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

In the ninth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP & ME, a community focused on ethnic minority IP professionals
Firms that made strategic PTAB hires say that insider expertise is becoming more valuable in the wake of USPTO changes
Aled Richards-Jones, a litigator and qualified barrister, is the fourth partner to join the firm’s growing patent litigation team this year
An IP lawyer tasked with helping to develop Brownstein’s newly unveiled New York office is eyeing a measured approach to talent hunting
Amanda Griffiths, who will be tasked with expanding the firm’s trademark offering in New Zealand, says she hopes to offer greater flexibility to clients at her new home
News of EasyGroup failing in its trademark infringement claim against ‘Easihire’ and Amgen winning a key appeal at the UPC were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by February 16 2026
Edward Russavage and Maria Crusey at Wolf Greenfield say that OpenAI MDL could broaden discovery and reshape how clients navigate AI copyright disputes
The UPC has increased some fees by as much as 32%, but firms and their clients had been getting a good deal so far
Meryl Koh, equity director and litigator at Drew & Napier in Singapore, discusses an uptick in cross-border litigation and why collaboration across practice areas is becoming crucial
Gift this article