Invalidation against Design Patent Right in “Cell Phones with Graphical User Interfaces”

[Case Brief] In June 2016, Guangzhou Dongjing Computer Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Guangzhou Dongjing”) filed a complaint with the Beijing Intellectual Property Office alleging that Beijing Cheetah Mobile Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Beijing Cheetah”) infringed its design patent “Cell phones with Graphical User Interfaces” (Patent No. ZL201530383753.0). Then Beijing Cheetah filed a request to invalidate the design patent.

The Patent Re-examination Board of SIPO made No. 31958 Invalidation Decision, announcing that the design 1 of the disputed patent is invalid and the design 2 of the disputed patent is valid. This is the first invalidation decision against a design patent with GUI after Graphical User Interface (hereinafter referred to as “GUI”) is protected under the Patent Examination Guidebook of China. Without specific provisions on examination of design patents involving GUI in the Patent Examination Guidebook, this case would be a precedent and example for future GUI cases. [Typical Meaning] This case provided detailed analysis and objective identification on the objectives of GUI protection, the scope of protection for dynamic interfaces, judgment of significant differences, etc., and clarified the basic concepts and judgment ideas on protection of design patents with GUI.

If the disputed design not only has human-machine interactions but also reflects relevant functions of the product, then the graphical user interfaces except the games interface may be eligible for design patent protection. The protection scope for dynamic interface design patents shall include three parts: product appearance + main interface protection contents + dynamic change process from the first interface to the last interface. The comparison between the first interface and the last interface is not enough; instead, the comparison of the overall change process is needed.

When applying for a patent, the enterprise shall avoid that the patent cannot be granted or the patent right is unstable due to prior publication of any technical information.

This case is one of the top ten cases of reexamination and invalidation in 2017. Source：http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=107861 http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=107890