Examining the sufficiency of disclosure requirement for design applications

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Examining the sufficiency of disclosure requirement for design applications

Image of engineer drawing a blue print design building or house, An engineer workplace with blueprints, pencil, protractor and safety helmet, Industry concept

As a drawing or photograph constitutes the entire visual disclosure of what is claimed in a design application, it must be clear and complete. In relation to this, according to the Enforcement Rules of Taiwan's Patent Act which were in place prior to January 1 2013, applicants were required to submit a drawing or photograph illustrating the perspective and six views (i.e. front view, left-side view, right-side view, bottom view, top view and rear view) of the claimed design.

It was when the Amendment to the Enforcement Rules took effect on January 1 2013 that the aforesaid formality prerequisite was relaxed. After the change, a drawing or photograph is considered adequate if it contains a sufficient number of views that constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the claimed design.

Lately, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) has expressed some intent to revise the current patent examination benchmark, making it clear that aspects not illustrated in the drawing shall be deemed to be the non-claimed portions of an article and form no part of a claimed design. However, it does not mean that TIPO will significantly relax the sufficiency of disclosure requirement. That is to say, under the general principle that the outer appearance of a claimed design must be depicted in the drawing or photograph in its entirety, a design application will still be rejected if the drawing submitted contains only a perspective view and a plan view.

The rationale behind this rejection is that a drawing cannot constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of a design if not all the content of an omitted view(s) can be directly regarded as the "non-claimed portion of the design", or if any of the claimed aesthetic features of the design are regarded as not having been clearly depicted in the submitted views, in terms of appearance and shape of the article.

Due to the attitude taken by TIPO towards the sufficiency of disclosure requirement, applicants are advised to always submit a drawing or photograph that contains the perspective and six plan views, if at all possible, so as to forestall any potential rejection.

tsai-mingchu.jpg

Ming-Chu Tsai

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article