Maatita案：聯(lián)邦巡回法院對檢測外觀設計專利增加新方法

#文章由作者授權(quán)發(fā)表，未經(jīng)許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Danielle Anne Phillip 律師 及Paul Lunsford律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

原標題：Maatita案：聯(lián)邦巡回法院對檢測外觀設計專利增加新方

一項外觀設計專利可否基于一個2D插圖（Illustration）對多個3D實施例（Embodiments）提出權(quán)利要求申請？美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院（聯(lián)邦巡回法院）近期撤銷了一項專利審判和上訴委員會（PTAB）的裁決，創(chuàng)造了一個“基于有限的、2D插圖”對裝飾性特征描述不明確（Indefiniteness）進行判定的新測試。

本案專利申請人Ron Maatita，遞交了一份美國外觀設計專利申請（No. 29/404,677 ，未公開），其中對運動鞋底部的一系列特征提出權(quán)利要求保護。如下圖FIG 1所示，鞋底上半部分中間五個橫向圓形特征（實線）為請求的外觀設計保護，其余鞋底所有虛線部分為放棄保護的范圍。這一申請包含兩幅2D鞋底繪圖，兩幅繪圖只有鞋底放棄部分的虛線構(gòu)圖不同。

在專利審查階段，審查員最終根據(jù)35 U.S.C. § 112條以權(quán)利要求范圍不明確駁回申請，審查員的理由是2D平面圖對設計中所要求保護的特征無法全面呈現(xiàn)，因此可引起對設計特征深度和輪廓（Depth and contour）多種的詮釋。特別是，審查員認為對具有3D本質(zhì)的特征，申請只披露了其2D平面圖。在最終駁回裁決書中，審查員對請求保護的特征羅列了四種可能的3D實施例（下圖所示）。因為這些實施例具有不同的可專利性差異，審查員認為一項權(quán)利要求不可以覆蓋其所有范圍。審查員的觀點得到PTAB的支持。

本年8月，聯(lián)邦巡回法院撤銷了PTAB的裁決。巡回法院認為“§ 112條所要求的權(quán)利要求范圍明確的目的在于……保證披露信息足以清晰，以提示潛在競爭者（所屬領域?qū)I(yè)人員）請求保護的設計是什么 – 及因此會侵犯什么。”法院將“權(quán)利要求不明確標準（standard for indefiniteness）”與“侵權(quán)標準”相結(jié)合，采用Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.案中的測試。在評估范圍不明確的設計專利申請時，法院陳述“如果一名所屬領域?qū)I(yè)人員像普通觀察者一樣來看設計專利，基于權(quán)利要求和視覺信息披露不能夠合理確定性地（Reasonable certainty）理解設計專利的范圍，則外觀設計專利根據(jù)§ 112條為權(quán)利要求范圍不明確（Indefinite）?！薄皩τ谄胀ㄓ^察者來說只要可以合理確定性地明確發(fā)明的范圍，一項外觀設計專利可以在一項權(quán)利要求內(nèi)披露多個實施例，并可以使用多個繪圖來完成?！?br/>

聯(lián)邦巡回法院駁回了PTAB以下觀點：所要求保護的設計專利權(quán)利要求不明確，因為2D平面圖可以不同方式應用于3D特征中。法院認為“所要求呈現(xiàn)的細節(jié)程度，應該取決于所要求保護的設計物品是否能夠被2D、平面繪圖來定義?！盤TAB認為鞋底部表面不同的深度會影響所要求保護特征的視覺印象，這一觀點并未說服聯(lián)邦巡回法院。“事實上鞋底可以具有3D外觀面，但這并不改變其裝飾性設計能夠以2D、平面圖角度來披露和進行判定這一事實 – 并且本案申請人的2D繪圖清晰地展示了從鞋底部應該看到的視角。”相反，“決定不披露（鞋底）所有可能的深度，不會阻礙一名普通觀察者對本案設計的理解，因為設計可以通過繪圖中的2D視角被理解。”

聯(lián)邦巡回法院的這一裁決可能會對外觀設計專利申請的遞交策略帶來巨大影響。通常，外觀設計專利申請包含若干圖形，以多種平面圖和正交視圖來顯示所請求保護的裝飾性特征。對于大型的3D設計，這一遞交策略很可能保持不變。

但是，對僅就產(chǎn)品一個單面進行裝飾的裝飾性特征而言，本案裁決可能會激勵申請人從較少的視角提供較少的圖示，來盡可能大的獲得權(quán)利要求范圍。

本案裁決還可能對嘗試避免侵權(quán)的商業(yè)實體造成困擾。更大的外觀設計專利權(quán)利要求范圍造成更高的侵權(quán)風險。在對類似于Maatita外觀設計專利進行評估時，設計者和制造者將需仔細地從設計專利中所顯示的有限視角來檢測產(chǎn)品以決策侵權(quán)風險。一項設計的3D組件可能并不足以避免對一項只披露了2D視角設計的侵權(quán)。

現(xiàn)在還未知本案是否會被繼續(xù)上訴進行全席審理（en banc）或?qū)＠謱⑸暾垙蛯徚睿╬etition for certiorari）。包含外觀設計專利的爭議被最高法院受理的可能性罕見，但鑒于本案裁決的意義重大，有得到進一步審查的可能。

附：英文全文

In re: Maatita: The Federal Circuit Adds a New Dimension to the Design Patent Indefiniteness Standard

Can a design patent claim multiple three-dimensional embodiments based on a two-dimensional illustration?  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), creating a new test for the indefiniteness of claimed ornamental features based on limited, two-dimensional illustrations.  In re: Maatita, No. 2017-2037 (Fed. Cir. August 20, 2018).

