*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court concluded an appeal in an administrative dispute regarding the invalidation of a design patent. The court clarified that the text of a design patent grant announcement typically does not record or specify concrete numerical values for length, width, and height; therefore, it is generally not possible to make a specific comparison of the absolute values of these dimensions between the patent-at-issue and the design used for comparison.However, where the drawings or photographs of a design patent illustrate the relative proportions between different parts of the design, such relative proportions may serve as the basis for determining the points of identity or distinction between the patent in question and the design used for comparison.

The patent in question is a design patent titled “Seat (EPP Smiley 2),” with Dai as the patent holder. Suzhou Hua [REDACTED] Packaging Co., Ltd. requested that the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) declare the patent invalid in its entirety, primarily on the grounds that the patent did not comply with the provisions of Paragraph 2,  Article 23 of the Patent Law.The CNIPA issued a decision on the request for invalidation, finding that the primary distinction (1) between the patent-at-issue and the comparative design lies in the different heights of the seat bodies—the patent-at-issue being taller than the comparative design. However, the CNIPA determined that variations in seat body height constitute a common design technique, and the patent-at-issue has no obvious distinction from the comparative design. Consequently, the CNIPA decided to declare the patent-at-issue invalid in its entirety.Dai filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, disputing the decision and arguing that the key distinction (1) was not the difference in the height of the seat body itself, but rather the difference in the ratio between the height of the seat body and the height of the backrest.

In its first-instance ruling, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, based on the product appearance shown in the design drawings, the backrest heights of the patent-in-suit and the prior art were roughly the same; however, the prior art was shorter and stouter in shape compared to the patent-in-suit. Therefore, it could be inferred that the overall height of the seat body of the patent-in-suit was greater than that of the prior art. Since differences in seat body height constitute a common design choice, they do not constitute a distinct difference. The court thus dismissed Dai’s claims.

The Supreme People’s Court, in its second-instance ruling, held that a design patent is represented by the drawings or photographs in the patent grant announcement, and the brief description may be used to interpret the design depicted in the drawings or photographs. The text of a design patent grant announcement typically does not record or specify exact numerical values for length, width, and height; therefore, it is generally not possible to make a specific comparison of the absolute values of the length, width, and height between the patent-in-suit and the prior art.However, where the drawings or photographs of a design patent can illustrate the relative proportional relationships between different parts of the design, such relative proportional relationships may serve as the basis for determining the points of identity or distinction between the patent-in-suit and the prior art.In this case, an ordinary consumer can determine through direct observation that there is a difference in the ratio of the seat body height to the backrest height between the patent-in-suit and the comparative design; this should be recognized as a point of difference (1). However, the ratio of the seat body height to the backrest height in the patent-in-suit constitutes a conventional design. Given the considerable design flexibility in everyday seating products, this ratio does not have a significant impact on the overall visual effect. Consequently, the final judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

When comparing whether the patent-in-suit and the prior art exhibit distinct differences, accurately identifying their similarities and differences is a prerequisite for determining whether they have a significant impact on the overall visual effect.Unlike invention and utility model patents, which express and interpret technical solutions composed of specific technical features through claims and specifications, design patents do not require the drafting of claims. Their scope of protection is determined by the appearance of the product as depicted in drawings or photographs, and the brief description may be used to explain the product’s appearance as shown in the drawings or photographs.Starting from the determination of the scope of protection for design patents, this case clarifies specific issues in practice that are prone to confusion when assessing whether a design is significantly different, and thus holds certain reference value.