CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
By SPERA.de Designerschuhe, Taschen und Accessoires from Deutschland - Michael Kors Olivia Lace up Sneaker 43S5OLFS1L Kalbsleder bronze (3), CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39515519

Federal Circuit Says Designs Can Be Protected in Two Dimensions

Federal Circuit
Says drawing can be 2D
If object’s 3D

A design patent protects the ornamental design of a functional object.

As we  discussed in this  blog, a design patent  can cover things like design elements of Apple phones, including the black rectangular face with rounded corners and the grid of colorful icons for apps.

As the Federal Circuit has noted,

As with utility patents, the written description of a design patent must meet certain statutory requirements regarding enablement and definiteness. …

The pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, concerns the requirement that a patent be enabled by its written description. It states, in relevant part:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.

A design patent on a three-dimensional object will normally require at least seven drawings, showing the object from various angles: front, rear, side, etc.

In the recent case of  In re: Ron Maatita, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and found that just because an object has three dimensions that doesn’t mean that the ornamental aspects of a design can’t be disclosed and evaluated based on a two-dimensional perspective.

The case involved a design for an athletic shoe bottom.

The patent examiner rejected the claim as non-enabled and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because it used only a two-dimensional view.

The court found that because a designer of ordinary skill in the art, judging Maatita’s design as would an ordinary observer, could make the comparisons for infringement purposes based on the provided, two-dimensional depiction, Maatita’s claim meets the enablement and definiteness requirements of section 112.

Related Articles

When is a patented product sold “within the United States”?

When is a product
“sold in the United States”?
It’s complicated.

Read More

Do AI content generators violate underlying IP rights?

IP owners sue
AI art generators.
What counts as “fair use”?

Read More

Patent Wars Come to Crypto

Veritaseum
Brings lawsuit against Circle
In patent dispute

Read More

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design