现有设计抗辩

小家电外观设计专利侵权应对06

Small Home Appliance Appearance Design Patent Infringement Response 06

现有设计抗辩

Defense of Prior Design

作者：龙利松

Author: Long Lisong

关键词：专利侵权;外观设计;现有设计;现有设计抗辩

Keywords: Patent Infringement; Design; Prior Design; Defense of Prior Design

（本文系为普法目的而创作，文中故事改编自真实案例，当事人名称以化名处理，如有雷同，纯属巧合，请勿对号入座。）

(This article is compiled for legal popularization purposes only. The stories herein are adapted from real cases; all parties involved have been given pseudonyms. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental, and readers are requested not to engage in personal association.)

一、案情简介

I. Background

上节说到，小松总的电子台灯在电商平台被小霆公司投诉侵犯其外观设计专利权，来咨询律师。在了解明显属于现有设计的外观设计专利权依法不予保护后，小松总提出，如果小霆公司以侵犯其外观设计为由去法院起诉的话，该怎么办？

As mentioned in the previous section, Mr. Xiaosong's electronic desk lamp was reported on an e-commerce platform by Xiaoting Company for allegedly infringing its appearance design patent, and he consulted a lawyer. After learning that a design patent that is obviously part of the prior design is not protected by law, Mr. Xiaosong asked: if Xiaoting Company sues in court for infringement of its appearance design, what should be done?

律师说，小松总提供的照片中显示，与被投诉的电子台灯外观一样的台灯在涉案专利申请日之前已经在某繁华的商业街公开售卖，已经构成涉案专利的现有设计，除了可以主张小霆公司的外观设计专利属于现有设计依法应当不予保护外，还可以进行现有设计抗辩。

The lawyer stated that the photo provided by Mr. Xiaosong shows that a desk lamp with the same appearance as the complained electronic desk lamp was already being publicly sold on a busy commercial street before the filing date of the patent in question, thereby already constituting prior design to the patent. In addition to arguing that the design patent of Xiao Ting’s company belongs to prior design and should not be protected according to the law, a prior design defense can also be raised.

小松总不解，那什么是现有设计抗辩？现有设计抗辩一定能成功吗？

Mr. Xiaosong was puzzled. What is the defense of prior design? Is it always successful?

二、法律分析

II. Legal Analysis

律师解释道，所谓现有设计抗辩，就是在外观设计专利侵权纠纷当中，如果被诉侵权人能够证明被诉侵权产品的外观设计属于现有设计，那么就不构成侵犯涉案外观设计专利权。

The lawyer explained that the defense of prior design refers to the situation in an appearance design patent infringement dispute , if the alleged infringer can prove that the appearance design of the accused infringing product belongs to the prior design, then it does not constitute infringement of the appearance design patent in question.

现有设计抗辩是否能成立，主要以一般消费者的标准，判断被诉侵权产品的外观设计与现有设计的整体视觉效果是否相同或者相似。在实务中，一般采用三步对比法进行判断。

Whether the defense of prior design can be established mainly depends on judging, from the perspective of an ordinary consumer, whether the overall visual effects of the accused infringing product and the prior design are identical or similar. In practice, a three-step comparison method is generally used for judgment.

第一步，将被诉侵权产品与现有设计做对比，看两者的整体视觉效果是否相同，如果相同，那么就可以认定被诉侵权产品的外观设计属于现有设计，不侵犯涉案外观设计专利权。

Step 1: Compare the accused infringing product with the prior design to see if their overall visual effects are identical. If they are identical, then it can be determined that the appearance design of the accused infringing product belongs to the prior design and does not infringe the appearance design patent in question.

然而，现实当中往往会出现，被诉侵权产品、现有设计和涉案外观设计三者相近的情况，这就需要继续第二步和第三步的对比。

However, in reality, situations often arise the accused infringing product, the prior design, and the patented appearance design are all similar. This requires proceeding to the second and third steps of comparison.

第二步，将涉案外观设计与现有设计进行对比，找出涉案外观设计区别于现有设计的区别设计特征。

Step 2: Compare the patented appearance design with the prior design to identify the distinctive design features that differentiate the patented design from the prior design.

