The design must be represented by a drawing that complies with the requirements of § 1.84 and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the design. Appropriate and adequate surface shading should be used to show the character or contour of the surfaces represented. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast. Broken lines may be used to show visible environmental structure, but may not be used to show hidden planes and surfaces that cannot be seen through opaque materials. Alternate positions of a design component, illustrated by full and broken lines in the same view are not permitted in a design drawing. Photographs and ink drawings are not permitted to be combined as formal drawings in one application. Photographs submitted in lieu of ink drawings in design patent applications must not disclose environmental structure but must be limited to the design claimed for the article.
[65 FR 54674, Sept. 8, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
“Apart from attempting to provide a verbal description of the design, a trial court can usefully guide the finder of fact by addressing a number of other issues that bear on the scope of the claim.”
In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
· cites it 2× “” In 37 C.F.R. 1.152 it states that “[t]he design must be represented by a drawing made in conformity with the rules laid down for drawings of mechanical inventions and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance of the article.”
Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Prods., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
“) Plaintiff argues the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) does not “require such a distinction or demarcation” and that Defendant failed to allege that Plaintiffs drawings did not comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ; for those failures, Plaintiff…”
Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 249 (D. Mass. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Second, unlike utility patents, design patents are limited to only a single claim. 37 C.”
Pac. Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“In short, while we look primarily to the wording of the claims in utility patents for the purpose of prosecution history estoppel, we must look at the requisite drawings in design patents to determine whether a surrender has occurred.”
Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A., LLC, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2010).
“”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 . 9 . Although the Victorinox and Konneker designs are contained within utility patents, they still constitute prior art with respect to the design patents at issue.”
Nordock Inc. v. Sys. Inc., 927 F. Supp. 2d 577 (E.D. Wis. 2013).
“, (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ); assessing and describing the effect of any representations that may have been made in the course of the prosecution history, id.”
Catalyst Lifestyle Ltd. v. Elago Co., Ltd (S.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “3d at 680 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 ). Under the regulations governing design patent 27 drafting, if certain features appearing in the figures of a design patent are not desired to be 28 claimed, a patentee “is permitted to show the features in broken lines to exclude those 1…”
Moore v. Stewart, 600 F. Supp. 655 (W.D. Ark. 1985).
“The Rules of Practice in Patent Cases require that “The design must be represented by a drawing made in conformity with the rules laid down for drawings of mechanical inventions and must contain a sufficient number of views to constitute a complete disclosure of the appearance…”
Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021).
“3 Many features in the above figure are drawn using bro- ken lines, which, consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 1.152 , means they “represent the article in which the claimed design is embodied, but .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.