Clement Asante works with a team of Polsinelli attorneys to help clients solve issues related to the establishment and protection of their intellectual property needs. He focuses his litigation practice on effectively enforcing and defending clients' intellectual property rights in courts and other dispute resolution forums.

Education

  • University of Colorado Law School (J.D., 2022)
    • Order of Barristers
    • David M. Sutcliffe SBA Distinguished Student Award
    • Meritorious Student Award
  • University of Colorado Boulder (B.A., 2017)
    • Benjamin A Gilman Scholar
    • Neuroscience Honor Society

Bar Admission

  • Colorado

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Professional Affiliations

  • Denver Scholarship Foundation Associate Board, Chair
  • Law School… Yes We Can!, Mentor
  • American Bar Association
  • Colorado Bar Association

Recognition

  • Participant, Polsinelli Trial Academy facilitated by NITA, 2025
  • Named one of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America in:
    • Intellectual Property Law, 2026
    • Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2026
    • Litigation - Patent, 2026
  • Recognized by the National Black Lawyers among the “Top 40 under 40,” 2025

Languages

  • Akan (Twi)
Publications
All Publications
Design Patent Holders Rejoice, but Challengers Face an Uphill Battle
Design patent holders can rejoice, for now, as the Federal Circuit reinforces its stance on the invalidity of design patents based on obviousness. On January 20, 2023, the Federal Circuit upheld a decades old rule that governs design patents in LKQ Corp., Keystone Auto. Indus., Inc., v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC.1 In the two opinions issued by the Court, the Federal Circuit held that LKQ failed to prove that GM’s patents are invalid as anticipated or obvious.2 LKQ hinged its argument on the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. Teleflex, where the high court overturned “rigid” tests for proving obviousness for utility patents.3 LKQ argued that the KSR standard implicitly applied to design patents, but the Federal Circuit rejected this argument,
Read More