The Supreme Court, in its judgment of an administrative appellate case, clarified that the granted version of a design patent usually does not record or define specific length, width, or height values, so it is generally impossible to specifically compare the absolute values of length, width, or height between the patent at issue and the reference design. However, where the drawings or photographs of the design patent can demonstrate the relative proportions between different parts of the design, these relative proportions can be used as a basis for determining the similarities or distinctions between the patent at issue and the reference design.
In this case, patentee A held a design patent. Company B filed an invalidation request with the CNIPA, mainly on the grounds that the patent at issue does not comply with the provisions of Article 23(2) of the Patent Law. The CNIPA made a decision to declare the patent entirely invalid. Patentee A was dissatisfied with the decision and instituted an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (the first instance court). The first instance court dismissed Patentee A's lawsuit. Patentee A was still dissatisfied and then appealed.
The CNIPA held that there are five main distinctions between the patent and the prior art design. Distinction (1) is the difference in the height of the main body of the seat; the patent at issue is taller than the reference design. The CNIPA determined that the change in the main body height of the seat, Distinction (1), is a common design technique, Distinction (2) and (3) are minor local differences, Distinction (4) has limited impact on the overall visual effect, and Distinction (5) is an adaptive change based on Distinction (4) and is located in a part that is not easily observed during use. Taking into account the above similarities and distinctions, the patent at issue does not have a significant distinction from the reference design and does not meet the requirements of Article 23(2) of the Patent Law.
Regarding the Distinction (1) determined in the sued decision, Party A believes that this Distinction should be summarized as the different proportion of the main body height to the backrest height of the bathroom seat. The first instance court held that, judging from the product appearance shown in the design drawings, the backrest height of the patent at issue and Evidence 1 are roughly the same. However, Evidence 1 is shorter and wider than the patent at issue, and therefore, it can be inferred that the overall height of the main body of the seat in the patent at issue is higher than that of the reference design. The determination in the sued decision is not improper in this regard. Regarding the question of whether there is a significant distinction between the patent at issue and the reference design: the difference in the height of the main body of the seat in the Distinction (1) is a common choice in design and does not constitute a significant distinction; Distinctions (2) and (3) are minor differences in parts; Distinctions (4) and (5) also do not significantly affect the overall visual effect of the patent at issue. Therefore, the patent at issue does not meet the requirements of Article 23(2) of the Patent Law, and the relevant determinations of the sued decision are not improper.
Regarding Patentee A’s opinion that the Distinction (1) is not in the different heights of the main body of the seats, but in the different proportion of the height of the main body of the seats to the height of the backrest, the Supreme Court held that design patents are represented by drawings or photographs in the granted versions of the patents. A brief specification can be used to interpret the design represented by the drawings or photographs. The granted version of a design patent usually does not record or define specific length, width, and height values, so it is generally impossible to specifically compare the absolute values of the length, width, or height of the patent at issue and the reference design. However, if the drawings or photographs of the design patent can demonstrate the relative proportions between different parts of the design, these relative proportions can be used as the basis for determining the similarities or distinctions between the patent at issue and the reference design. In this case, the determination of the height of the seat body as the distinction in the sued decision is inappropriate and should be corrected. Average consumers can determine through direct observation that the proportion of the height of the seat body and the backrest height differs between the patent at issue and the reference design. This should be deemed as the Distinction (1). A's this claim is established, and this Court supports it.
Regarding design space, in this case, the bathroom chair of the patent at issue is a common type of chair in daily life. Provided it can support human weight, remain stable, and is suitable for placement in the bathroom, there are relatively few restrictions on creative freedom. It offers considerable design space in terms of shape, pattern, color, and their combination, allowing for diverse visual effects. Average consumers are unlikely to notice subtle design differences. Based on overall observation and comprehensive judgment, the patent at issue and the reference design are essentially the same in overall shape, structure, and pattern design. Regarding the Distinction (1) where the proportion of the chair's main body height to the backrest height is different, the proportion of the chair's main body height to the backrest height in the patent at issue is a common design. Given the large design space for everyday chairs, this does not significantly affect the overall visual effect. The relevant findings in the sued decision are not improper, and this Court affirms them.
The examination of whether a patent at issue is significantly distinct from prior designs or combinations of prior design features should be based on the knowledge and cognitive abilities of an average consumer, following the approach of "overall observation and comprehensive judgment." This involves observing the patent at issue and the prior design as a whole, identifying their similarities and distinctions, assessing their impact on the overall visual effect, and drawing a comprehensive conclusion. Where the drawings or photographs of a design patent can demonstrate the relative proportions between different parts of the design, these proportions can be used as the basis for determining the similarities or distinctions between the patent at issue and the prior design.
(2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1085
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
