[Case Summary] 

The client entrusted our patent attorney to submit a request for invalidation of the design patents of Patent No. 202130735523.1 (involved patent 1), Patent No. 202330238572.3 (involved patent 2) and Patent No. 202130735980.0 (involved Patent 3) to the Review and Invalidation Trial Department of the Patent Office. After searching, we provide the text of the Chinese Appearance Patent Authorization Announcement of patent No. 201630645844.1, patent No. 202030641648.3 and patent No. 202030233016.3 as the evidence of the three patents involved in the case. The main reasons for our application for invalidation are: the design in the patent involved and the existing design in evidence 1 belong to the same design and have no obvious difference, therefore, the patent involved belongs to the existing design and does not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, and request the Reexamination Board to declare all the patents involved invalid according to law.

[Result of Trial]

The State Intellectual Property Office set up a panel in accordance with the law, and the three requests for invalidation were tried in a joint case. Finally, the review and invalidation Department of the Patent Office believed that the similarities between the three patents involved and the evidence made the overall shape, external outline, and specific design of the cutter head and handle of the two present a basically consistent visual impression. The difference between the two is not enough to have a significant impact on the overall visual effect of the product, so there is no obvious difference between the two. The patents involved in the case do not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2 of the patent Law, and all the design patents of the above three patents involved in the case are declared invalid.

[Case Analysis]

Take patent 1 as an example:

Article 23 (1) of the Patent Law provides that "a design for which a patent right is granted shall not belong to an existing design; Nor has any entity or individual filed an application with the patent administration department under The State Council for the same design before the date of filing, which is recorded in the patent documents published after the date of filing."

In the process of trial, both parties have no objection to the identification of evidence, in which the product shown in the evidence can be used as the existing design of the patent involved. The main issue of the above invalid case is to determine whether the comparison design and the design of the patent involved are the same.

Evidence 1 and 2 submitted by patent 1 involved in the case are Chinese patent documents, and the patentee has not raised objections to their authenticity. After verification, the panel confirms their authenticity, and their public dates are May 10, 2017, and January 11, 2017, respectively, before the filing date of Patent 1 involved in the case on March 22, 2022. The design shown therein can be used as the existing design of the involved patent to evaluate whether the involved patent complies with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.

The product involved in the patent is a digital display electric hair clipper. Evidence 1 discloses the design of an electric clipper (HK-815), and evidence 2 discloses the design of a hair clipper. The products shown have the same purpose and belong to the same kind of products.

The panel believes that: hair clipper products are usually composed of two parts: the head and the handle, the overall shape and the specific design of each part will have a certain impact on the visual effect of the product, and it is easy to attract the attention of general consumers. The above similarities between the patent involved in the case and the comparison design make the overall shape, external outline and specific design of the tool head and handle of the two present a basically consistent visual impression. The differences are local subtle differences, common design techniques, small proportion in the overall product, and are located in parts that are not easy to see, and are not easy to be concerned by ordinary consumers. Therefore, there is no obvious difference between the two, and the patent involved does not comply with the provisions of Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.

The reasons and cases of invalidity of patent 2 and patent 3 involved in the case are the same as those of patent 1 involved in the case, so it is not necessary to elaborate.

[Sum up]

When comparing the patents and evidence involved in the case, the overall proportion of differentiation points, common designs, and visual impact on general consumers can be considered to determine whether there is a significant difference between the two.