商法专栏专利及商标申请申请外观专利时设计要点的撰写策略 How to submit key design points when filing for a design patent 电话 Tel: +86 10 6657 6688 传真 Fax: +86 10 6657 8088 陆弋 Lu Yi 中原信达合伙人、专利律师 Partner, Patent Attorney China Sinda 电子信箱 E-mail: [email protected] www.chinasinda.com 根据《专利法》第 59 条的规定，外观人通常会提交与专利设计较为接近的现有设计简要说明对于外观设计专利的设计，因此简要说明中记载的设计要点对保护范围具有解释作用。那么，设计要点作于专利无效审查的参考价值十分有限。侵权诉讼由于简要说明中记载的设计要点有可过程中通常允许对简要说明中记载的设计要点进行修改。在无效程序及侵权诉讼中，将从不同的角度加以分析，并提出建议。 2009 年发布的《最高人民法院关于审无效程序设计要点认定能不符合客观实际，所以目前在专利申请为简要说明的重要组成部分，在申请过程中怎样撰写对权利人更为有利？对此，本文 P 中国北京市西城区金融街19号富凯大厦B座11层邮编: 100033 11/F, Block B, Focus Place,19 Financial Street Beijing 100033, China 虽然一般不允许修改包括简要说明在内的理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题申请文件，但是如果有证据证明简要说明的解释（征求意见稿）》规定： “被诉侵权中记载的设计要点与实际不符，复审委和设计不包含授权外观设计的设计要点的，法院将会根据所掌握的证据来重新认定应当认为被诉侵权设计与授权外观设计在专利设计对现有设计所做出的贡献。但需别的产品的形状、图案及其结合，或者色彩整体视觉效果上不会造成相关公众混淆。注意，复审委和法院通常不进行主动检索。与形状、图案的结合，或者部位” 。概括而言，前款所称设计要点，是指授权外观设计相尤其在侵权诉讼中，在当事人未提交现有设计要点是指专利设计与现有设计之间的对于现有设计能够对相关公众产生显著视设计相关证据的情况下，法院完全有可能区别，即专利设计的创新内容。按照《专利觉影响的设计特征。人民法院可以参考外参考简要说明来认定设计要点。法》第 23 条的规定，一项外观设计能否获观设计的简要说明认定设计要点” 。根据《专利审查指南》给出的定义，设计要点是指“（专利设计）与现有设计相区得专利授权，需要考察该外观设计相对于这里面包含了三层含义：一、设计要点不申请建议现有设计是否做出了创新以及创新的程度。是泛指专利设计与现有设计之间的所有区因此，从理论上来说，体现专利设计创新内别，而是特指具有一定创新高度的区别；二、容的设计要点对于评判一项专利是否符合简要说明中记载的设计要点可以作为侵权点对无效程序及侵权诉讼的影响，尤其是授权条件显然具有影响。设计要点如果过审判依据；三、被诉侵权设计包含了设计要对于侵权诉讼的影响。但是，考虑到设计于细微，显然不利于获得专利授权。点未必落入专利保护范围，但不包含设计要要点的客观属性，不建议申请人对简要说点则必然不落入专利保护范围。明中的设计要点进行脱离实际的“撰写” 。然而，《专利审查指南》又规定： “外观设计简要说明中设计要点所指设计并不必但是，上述规定未纳入最终的公布稿。基于上述分析，申请人应当重视设计要笔者注意到，现实中有些权利人利用现有然对外观设计整体视觉效果具有显著影响，最终的公布稿中仅提到“授权外观设计区的法律体系及程序，在申请阶段故意将设不必然导致涉案专利与现有设计相比具有别于现有设计的设计特征相对于授权外观计要点描写得较为宽泛和笼统，而在侵权明显区别” 。设计的其他设计特征通常对外观设计的整诉讼中通过解释或提交现有设计相关证。公布稿与征求意体视觉效果更具有影响” 据来对设计要点进行限缩，从而在无效程规定原因见稿相比，适度弱化了设计要点在侵权诉序和侵权诉讼中两头获利。然而，立法及讼中的地位和作用，且未将简要说明中记司法机关已经着手研究并采取措施来应载的设计要点列为参考依据。对这一情况，因此相信这种情况今后出现这么规定的原因主要有两点：一、简要说明中记载的设计要点仅反映了申请人的通过将征求意见稿与最终稿结合起来主观认识，未必符合客观实际；二、具备创学习，有助于更加准确地理解设计要点在新内容只是授予外观设计专利权的最低要侵权诉讼中的地位和作用。但不管怎样，有设计的状况，收集并保留相关证据，以备求，若想获得授权，该创新内容还需要达到设计要点撰写得过于宽泛或笼统显然不利在日后可能发生的无效程序和侵权诉讼中一定的高度才行。在无效程序中，无效请求于侵权认定。提交。g 84 商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 的可能性会越来越低。另外，建议申请人在申请前充分了解现 2014 年 2 月 | February 2014 correspondents Patent and trademark application ursuant to article 59 of the Patent Law, the brief description of a design has an interpretive function in respect of the scope of protection of the design patent. So in what manner should it be written up in the filing process to be of the most benefit to the rights holder? This column will attempt an analysis of this, and give some recommendations. Invalidation procedure Pursuant to the definition in the Patent Examination Guidelines, the term “key design points” means the shape or pattern of a product or a combination thereof, or the combination of colour and shape and/ or pattern, or a part thereof, that distinguishes the patented design from existing designs. Key design points are the difference between a patented design and existing designs and reflect the innovations of the patented design. Pursuant to article 23 of the Patent Law, to determine whether a patent may be granted for a design, it has to be examined to see whether it is innovative as compared to existing designs and for the degree of such innovativeness. Accordingly, key design points that highlight the innovation of the patented design theoretically should have an impact on the determination of whether a patent satisfies the conditions for approval. If the key design points are overly minor, the granting of a patent will be negatively affected. However, the Patent Examination Guidelines at the same time specify that “the design indicated by the key design points in the brief description of a design need not necessarily have a marked effect on the overall visual impact of the design and need not necessarily lead to there being a marked difference between the patent in question and existing designs”. Reasons for provision There are two main reasons why such a provision exists: (1) the key design points recorded in the brief description only reflect the opinion of the applicant, and do not necessarily accord with objective reality; and (2) being innovative is only the minimum requirement for the granting of a design patent, and if a patent is desired, the innovativeness needs to reach a certain level. In an invalidation procedure, the petitioner will generally submit existing designs that are relatively similar to the patented design. Accordingly, the key design points February 2014 | 2014 年 2 月 recorded in the brief description have a very limited reference value in the patent invalidation examination. Infringement actions The Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court of Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (Draft for Comment) issued in 2009 specify that “if the alleged infringing design does not contain the key design points of the patented design, it shall be found that the alleged infringing design will not cause confusion with the patented design among the relevant public in terms of its overall visual impact. