You may have heard that Apple has been involved in a legal dispute with a small Chinese smart-phone manufacturer, over the design of the iPhone 6. The iconic gadget which helped to define the smart-phone era has been labeled an IP infringer.
Shenzhen Baili is a local Chinese smart-phone manufacturer. It owns design patent ZL201430009113.9 for 100C, its smart-phone model. This design patent was applied for in January, 2014. The iPhone 6 was not released until September 2014. Based on he design patent, Baili applied to the Beijing Intellectual Property Office to stop Apple from selling the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 plus in Beijing. On 10
th
May, Beijing Intellectual Property Office found that Apple’s iPhones looked too similar to the 100C and therefore infringed on the design patent registered by Shenzhen Baili. As a result of the judgment, Apple was ordered to stop selling the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus in Beijing. As a response, Apple filed an administrative lawsuit before the Beijing IP Court. Because of this appeal, the decision is not final and iPhone 6 models are still available for sale in China now.
The underlying logic of Beijing Intellectual Property Office is that certain differences do exist, such as the shape of button and the position of in-built camera; but they are either too minor for consumers to really take it seriously or too function-oriented to be deemed as decorative, the core for a design. Any design that is purely functional shall not be factored in when it comes to a design patent. The lack of distinctive differences resulted in Apple’s infringement of Baili’s design patent.
From some, this ruling may not be convincing. For instance, the court deemed iPhone’s iconic round button at the bottom as a functional part. Granted, this button is one of the most powerful functional parts of an iPhone; it could also be an integral part of its look, particularly when compared to other smart-phone designs.
Though the final ruling is still pending, its impact could be huge. As pointed out by Bloomberg, while the decision covers only Beijing, future lawsuits against Apple may refer to the case as a form of precedent, even thought precedent does not officially exist in China. Though China does not follow stare decisis and precedent is not legally binding, still it may potentially influence the outcomes of litigation elsewhere in China as prior similar cases may be submitted as evidence for the consideration of a new court. If there is a lesson to be learnt from this legal dispute, probably it is that design patent should also be incorporated in your patent layout and get your strategic designs patented first before anyone else.