Coming soon: new design law for China

In around three weeks, on 1 October 2009, the 2008 Third Revision of China's patent law comes into force according to the first in a series of articles written for Intellectual Property Watch by SIPO researcher Wenting Cheng.

Ms Wenting explains that China has an omnibus patent system which incorporates protection of designs and utility models as well as conventional patents. As to patentability of designs she writes:

" ... Patent Law (2008) Article 23 adds a new section, providing that the design on which a patent may be granted must be substantially different from any prior designs or a combination of the features of prior designs. Any design on which a patent may be granted must not be in conflict with any prior legitimate rights of any other person. The prior design referred to in this law means any design known to the public before the filing date of the patent application in China or abroad.

This newly added provision defines two standards to determine the patentability of a design: one is substantial difference and the other is that it is not in conflict with prior rights. Details on these standards are included in the Implementing Regulations of Patent Law and Guidelines for Examination which undergo revisions accordingly. Specifically, major changes take place in the post-grant stage since there is no substantive examination in granting design patents in China".

For further details, including how to tell whether two designs are identical, you can read the full article here.

Maglite illuminate the scope of Swedish copyright

Maglite Instruments won a copyright victory over IKEA in Sweden's Supreme Court, in a case which has been running for a decade, according to the International Law Office report by Håkan Borgenhäll and Lulu Li of Advokatfirman Lindahl. The result is that their mini Maglite(TM) torch, marketed in 1980, will now be protected for life+70 years as a work of applied art.

Is this perhaps a little generous? Should the Supreme Court treat themselves to a reading of the late Sir Hugh Laddie's grouchily brilliant 1995 Stephen Stewart lecture, "Copyright, Over-Strength, Over-Regulated, Over-Rated," 18 E.I.PR. 253 (1996)? Or is this moderate by comparison with the perpetual trade mark protection Maglite have been granted in Japan and elsewhere?

Perhaps there is a gleam of sense in the Swedish judgment - it appears that they noted the relatively low level of originality, and the limited design freedom, and adopted an approach closely resembling that of the Community design regime - limited design freedom lowers the creativity required for protection, whilst shrinking the scope of the protection granted. We can perhaps live with life+70 years (approximately thirty times the protection available via unregistered Community designs, and at least thrice that available to registered designs) if the quid pro quo is narrow infringement rights.

Vitra v High Tech: what the ECJ must rule on

The Curia website has now posted information about Case C-219/09 Vitra Patente AG v High Tech Srl, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano, Italy, which was lodged on 16 June 2009. The questions in this reference are as follows:

"(1) Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC [on the legal protection of designs] be interpreted as meaning that -- in implementing a national law of a Member State adjusting the domestic legal order to the abovementioned Directive -- the discretion accorded to such a Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection in the case of designs which -- albeit meeting the requirements for protection laid down in copyright law -- fell to be regarded as having entered into the public domain before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force, in so far as they had never been registered as designs or in so far as the relevant registration had already expired by that date?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party -- without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs -- has already produced and marketed in that State products based on such designs which were in the public domain before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force?

(3) If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, such protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party -- without authorisation from the holder of the copyright on such designs -- has already produced and marketed products based on such designs in that State, where protection is precluded for a substantial period (a period of 10 years)?"

Notes on the background to this dispute, which involves the design of the Panton chair, can be found here.

Door opens for design owners in Italy

Lualdi's staggeringly individual door design

Trevisan & Cuonzo Avvocati report a Milan design infringement trial on RCD 153333-01 and 02. The door shown in the designs (depicted above) looks very similar to, well, any door you've ever opened but on close scrutiny you can just about see that it stands proud of the door frame. The proprietor, Lualdi S.p.A, sued Dorica Castelli S.p.A., who exhibited their own Quadro' door at a Milan trade fair. They lost in interlocutory proceedings, but succeeded in the end on the merits, over a plea that the design was invalid. It appears that their definition of the "informed user" is essentially the same as that adopted by OHIM and, to a first approximation, in the UK - "a purchaser who is particularly attentive to the goods in question but is not an architect or a designer and who does not leave the choice of purchase to another but informs himself by consulting catalogues, magazines and experts to find the product that best fits his needs".

That is in line with the majority of prior Italian cases, though in one or two apparently the "informed user" has to the contrary been seen as architect or interior designer - see Professor Mario Franzosi's excellent JIPLP article Design Protection Italian Style.

One can only applaud harmony and consistency across the EU. But is this really Italian design at its best? It is hard to tell on the basis of these grainy, monochrome grey pictures, but the design in question appears to fit right into Franzosi's pithy commentary:
"Take a look at what is registered at OHIM in Alicante. ... Most of them are not work of design because they are simply ugly."

Fabrics - no Design Copyright in India

Our friends at K&S report the appeal judgment in Microfibres v. Giridhar & Co (taken together with two others: Mattel Inc & Ors v. Jayant Agarwala & Ors and Dart Industries v. Techno Plast & Ors). The plaintiff had not registered their fabric design, and now sought to enforce artistic copyright in the painting on which it was based.
The defence was that, once the artistic work had been industrially applied by 50 articles having been made, copyright could not be used to prevent competitors from doing likewise, under Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (a provision having counterparts in many other countries which share a common copyright ancestry with the UK) which
is in the following terms:

Copyright in any design, which is capable of being registered under the Designs Act, 1911 (2 of 1911), but which has not been so registered, shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced more than fifty times by an industrial process by the owner of the copyright or, with his licence, by any other person.

