{"id":113,"date":"2024-03-12T17:43:08","date_gmt":"2024-03-12T17:43:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.ipdavinci.com\/?p=113"},"modified":"2024-04-12T17:04:22","modified_gmt":"2024-04-12T17:04:22","slug":"design-patent-case-study-how-excessive-or-unnecessary-details-can-jeopardize-design-patents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.ipdavinci.com\/?p=113","title":{"rendered":"Design Patent Case Study: How Excessive or Unnecessary Details Can Jeopardize Design Patents"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Design Patent Case Study: How Excessive or Unnecessary Details Can Jeopardize Design Patents<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Less is More: Navigating Detail Complexity in Design Patent Applications<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Design patents are a valuable tool for protecting the ornamental aspects of a product. However, when a design includes elements that are purely functional, it risks being invalidated on the grounds of lack of ornamentality. A compelling case study that highlights this issue is Sattler, U.S. Design Patent No. D823,093 (\u201cthe \u2018093 patent\u201d), entitled \u201cVESA Mount Adapter Bracket.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/
Figure 1 from Sattler vs. Humancentric: Highlighting unnecessary details in solid lines.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Background of the Case<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The \u2018093 patent was issued on July 17, 2018, from an application filed on February 17, 2017. It was eligible to be challenged in a Post-Grant Review (PGR) upon issuance. The claimed design included three tabs and eight spaced-apart grommet heads, with the perimeter of the body of the bracket appearing in phantom lines and thus not part of the claimed design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sattler filed a PGR challenging the validity of the \u2018093 patent solely on the basis of a lack of ornamentality, arguing that the design was dictated by function. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cited several factors in its decision to institute the PGR, including the functional nature of VESA mount adapter brackets, the grommet spacing following the screw mounting interface dimensions in the VESA Flat Display Mounting Interface Standard, and the size and height of the grommets being set by VESA standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Importance of Excluding Unnecessary Functional Elements<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This case underscores the importance of carefully considering which elements to include in the claimed design of a patent. The inclusion of the grommet heads, which were dictated by functional considerations, played a significant role in the PTAB’s decision to institute the PGR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To mitigate the risk of a design patent being considered fully functional, it is advisable to exclude unnecessary functional elements from the claimed design. In the case of the \u2018093 patent, disclaiming the grommet heads in dashed lines could have reduced the emphasis on their functional nature and strengthened the argument for the ornamentality of the design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Sattler case serves as a reminder that design patents should focus on the ornamental aspects of a product, with functional elements either excluded or clearly disclaimed. By carefully considering the inclusion of elements in the claimed design, patent applicants can reduce the risk of challenges based on functionality and enhance the enforceability of their design patents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recommended Webinars<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Delve deeper into the topics discussed in this article by attending our webinars. These sessions provide further insights and offer the chance to interact with experts in design patent drafting and illustration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n