Diversify Your Device Patent Portfolio with Design Patents
A unique design is as important as a device’s function for a product’s identity and your market share.
Jason Honeyman | Shannon Vittengl |
As a business-savvy medical device executive, you likely are well versed on the value of utility patents. But are you aware that a design patent for your product can be an equally important component of your intellectual property portfolio? This article explains the differences between utility and design patents, and details why your company should consider diversifying its IP investment with design protection.
Design Patents Looking Good
A utility patent is the most popular type of patent. It protects the structural or functional aspects of a new, or improved, product or system. A design patent, on the other hand, covers the unique look or appearance of a device. It embraces elements such as a specific product shape or a particular surface ornamentation. If you purchased a home blood-pressure monitor recently, for example, you may have noticed that the cuff is housed in a sleek-looking container. The shape of this container may be protected with a design patent.
Or consider your most recent visit to the dentist. Perhaps you noticed a futuristic-looking tool with a unique surface texture. The surface ornamentation of this tool also may be protected with a design patent. Just as with a utility patent, a design patent may be directed at only a part or subassembly, rather than the device as a whole. (Quick tip: You can tell the type of patent from the patent number on the cover page. A design patent starts with a letter “D” and includes a number, as of June 2009, that is less than 600,000. In contrast, the numbering scheme for utility patents will surpass 7,500,000 by June 2009.)
The content of the two patents also differs. A design patent consists primarily of drawings and very little text other than a brief sentence that describes each drawing, e.g., “Figure 1 is a sectional view.” A utility patent, on the other hand, routinely includes many columns of text that describes the various embodiments of an invention and then ends with one or more claims that define the scope of the invention. A design patent has only one claim, a short characterization of the illustrated device, e.g., “The ornamental design for a medical device as shown in the drawings.”
A design patent expires earlier than a utility patent. The term of a design patent is 14 years from the issue date, whereas the term of a utility patent (with some exceptions) is 20 years from filing date. The starting point for measuring the term, as well as the term length, are different for design patents and utility patents. Once a design patent is issued, or granted, no further action is required to keep the design patent in force. In contrast, maintenance fees must be paid on three separate occasions to the U.S. Patent Office to keep a utility patent in force. These fees are due 4 years, 8 years, and 12 years after the issue date. Failure to pay any of the maintenance fees will cause the utility patent to lapse.
Reasons to Consider Design Patents
Here are seven good reasons to consider a design patent:
1. To protect your investment. Product design can critically impact market acceptance and success. If your company has invested in the look and feel of a product, filing a design patent application enables you to protect this investment. A new product may include innovative technical features that may be covered by a utility patent and an eye-catching appearance that may warrant design patent protection. But in some cases, utility patent protection is not available because the technical features may be old. However, if you recast this old product in a new design, it could be the subject of a design patent. For example, stethoscopes have been around for years, but if you redesign even just a portion of the stethoscope, you may be able to protect the new stethoscope with a design patent.
2. To prevent knockoffs. A competitor or knockoff artist may want to sell a device that looks like your company's product, taking advantage of the technology, customer service, or branding that distinguishes your product from your competitors' device. Particularly for over-the-counter goods, a customer may not take the time to discern the genuine product from an imitator and mistakenly purchase the wrong product, thinking it's your company's device. Although less common, the same mistake can be made even by hospital purchasing agents. If the confusingly similar product does not incorporate your company's technical innovation, then there may be no utility patent infringement. There is, however, a design patent violation.
3. For faster patent protection. Design patents tend to be issued more quickly than utility patents. It's common to wait several years before the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reviews your utility application. Although backlogs also exist for the examination of design patents, the delays are typically much shorter. A review of recently issued medical device design patents reveals that some design patents are being issued in less than one year. If having a patented product out in the marketplace quickly provides you with a competitive advantage, filing a design patent application could be beneficial.
4. To save money. A design patent costs much less to prepare than a utility patent. An illustrator, known as a patent draftsman, creates the various drawings. An attorney's time for reviewing the figures and completing the application is often minimal. In contrast, a utility application includes a long and detailed description of the invention and consequently requires more time and increased costs to prepare. Once a design application is filed at the USPTO, an examiner reviews it and frequently grants the patent in the first pass, unlike a utility application where the examination process can require several rounds before reaching a favorable outcome.
5. For special remedies. Remedies for design patent infringement are stronger than those offered for utility patent infringement. For example, a prevailing design patent plaintiff can recover all of an infringer's profits for selling the offending design. A utility patent owner, in contrast, typically recovers only a reasonable royalty for infringement or, in certain circumstances, its own lost profits but never the profits of the infringer. Thus, the threat of losing all profits is a big stick that tends to motivate a design patent infringer to seek a quick settlement.
6. For advantages over trade dress rights. Some may wonder whether design patent protection is overkill if the company intends to rely on trade dress rights, which also protect the look and feel of a product or its packaging. To recover for trade dress infringement, however, one must first establish that the trade dress has obtained “secondary meaning” or “acquired distinctiveness” in the marketplace. In other words, the public has come to associate the trade dress with a particular producer of the goods. Although trade dress protection is valuable, it typically takes at least several years and considerable advertising and marketing expenditures before the requisite secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness can be established. Consequently, during at least the first few years after a product launch, if not longer, no trade dress rights are available to put an end to copycat products. On the other hand, a design patent usually will be granted long before this evidentiary hurdle can be met, enabling the design patent owner to deal immediately with infringers.
Table I. (click to enlarge) Leading companies and number of design patent families. |
7. To match your competitors. Yet another reason to consider adding design patents to your patent portfolio is that your competitors may already be doing so. Table I lists the number of U.S. design patent families for various leading companies in the medical device field.
Design Patents Now More Valuable?
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may make design patents even more valuable. In Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the Federal Circuit simplified the test for design patent infringement, reducing it from two prongs to one. Before Egyptian Goddess, the owner of a design patent had to establish, one, that the accused infringer's device was substantially similar to the patented design and, two, the accused infringer's device contained substantially the same “point of novelty” that distinguished the patented design from previous arrangements, called “prior art.” Before this ruling many cases had become mired in the “point of novelty” issue, leading to substantially increased litigation costs. And, paradoxically, it became harder to prove infringement of patents covering designs that markedly departed from the prior art or included several distinguishing features.
In Egyptian Goddess, the Federal Circuit eliminated the point-of-novelty test. Now, the sole test is whether the accused design is substantially similar to the patented design. Such overall similarity, however, is viewed in the context of the prior art, so that the point-of-novelty test may still influence the infringement determination in certain circumstances.
The simplified test should make it easier to prove design patent infringement and should give particular pause to companies that sell copycat designs. Obtaining a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale of offending designs during the pendency of a lawsuit also may be more readily granted.
Figure 1. (click to enlarge) The endoscope (A) includes many standard components: a light source (B), a connector assembly (K), a controller (D), an eye piece (G), and a flexible guide cable (E). |