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

This year’s most-read stories covered uncertainty at the USPTO, a potential boycott of a major international IP conference, rankings releases, and a contempt of court proceeding
The parties have agreed on a court-guided settlement covering Pantech’s entire SEP portfolio, marking a global first
The introduction of Canada’s patent term adjustment has left practitioners sceptical about its value, with high fees and limited eligibility meaning SMEs could lose out
With the US privacy landscape more fragmented and active than ever and federal legislation stalled, lawyers at Sheppard Mullin explain how states are taking bold steps to define their own regimes
Viji Krishnan of Corsearch unpicks the results of a survey that reveals almost 80% of trademark practitioners believe in a hybrid AI model for trademark clearance and searches
News of Via Licensing Alliance selling its HEVC/VCC pools and a $1.5 million win for Davis Polk were also among the top talking points
The winner of a high-profile bidding war for Warner Bros Discovery may gain a strategic advantage far greater than mere subscriber growth - IP licensing leverage
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Varuni Paranavitane of Finnegan and IP counsel Lisa Ribes compare and contrast two recent AI copyright decisions from Germany and the UK
Exclusive in-house data uncovered by Managing IP reveals French firms underperform on providing value equivalent to billing costs and technology use
Gift this article