IP: The importance of design patents
The recent and historic Apple iPhone lawsuit against Samsung has thrown the technological spotlight onto intellectual property.
July 09, 2013 at 05:15 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The recent and historic Apple iPhone lawsuit against Samsung has thrown the technological spotlight onto intellectual property. This case not only highlights the competitive tension between Apple,Samsung and the entire mobile device industry, but it also forces recognition of a much less common form of IP, known as the “design patent.”
Design patents are often overlooked despite the fact that they have been available to innovators for more than 150 years. These types of patents focus on the appearance of an object, rather than the way it works. The designs are created with aesthetic purposes in mind, and they specifically protect an object's shape, surface treatment and color, or any combination of the three. Design patents are an invaluable company asset for a wide variety of industries since they protect iconic designs ranging from Apple's iPhone graphics to Aviator Ray-Ban sunglasses to the original glass Coca-Cola bottle.
Design patents are a cost-effective mechanism to add value to a company and combat the counterfeiting of products. The typical cost for obtaining a design patent is anywhere from $2,000 to $4,000. For a company whose long-term goal is to sell its technology in the future, a stock-pile of design patents are tangible assets that, in my experience, can significantly increase the selling price. But the timeframe of that value is limited to the 14-year term of the design patent itself. Design patents also can be effective tools to expand legal rights and remedies against a copyist of a company's technology. Patent law allows the design patent owner to collect as damages the total profits of the infringer of those patents.
When hearing the words “design patent,” many think of designs of chairs, bottles, shirts, shoes—anything that you can actually touch and feel. But today's electronic world offers opportunities for design patent protection in ways most companies overlook. A design patent can protect the visual qualities of software-generated icons, the imagery associated with various graphical user interfaces and other visual elements, including aspects of animations, or the virtual environment of a company's product or website. These designs generally are called “virtual designs.” In its design patent lawsuit against Samsung, Apple seeks to protect certain device designs and virtual designs, including the ones in the below graphic:
Virtual designs are embodied in a display, usually an electronic screen display. These designs help define companies by playing a great role in the look and feel of a company's respective products. Covering icons as well as text fonts, a graphical user interface has a scope of protection beyond even the very devices with which they are typically associated. As examples, well known virtual designs include Microsoft's four-tile design for its Windows home screen, and Google Map's pin locator icon.
A design patent application is straightforward to prepare, yet it needs to be very specific as it relates to the object's shape, surface treatment and/or color, as shown in Pepsi's Design Patent No. D617,803 below:
A company's sophisticated visual elements in its computer user interfaces and the use of innovative individual icons or visual cues potentially create great value. For these designs, traditional methods of trademark and copyright protection have fallen short, at least in my opinion. But the design patent has sharp teeth that leave a lasting bite mark, as Samsung is finding out in its legal battles with Apple.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250