[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-663341-105":59,"doc-detail-663341-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","how-design-patent-law-lost-its-shape-background-1","HOW DESIGN PATENT LAW LOST ITS SHAPE - Background - 1","","Examines how U.S. design patent law shifted after In re Zahn (1980), focusing on the “any new, original and ornamental design” framework and the USPTO’s broad allowance of claiming separate visual characteristics embodied in articles of manufacture. Surveys key doctrinal terms such as “ornamental,” “article of manufacture,” and “design,” then analyzes how Zahn affects infringement, claim construction, prosecution strategy, and remedies, including “total profits.” Concludes by evaluating the shaky legal foundations of Zahn through statutory text, precedent dicta, and historical practice.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/how-design-patent-law-lost-its-shape-background-1/663341/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/how-design-patent-law-lost-its-shape-background-1/663341.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Valentina","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the core shift associated with In re Zahn (1980) in U.S. design patent law?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The article frames Zahn as the foundation for a more expansive regime that allows applicants to claim visual characteristics as separate “designs,” moving the practice toward an “anything goes” approach.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does the article explain key terms in design patentable subject matter?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It outlines doctrinal distinctions among “ornamental,” “article of manufacture,” and “design,” treating these concepts as central to what can be claimed and protected under design patent law.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does Zahn affect remedies, specifically “total profits”?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The article includes a focused section on “Design Patent 'Total Profits' Under Zahn,” addressing how “total profits” is applied to fragments and raising issues described via “semantic gymnastics.”","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},663341,1793226804,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},13056703020460,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253dac470eee5d?_k=1778207105932848923","HOW DESIGN PATENT LAW LOST ITS SHAPE  \nSarah Burstein†  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nI. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................559  \nA. Sources of Design Patent Law .....................................................................559  \nB. Design Patentable Subject Matter ..............................................................561  \n1. “Ornamental”...................................................................................561  \n2. “Article of Manufacture”................................................................562  \n3. “Design”............................................................................................562  \nC. Design Patent Infringement........................................................................563  \nD. Design Patent Claiming...............................................................................565  \nII. ARTICLES & PORTIONS THEREOF ............................................................................565  \nIII. IN RE ZAHN (1980)....................................................................................................571  \nA. The Precedents..............................................................................................571  \n1. Ex parte Northup (Pat. Off. Bd. App. 1932) .................................571  \n2. In re Blum (C.C.P.A. 1967).............................................................573  \nB. The Proceedings at the USPTO ..................................................................576  \n1. The Application ...............................................................................576  \n† Professor of Law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. The author thanks Mark McKenna, Joshua Landau, Mark Lemley, Yvette Joy Liebesman, Alexandra J. Roberts, Pam Samuelson, Paul Heald, Genevieve Tokic, and Charlotte Tschider for comments on earlier drafts of this project. Earlier drafts ofthis Article were presented at the Eighteenth Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at UC Berkeley, the Chicagoland Junior Scholars WIP Conference, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, UNC School of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, and the Winter 2019 Junior Intellectual Property Scholars (JISPA) Workshop; the author also thanks the participants in those conferences and workshops for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, thanks to Lisa Bowles, Darla Jackson, and Leslee Roybal for additional research assistance and support.  \n556 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:555  \n2. The Board Appeal............................................................................581  \nIV. DESIGN PATENT LAW IN A ZAHN WORLD ..............................................................596  \nA. Design Patent Infringement & Validity Under Zahn ..............................596  \nB. Design Patent Prosecution Under Zahn ....................................................601  \nC. Design Patent “Total Profits” Under Zahn ...............................................608  \n1. “Total Profits” for Fragments.........................................................609  \n2. Semantic Gymnastics ......................................................................614  \nV. THE SHAKY LOGICAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF ZAHN.................................615  \nA. Statutory Text...............................................................................................616  \nB. The Dicta from Blum...................................................................................621  \nC. Historical Practice........................................................................................623  \n1. Northup Copending Application...................................................623  \n2. Gorham v. White..............................................................................628  \nCONCLUSION....................................................................................................","cbCaijy3gvzEoKqB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijy3gvzEoKqB","pdf",936895,85,"English","# Background\n## Sources of Design Patent Law\n## Design Patentable Subject Matter\n## Design Patent Infringement\n## Design Patent Claiming\n# Articles & Portions Thereof\n# In re Zahn (1980)\n## The Precedents\n## The Proceedings at the USPTO\n# Design Patent Law in a Zahn World\n## Design Patent Infringement & Validity Under Zahn\n## Design Patent Prosecution Under Zahn\n## Design Patent “Total Profits” Under Zahn\n# The Shaky Logical and Legal Foundations of Zahn\n## Statutory Text\n## The Dicta from Blum\n## Historical Practice\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What is the core shift associated with In re Zahn (1980) in U.S. design patent law?\",\"answer\":\"The article frames Zahn as the foundation for a more expansive regime that allows applicants to claim visual characteristics as separate “designs,” moving the practice toward an “anything goes” approach.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the article explain key terms in design patentable subject matter?\",\"answer\":\"It outlines doctrinal distinctions among “ornamental,” “article of manufacture,” and “design,” treating these concepts as central to what can be claimed and protected under design patent law.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Zahn affect remedies, specifically “total profits”?\",\"answer\":\"The article includes a focused section on “Design Patent 'Total Profits' Under Zahn,” addressing how “total profits” is applied to fragments and raising issues described via “semantic gymnastics.”\"}]","HOW DESIGN PATENT LAW LOST ITS SHAPE - Background - 1 | PDF",214]