All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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.


Ming-Chu Tsai

More from across our site

The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
The USPTO cancelled ‘Galavava’ and 'Surfstar Wake' and partly cancelled ‘Heika’ this month
We have published all the 2022 rankings of the leading firms for patent litigation and protection work
In-house and private practice counsel say UK judges have raised the bar for preliminary injunction requests
António Campinos will serve another five years as EPO president – perhaps he’ll calm unrest at the office in that time
LGBTQ IP lawyers say using rainbow colours and posting solidarity messages on social media must be followed by concrete action
Brand owners bemoan counterfeiters’ latest wheeze and say enforcement authorities should get more involved
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree