Picture a stainless-steel water bottle. The double-walled vacuum insulation that keeps your coffee hot is one kind of patent; the sculpted silhouette that makes the bottle recognizable on a shelf is a completely different kind. A utility patent protects how an invention works; a design patent protects how an article looks. Conflating them is one of the most common and costly mistakes in IP. This checklist helps you decide which to file—utility, design, or both. For the full head-to-head, pair it with design patents v. utility patents: key differences and, for pursuing both, the intersection of design and utility patents.

Phase 1 — Diagnose where the value lives

  • Ask: is the innovation in how it works (a new mechanism, process, chemistry, or technical method) or how it looks (a shape, configuration, GUI, or ornamental pattern)?
  • Ask what customers actually pay for—function or appearance—and whether a competitor could design around your looks in an afternoon while struggling to design around your function.
  • Identify whether the product has value in both (common for serious consumer products), pointing toward filing both.
  • Confirm any ornamental feature is primarily ornamental, not dictated by function—features that exist only because the function demands them are not protectable by design patent.

Why the diagnosis matters. The two instruments protect opposite attributes, so picking wrong leaves the actual value unprotected. A utility patent is useless against a competitor who copies your look but redesigns the mechanism; a design patent is useless against one who copies your function but changes the shape. Many products carry value in both, and the most common mistake among founders is filing only the cheaper design patent on a product whose real edge is functional—locking up the silhouette while a rival sells the same mechanism in a different housing. Run the diagnosis feature by feature, not product by product: a single product can have several functional innovations and several ornamental ones, each pointing at a different filing.

Phase 2 — Match the instrument to the goal

  • Utility patent (35 U.S.C. § 101): file when the value is functional and that function is what customers pay for. It is the only patent that stops a competitor from copying the function.
  • Design patent (35 U.S.C. § 171): file when the value is the distinctive appearance. The design must be embodied in an article of manufacture—you patent "the ornamental design for a shoe," not "a swoosh" in the abstract (MPEP §§ 1502, 1504.01).
  • Both: file when both have value—the standard play for sophisticated consumer-product companies. They do not compete; they layer.

Phase 3 — Weigh term, cost, and speed

  • Term: utility runs 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing date (§ 154(a)(2)), with maintenance fees at ~3.5/7.5/11.5 years (§ 41(b)); design runs 15 years from grant (filed on/after May 13, 2015; § 173), with no maintenance fees.
  • Cost: utility commonly ~$10,000–$30,000+; design commonly ~$2,000–$4,000 (2026 ballpark—verify current USPTO fees).
  • Speed and secrecy: design patents grant faster, are not published before grant (§ 122(b)(2)), and historically allow at high rates—useful when you want quiet, affordable protection.

Phase 4 — Plan the claims and drawings (design specifics)

  • For a utility patent, plan written claims (§ 112(b)) at multiple altitudes (broad independent claims with narrower dependents).
  • For a design patent, recognize the drawings ARE the claim (a single claim: "The ornamental design for [the article] as shown and described"; 37 C.F.R. § 1.153(a)).
  • Use broken (dashed) lines for unclaimed environment and solid lines for the claimed design—converting a feature to broken lines broadens the design's reach.
  • Provide enough views (front, back, top, bottom, sides, perspective) to show the entire claimed design (MPEP § 1503.02); color drawings are allowed without petition.
  • Anticipate mandatory restriction—a single design application may claim only one patentably distinct design (MPEP § 1504.05); a product with several distinct ornamental aspects may need several design patents.
  • Note design patents cannot claim the benefit of a provisional (§ 119(e)); to lock a priority date for a design, file the real application.

Phase 5 — Anticipate examination and the higher design obviousness bar

  • Expect utility examination against novelty (§ 102), non-obviousness (§ 103), and utility.
  • Expect design examination for ornamental novelty and non-obviousness—and plan for more obviousness rejections after LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc), which overruled the rigid Rosen-Durling test and applies the flexible Graham/KSR framework to designs.
  • Take away the headline: design patents just got harder to obtain and easier to invalidate.

Phase 6 — Understand how each is enforced

  • Utility infringement: the all-elements rule—the accused product must contain every element of a claim, literally or by equivalents, after claim construction at a Markman hearing (Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)).
  • Design infringement: the ordinary observer test—are the two designs substantially the same to an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), abolishing the separate point-of-novelty test)? A visual, side-by-side comparison, not a claim chart; functionality is a defense.

Phase 7 — Compare the damages stakes (the design superpower)

  • Utility damages: a reasonable royalty floor (§ 284) or lost profits, with apportionment to the patented feature in multi-component products.
  • Design damages: the infringer's total profit on the article (§ 289), minimum $250, with no apportionment requirement—a uniquely generous remedy.
  • Account for the unsettled "article of manufacture" question: total profit may be measured on the whole product or a component (Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016)). Exposure can still run to hundreds of millions.

Why the design remedy is a superpower. Section 289 lets the design-patent owner recover the infringer's entire profit on the article, with no apportionment to the value of the design and no requirement to prove the design drove a single sale—a remedy with no parallel in utility patent, copyright, or trademark law. That is why a $2,000–$4,000 design patent can yield a nine-figure verdict, and why sophisticated companies file portfolios of design patents around a single product (the whole product, the front, the screen, individual components), each a separate, affordable layer. The Samsung "article of manufacture" question can shrink the base from the whole product to a component, but even after that the exposure is enormous—making design patents a disproportionately powerful, and underused, weapon for consumer products, packaging, and software interfaces.

Phase 8 — Plan international filings (mind the deadline trap)

  • Utility: use the PCT and the 12-month Paris Convention priority window.
  • Design: use the Hague Agreement and the 6-month priority window (35 U.S.C. § 172; 37 C.F.R. § 1.55(b))—do not assume the 12-month utility window applies, or you forfeit priority.
  • Consider an EU Registered Community Design (EUIPO) for cost-effective EU-wide design coverage.

Phase 9 — Coordinate with trade dress and copyright

  • Consider building trade dress rights in parallel: a design patent gives time-limited protection without proving consumer recognition, while trade dress can last forever but requires secondary meaning and non-functionality—use the patent for the early years and let trade dress carry forward (see design patents vs. trade dress).
  • Consider copyright for icons and ornamental surface designs, which may be eligible for both.
  • If pursuing both design and utility on overlapping subject matter, plan for double-patenting considerations.

Phase 10 — Worked example and decision

  • Acme's water bottle: novel vacuum-insulation method (function) + sculpted silhouette (looks) → file a utility patent on the insulation method and a design patent (or portfolio) on the silhouette.
  • If a rival copies the silhouette but uses different insulation, it infringes the design patent only; if it copies the insulation in a boxy shape, it infringes the utility patent only—two unrelated tests, opposite results. That is why you hold both.

Common mistakes

  • Assuming both patents behave alike (different term, examination, infringement test, and remedies).
  • Claiming a functional feature in a design patent (only ornamental features are protected).
  • Wasting design scope by drawing claimed parts in solid lines that should be broken.
  • Missing the 6-month design priority window by relying on the 12-month utility window.
  • Underestimating post-LKQ design obviousness rejections and defenses.

Primary authority

  • 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 154, 171, 172, 173, 271, 284, 289. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.55(b), 1.153(a).
  • Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc); Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. 53 (2016); LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
  • USPTO MPEP §§ 1502, 1503, 1504 (design patents). USPTO design patent guide: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/types-patent-applications/design-patent-application-guide

This checklist is general information, not legal advice. Confirm current USPTO fees and consult a registered patent practitioner.

Related resources