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, the term ‘key design points’ means the design characteristics of the patented design that, in contrast with existing designs, can produce a marked visual impact on the relevant public. A People’s Court may refer to the brief description of the design in determining the key design points.” Three levels of meaning are contained in this: (1) the key design points do not refer to all of the differences between the patented design and the existing designs, but rather particularly refer to the differences that have a significant degree of innovation; (2) the key design points recorded in the brief description may serve as a basis for an infringement judgment; and (3) if the alleged infringing design contains key design points, it does not necessarily fall within the patent scope, but if it does not contain the key design points, it definitely does not fall within the patent scope. Final version However, the above-mentioned provision was not included in the final version, which only states that “the design features that set the patented design apart from existing designs generally have a greater effect on the overall visual impact of a design as compared to the other design features of the patented design”. The final version to some extent weakens the status and effect of the key design points in infringement actions and does not regard the key design points recorded in the brief description as a basis for judgment. Studying the draft for comment in conjunction with the final version helps in accurately understanding the status and effect of the key design points in infringement actions. Notwithstanding the above, broadly writing up the key design points is clearly of no help when a determination of infringement is being made. It is currently usually permitted in the course of a patent filing to make revisions to the key design points recorded in the brief description. Although revision of the application documents, including the brief description, is normally not permitted in the course of an invalidation procedure or infringement action, if there is evidence showing that the key design points recorded in the brief description are not in accord with fact, the re-examination board or court will determine anew the contribution made by the patented design to the existing designs based on the evidence at its disposal. However, neither the re-examination board nor the court will take the initiative in conducting a search. Particularly in an infringement action, if a party has not submitted evidence relating to existing designs, it is entirely possible that the court will refer to the brief description to determine the key design points. Filing recommendations Based on this analysis, an applicant should deem the effect of the key design points in invalidation procedures and infringement actions as important. We recommend against applicants writing up the key design points in the brief description in a manner that deviates from fact or reality. The author has noticed the phenomenon that in practice some right holders exploited legal and procedural loopholes to deliberately write up the key design points in a relatively broad and sweeping manner at the filing stage, and then narrowed them down in the course of an infringement action through interpretation or the submission of evidence relating to existing designs, thereby reaping advantages in both the invalidation procedure and the infringement action. However, the legislative and judicial authorities have set out to take measures against such behaviour, and the occurrence of such phenomenon should become more unlikely in future. We also recommend that applicants fully discover the state of existing designs before filing, and collect and keep relevant evidence for submission later in invalidation procedures or infringement actions that may arise. g 陆弋是中原信达合伙人及专利律师 Lu Yi is a partner and patent attorney at China Sinda 商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 85