Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court concluded a second-instance administrative appeal concerning the invalidation of a design patent, clarifying that the publication text of a design patent generally does not record or define specific length-width-height measurements. Therefore, it is typically not possible to compare the absolute values of length, width, and height between the patent at issue and the comparative design. However, where the drawings or photographs of a design patent reflect the relative proportions among different parts of the design, such proportional relationships may serve as the basis for identifying similarities or differences between the patent at issue and the comparative design.

The patent at issue is a design patent titled “Seat (EPP Smiley Face 2),” owned by Dai. Suzhou Hua*** Packaging Co., Ltd. requested the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to declare the entire patent invalid, primarily on the grounds that the patent did not comply with Article 23(2) of the Patent Law. CNIPA issued its decision on the invalidation request, finding that, compared with the comparative design, the main point of difference (1) lies in the different heights of the seat bodies—the patented design being taller than the comparative design. CNIPA held that variations in seat-body height constitute a conventional design technique, and the patent at issue does not exhibit a distinct overall visual difference relative to the comparative design. It therefore declared the patent entirely invalid. Dissatisfied, Dai filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, arguing mainly that difference (1) does not lie in the absolute height of the seat body, but rather in the differing proportional relationship between the height of the seat body and that of the backrest.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held at first instance that, based on the appearance of the product shown in the design drawings, the backrest heights in the patent at issue and the comparative design were roughly the same, but the comparative design appeared visually shorter and wider than the patent at issue. It could therefore be inferred that the overall height of the seat body in the patent at issue is greater than that of the comparative design. Differences in seat-body height fall within customary design choices and do not constitute an obvious distinction. The court thus dismissed Dai’s claims.

The Supreme People’s Court, on second instance, held that a design patent is represented by the drawings or photographs in the patent publication, while the brief explanation may serve to interpret the appearance shown in such drawings or photographs. Because the publication text of a design patent generally does not record or define specific length-width-height measurements, it is typically impossible to conduct direct comparisons of absolute values. However, where proportional relationships among different parts can be discerned from the drawings or photographs, such proportions may be used as the basis for determining similarities or differences. In this case, an ordinary consumer, through direct observation, could identify a difference in the proportional relationship between the height of the seat body and the height of the backrest in the patent at issue and the comparative design. This should be recognized as difference (1). Nevertheless, the proportional relationship between seat-body height and backrest height is a conventional design choice. Given the broad design space for everyday seating products, this difference does not significantly affect the overall visual impression. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

In assessing whether the patent at issue and the comparative design exhibit an obvious distinction, accurately identifying similarities and differences is a prerequisite to determining whether such differences have a significant impact on the overall visual impression. Unlike invention and utility model patents—where claims and the specification define and interpret the technical solution composed of specific technical features—design patents require no claims, and their protection scope is defined by the design of the product as shown in the drawings or photographs, with the brief explanation serving to interpret such design. This case, starting from the determination of the protection scope of design patent rights, clarifies issues that are often confused in practice when assessing obvious differences in design patents, and provides valuable reference.