a “D,” while utility patent numbers do not.  Unlike utility patents, which have multiple “claims” that define the patent’s scope, each design patent has a single claim, which claims the design shown in solid lines of the accompanying drawing.  Design patents are often used in conjunction with other types of intellectual property, such as trade dress and copyright, to protect goods.  Design patents are an important part of making sure that a product stays distinct in the marketplace. 

The patent lawyers at Glancy Prongay & Murray can litigate both design and utility patents. Please contact Jonathan Rotter for more information.

Court Recognition

“And without question, the Court is of the opinion that the value of benefit that’s been conferred to the class is extremely sizable and that this Court is certainly aware that the skill and efficiency of plaintiff’s counsel is what attributed to this settlement, and they are learned securities counsel. The Court is mindful of that, and as a result they were able to sort of weed their way through the complex issues in this case, and also to bring this about — bring about a settlement rather in short order as these matters go. So the Court certainly attributes that to counsel’s skill and efficiency, as well as the ability to work with the adversaries in this matter.”

–Hon. Susan D. Wigention, U.S. District Judge, District of New Jersey

“Class Counsel has conducted the litigation and achieved the Settlement in good faith and with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy”

— Hon. Donovan W. Frank, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

“The court finds that the Settlement Fund… created by Class Counsel is an exceptional result… The settlement is significantly above the average securities class action settlement when measured as a percentage of losses recovered… The court finds that Class Counsel, particularly Co-Lead Counsel, exerted tremendous effort on behalf of the class in the prosecution of this action… The Court finds that Class Counsel skillfully prosecuted this action, particularly given that this case was unusually complex relative to most securities fraud class actions. ”

–Hon. Dickran M. Tevrizian (Ret.), U.S. District Court Judge, Central District of California

More Testimonials