1
CONGRESS/FR22/WOR/002
September
2022
STRENGTHENING THE PRACTICE OF THE INDEPENDENT IP ATTORNEY
www.ficpi.org
1
/
4
World Congress
Cannes, France
27-28 September 2022
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
TITLE:
Summary Report on Workshop W2:
THE 7-VIEW REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGN APPLICATONS
DATE:
28 September 2022
DRAWN UP BY:
Robert S. Katz and Jürgen Buchhold (CET2)
Executive Summary
Participants
In summary: 18 attendees
Robert S. Katz
Jürgen Buchhold
Andrea de Gaspari
Editha Hechanova
Matt Pini
Jaqueline Holmes
Mariano Soni
Michael Conway
Przemyslaw Samoder
Robert Roser
Ronelle Goldenhuys
Thomas Bailey
Gabriel di Blasi
Emanuela Branca
Chris Atichian
Andrea Manola
Peter Everitt
Tarsa M. Machano
I. Elosegle
Britta Frommow
The Topic
The formal requirements for the representations of a design to be registered vary around
the world.
The Workshop W2 was held on September 28, 2022 in Cannes during the World
Congress 2022 and has taken a look to the formality of the 7-view requirement in some
jurisdictions where “portion practice” is also permitted.
2
CONGRESS/FR22/WOR/002
September
2022
STRENGTHENING THE PRACTICE OF THE INDEPENDENT IP ATTORNEY
www.ficpi.org
2
/
4
On the one hand, this results in problems with the selection of representations for a design,
especially when part of an entire product is to be protected. On the other hand, problems
arise with claiming priority of an already deposited design.
The Discussion
After an introduction into the topic and a presentation of the aims of the workshop, the
group discussed the topic.
A.
Currently, there are basically the following restrictions on the representation of a
design:
1.
There is a required number of views,
2.
There are required types of views, and
3.
There is a maximum number of views.
These requirements are generally unnecessary for an understanding of the design for
which protection is sought and usually just results in additional drafting costs for the
applicant and/or the applicant being unable to show its design in the best manner.
B.
With respect to the
required number of views
, many jurisdictions require, with few
exceptions, seven views of a design which include six orthogonal views (i.e., top and
bottom plan views, front and rear views, and left and right side views) and, in addition,
one perspective or isometric view.
In many cases, this leads to applicants being required to incur drafting fees to draft
drawing figures reflecting view that do not depict any part of the design for which
protection is sought.
Similarly, where it is clear of the article shape from a few views, it also has to prepare
views that add nothing to the understanding of the design for which protection is
sought.
All this applies in particular to designs encompassing portions of articles, what is
permitted in almost all jurisdictions.
Therefore,
FICPI urges
that jurisdictions to give applicants more flexibility in the specific
views it chooses to best present its design for which protection is sought and should not
require views that are not necessary for understanding the design for which protection
is sought.
3
CONGRESS/FR22/WOR/002
September
2022
STRENGTHENING THE PRACTICE OF THE INDEPENDENT IP ATTORNEY
www.ficpi.org
3
/
4
C.
With respect to the
required types of views
, the standard seven view approach (and as
described above) does not always result in the best and/or most complete depiction of
the design for which protection is sought.
In many cases, additional perspective views or perspective views in lieu or orthogonal
views, provide a better understanding of the design.
Therefore,
FICPI urges
that jurisdictions to give applicants more flexibility in the specific
views it chooses to best present its design for which protection is sought and should
merely only require that these views enable an observer to understand the design for
which protection is sought based on the disclosure.
D.
With respect to the
maximum number of views
, some jurisdictions have a maximum
number of views.
In one prominent jurisdiction this maximum is seven (7).
However, there are many situations where more than 7 views are required or desirable
to best show the design.
These reasons include:
a.
the design being movable between different states or otherwise having multiple
appearances.
Products commonly have portions, or have different two or more configurations and
applicants should be given the ability to best show multiple conditions/states of its
design.
Some designs have unique aspects that are seen with an enlarged view or cross
sections, however, for each such view added, it is forced to choose another view to
delete.
Many animated graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are best shown by more than seven
views.
Designs directed to sets are difficult and sometimes impossible to present in seven
or less views.
4
CONGRESS/FR22/WOR/002
September
2022
STRENGTHENING THE PRACTICE OF THE INDEPENDENT IP ATTORNEY
www.ficpi.org
4
/
4
Therefore,
FICPI urges
that jurisdictions to remove any requirements that limits the
number of views that an applicant can submit with his application, and in the event
that a limit is logistically required, that the limit be as high as possible to enable the
applicant to best present its design for which the desired protection is sought.
The Common Conclusion of this Workshop
The group discussion came to the conclusion that it’s time urging countries to be more
flexible regarding design patent drawing requirements with respect to the required number
of views, the required types of views, and the any maximum number of view requirements.
The outcome of this workshop has become subject of FICPI Resolution
EXCO/FR22/RES/006
.
[End of document]