The Court upheld the defendants. Indian public policy was to protect industrially exploited articles by design registration, or not at all. In this case, in fact, the plaintiff had indeed registered the designs in the UK (possibly as GB 0602285 or GB 0600566) - but not in India.
Along the way, the Court considered arguments that the intention in creating the copyright work was relevant, or that the artistic quality was relevant, and rejected both - quite correctly, we think.
There was, however, an interesting argument in the judgment for IP practitioners. Greybeards will remember Catnic v Hill & Smith [1978] FSR 405, [1982] RPC 183 - one of Catnic's interminable lintel battles. In that judgment, Whitford J held that on applying for a patent, one effectively elected to waive copyright in the corresponding drawings. According to Whitford:

"In my view, by applying for a patent and accepting the statutory obligation to describe and if necessary illustrate embodiments of its invention, a patentee necessarily makes an election accepting that, in return for a potential monopoly, upon publication, the material disclosed by him and the specification must be deemed to be open to be used by the public, subject only to such monopoly rights as he may acquire on his application for the patent and during the period for which his monopoly remains in force, whatever be the reason for the monopoly rights.

That decision certainly had a chequered history. Whitford J. cited himself with approval in Rose Plastics GmbH v. William Beckett & Co. (Plastics) Limited and Another [1989] 1 F.S.R. 113, but no other UK judge did so, and the decision was not followed in Ireland (House of Spring Gardens Limited and Others v. Point Blank Limited and Others [1985] F.S.R. 327), New Zealand (Wham-O Manufacturing Co. v. Lincoln Industries [1982] R.P.C. 281), Australia (Ogden Industries Pty. Ltd. v. Kis (Australia) Ltd [1983] F.S.R. 616) or Hong Kong (Interlego AG v. Tyco Industries Inc. and Others [1987] F.S.R. 409 CA). On the other hand, it was apparently followed in Canada (see Gordon J. Zimmerman), and statutory provision was made in New Zealand to enshrine it in the Copyright Act. It was pointedly distinguished in a later UK design case, Gardex v Sorata [1986] RPC 623, and it is now widely thought to be bad law here. It is therefore strange and sad to see it cited as authority for the proposition that you can't have your design cake and still eat copyright, and a shame that the Court did not take the chance to rule the argument out in India.

Community Designs - consultation on "innocence"

You infringe a design, by selling product you bought from someone else, without knowledge that the design was protected. Should you pay?
That was the issue in J Choo (Jersey) Ltd v Towerstone Limited and Others [2008] EWHC 346(Ch), concerning counterfeit handbags. There is an "innocence" defence in the UK for most forms of IP infringement (copyright, registered and unregistered UK designs and patents), exempting the infringer from damages (though not other remedies) where he did not know and had no reasonable grounds to suppose that the rights existed, but the Court found none for Community designs. The IPO are consulting as to whether to add such a defence for Community designs, and a response is due by the end of September.
Obviously, it makes matters easier if like measures have like remedies. In the case of a Registered Community Design, where there is no mental element, I tend to think that there should be the same "innocence" defence as for other UK rights.
However, for an unregistered Community Design, where copying must have taken place, I don't see why there should be any innocence defence: someone, somewhere, was far from innocent, and caused damage to the proprietor. If the seller was innocent, they can contractually recoup from their supplier and so back the chain to the infringer. The life of the right is so short, at three years, that by the time an infringer has been found and put on notice, much of the life of the design has evaporated. Thus, I can see arguments against in the case of UCD.

US Designs - Validity post-Egyptian Goddess

This rather conventional-seeming tractor tyre (sorry, "tire") was the subject of U.S. Design Patent No. 360,862, on which the proprietor attempted to get a preliminary (aka interlocutory aka interim) injunction in Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., No. 08-1078 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 3009), link here. They failed both at first instance and on appeal. To get an interlocutory injunction in the US requires a likelihood of success on the merits, and where the defendant has shown some reasonably persuasive prior art (which can't have been hard in this case) the plaintiff has to demonstrate that they will likely overcome it at trial - quite a high burden of proof.

The Federal Circuit reviewed their previous practice on assessing designs against prior art, which had required identification of a "primary" reference which could then be modified by a "secondary" reference to reach the design (Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 103 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

They commented that this tended to focus attention on the differences from the art, rather than the design as a whole, and that this was inconsistent with the analysis for infringement purposes post-Egyptian Goddess where the similar "point of novelty" test has been rejected (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665, 670-71 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). However, they heold that "it is not clear to what extent, if any, the doctrine applicable to obviousness should be modified to conform".

They also commented on the application of the KSR patent approach to obviousness (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc 550 U.S. 398 (2007)); this was “new and untested ground” and it was "not obvious that the Supreme Court necessarily intended to exclude design patents from the reach of KSR".

It is a shame that the Federal Circuit were unable or unwilling to give a clear ruling on applying the same "overall impression" test for both validity and infringement (as in the EU). Designs are fundamentally different to inventions, and there is no real logic to applying patent law such as KSR unmodified to take account of this. Whilst making the right kind of noises, this case leaves design invalidity in a state of flux.