That’s a juicy one, especially if the heat‑sink is a slick, low‑profile thing that’s been out there for years. First off, patentability for a heat‑sink hinges on whether the design is new, non‑obvious, and useful. If the competitor’s design just tweaks a standard fins‑and‑base layout that everyone uses, it probably won’t meet those thresholds. But if the inventor added a unique fin geometry, a special mounting feature, or a novel material combo that cuts thermal resistance by, say, 15%, that could be a solid claim. Look at the claims section—those are the legal teeth. If the claims cover only the “look and feel” of the fins, you’re in a tough spot; design patents can be easy to copy if the copy is just a close look‑alike. But if the claims are written to capture the functional fin spacing or an integrated heat‑pipe that’s not obvious, the patent could survive a challenge. Also, check the prosecution history. If the examiner rejected it for lack of novelty and the applicant fought back by adding a specific “tri‑layer fin” feature, that strengthens the novelty argument. On the flip side, if the patent office never asked for any technical description beyond a generic sketch, you’re more exposed to a “not useful” argument. From a gameplay standpoint, the real kicker is how the design actually performs. If the competitor’s copy doesn’t quite match the heat‑sink’s thermal profile, they might be infringing but not beating you. If it’s spot on, you can argue “this is a straight copy” and push for enforcement. Either way, the fine print is where the magic (or the mess) is. Keep an eye on the claim language and the original drawings—those are your best bet to see if the patent stands or falls.