第三步，将被诉侵权产品与涉案外观设计进行对比，分析被诉侵权产品是否包含了涉案外观设计区别于现有设计的区别设计特征。

Step 3: Compare the accused infringing product with the patented appearance design to analyze whether the accused infringing product incorporates the distinctive design features that differentiate the patented design from the prior design.

一般来讲,如果被诉侵权产品完全没有包含涉案外观设计区别于现有设计的区别设计特征，则可以推定被诉侵权产品不具有与涉案外观设计相同或相似的整体视觉效果，不构成侵权；如果被诉侵权产品包含了涉案外观设计区别于现有设计的全部区别设计特征，则可以推定被诉侵权产品具有与涉案外观设计相同或相似的整体视觉效果，构成侵权；如果被诉侵权产品只是包含了涉案外观设计区别于现有设计的部分区别设计特征，则需要进一步分析这些区别设计特征对整体视觉效果的影响，是否使两者在整体视觉效果上实质相同。

Generally speaking:

If the accused infringing product does not contain any of the distinctive design features that differentiate the patented design from the prior design, it can be presumed that the accused product does not have an overall visual effect identical or similar to the patented design and does not constitute infringement.

If the accused infringing product contains all of the distinctive design features that differentiate the patented design from the prior design, it can be presumed that the accused product has an overall visual effect identical or similar to the patented design and constitutes infringement.

If the accused infringing product contains only some of the distinctive design features that differentiate the patented design from the prior design, it is necessary to further analyze the impact of these features on the overall visual effect—specifically, whether they cause the two to be substantially the same in overall visual effect.

回到本案，进行现有设计抗辩是否成立？

Returning to this case, would the defense of prior design be established?

从小松总提供的在涉案专利申请日前拍摄的照片中显示，与被投诉的电子台灯外观一样的台灯已经在某繁华的商业街公开售卖，该电子台灯的外观设计在涉案专利申请日前已经被公开，构成涉案专利的现有设计，而被投诉的电子台灯就是照片中电子台灯的同款，两者外观设计完全相同，可以认定被投诉的电子台灯的外观设计属于现有设计，不侵犯涉案外观设计专利权。

The photo taken before the filing date of the patent in question and provided by Mr. Xiaosong shows that a desk lamp with the same appearance as the complained electronic desk lamp was already being publicly sold on a busy commercial street. The design of this electronic desk lamp was disclosed before the filing date of the patent in question, constituting prior design to the patent. Since the complained electronic desk lamp is the same model as the one shown in the photo, with an identical design, it can be concluded that the design of the complained electronic desk lamp belongs to prior design and does not infringe the design patent in question.

小松总接着追问，那在应对外观设计专利侵权纠纷诉讼当中，除了现有设计抗辩之外，还有没有其他方式可以主张没有侵犯涉案专利权呢？关于这个问题，将在下节与大家分享。

Mr. Xiaosong then asked further: In responding to litigation over appearance design patent infringement disputes, besides the defense of prior design, are there other ways to claim no infringement of the patent in question? This issue will be shared with everyone in the next section.

三、对小家电企业的启示

Ⅲ. Implications for Small Home Appliance Companies

根据专利法的规定，在外观设计专利侵权纠纷当中，如果被诉侵权人能够证明被诉侵权产品的外观设计属于现有设计，那么就不构成侵犯涉案外观设计专利权。

According to the provisions of the Patent Law, in an appearance design patent infringement dispute, if the alleged infringer can prove that the appearance design of the accused infringing product belongs to the prior design, then it does not constitute infringement of the appearance design patent in question.

四、相关规定

IV. Relevant Provisions (Translation for Reference Only)

《中华人民共和国专利法》（2020年修正）

Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (2020 Revision)

第六十七条 在专利侵权纠纷中，被控侵权人有证据证明其实施的技术或者设计属于现有技术或者现有设计的，不构成侵犯专利权。

Article 67: In a patent infringement dispute, if the alleged infringer has evidence to prove that the technology or design exploited by it or him forms part of the prior art or prior design, such exploitation shall not constitute an infringement of the patent right.