The applicant, Ron Maatita, filed U.S. Design Patent Application No. 29/404,677 (unpublished) claiming a series of features on an athletic shoe bottom.  The rest of the shoe bottom was disclaimed.  The applicant included two two-dimensional drawings of the shoe bottom which differed only in the unclaimed environment surrounding the claimed features.

Maatita's Claimed Design (dashed lines indicate disclaimed subject matter)

During prosecution, the examiner ultimately rejected the application under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite since the two-dimensional plan views left the design open to multiple interpretations regarding depth and contour of the claimed features.  Specifically, the applicant disclosed only two-dimensional views for features which were three-dimensional in nature.  In a final rejection, the examiner included four different possible three-dimensional embodiments of the claimed features.  Because these embodiments were patentably distinct, the examiner argued that they could not be covered by a single claim.  The examiner's position was affirmed by the Patent Trial Board of Appeals (PTAB) on March 29, 2017.

Possible Embodiments Presented by the Examiner

On August 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously reversed the PTAB.  The Federal Circuit explained that, "[t]he purpose of § 112's definiteness requirement … is to ensure that the disclosure is clear enough to give potential competitors (who are skilled in the art) notice of what design is claimed – and therefore what would infringe."  Maatita, slip op. at 9.  The Federal Circuit then linked the standard for indefiniteness to the standard for infringement, adapting a test created by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. 543 F.3d 665, 672 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc).  In assessing the indefiniteness of a design application of uncertain scope, the Federal Circuit stated that, "a design patent is indefinite under § 112 if one skilled in the art, viewing the design as would an ordinary observer, would not understand the scope of the design with reasonable certainty based on the claim and visual disclosure."  Maatita, slip op. at 10.  "So long as the scope of the invention is clear with reasonable certainty to an ordinary observer, a design patent can disclose multiple embodiments within its single claim and can use multiple drawings to do so."  Id.

Rejecting the PTAB's argument that the claimed design was indefinite because the two-dimensional plan views could be applied to the three-dimensional features in a number of different ways, the Federal Circuit stated that, "the level of detail required should be a function of whether the claimed design for the article is capable of being defined by a two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view illustration."  Id. at 12.  "The design for an entire shoe … is inherently three dimensional and could not be adequately disclosed with a single, plan-, or planar-view drawing."  Id. Comparatively, "[t]he design of a rug … is capable of being viewed and understood in two dimensions through a plan- or planar-view illustration."  Id.  "Such a claim, with a single drawing, would cover all similarly designed rugs or mats."  Id.  The Federal Circuit was not persuaded by the PTAB’s argument that the varying surface depths of a shoe bottom impact the visual impression of the claimed features.  "[T]he fact that shoe bottoms can have three-dimensional aspects does not change the fact that their ornamental design is capable of being disclosed and judged from a two-dimensional, plan- or planar-view perspective – and that [applicant’s] two-dimensional drawing clearly demonstrates the perspective from which the shoe bottom should be viewed."  Id. at 13.  Rather, the “decision not to disclose all possible depth choices would not preclude an ordinary observer from understanding the claimed design, since the design is capable from being understood” from the two-dimensional perspective in the drawing.  Id.

The Federal Circuit's decision may have a significant impact on the filing strategy for design patent applications.  Typically, design patent applications include several figures showing the claimed ornamental features from a variety of plan and orthogonal views.  For large, three-dimensional designs, this filing strategy will likely remain the same.

However, for ornamental features adorning only a single surface of a product, this ruling may provide an incentive to provide fewer drawings from fewer perspectives to capture as much scope as possible.

This ruling may also create some concern for commercial entities trying to avoid infringement.  Broader design patent claims create a higher risk of infringing a claimed design.  When assessing design patents similar to Maatita's, designers and manufacturers will have to carefully examine a product from the limited perspectives shown in the design patent to determine their risk for infringement.  A three-dimensional component to a design may not be sufficient to avoid infringement of a claimed design disclosed only from a two-dimensional perspective.

It is not yet clear if this case will be reheard en banc or if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will file a petition for certiorari.  Disputes involving design patents rarely reach the Supreme Court.  However, the significance of this decision may be significant enough to warrant further review.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Danielle Anne Phillip 律師 及Paul Lunsford律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

報名開啟！2018粵港澳大灣區(qū)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)金融高峰論壇即將舉辦

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務、政府機構(gòu)、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”