Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court of China rendered a final judgment in an administrative dispute over the invalidation of a design patent, clarifying that, when determining whether a design patent is obviously distinct from a combination of prior design features, it is not required that the overall design of the product corresponding to the design features used for combination has been fully disclosed. If, based on the content already disclosed by the prior design, an ordinary consumer can determine the product corresponding to the specific design feature used for combination as well as the relative positional relationship of that design feature within the product as a whole, then that specific design feature may be used for combination comparison.

This case involves a design patent titled "Road Traffic Signal Light" (hereinafter the patent in suit; see the attached figures), the patentee of which is Sichuan Ke XX Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Ke XX Company"). Sichuan Hua XX Intelligent Transportation Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Hua XX Company") filed a request for invalidation declaration of the patent in suit with the China National Intellectual Property Administration, mainly on the ground that the patent in suit, as compared with the combination of Evidence 1 (see the attached figures) and Evidence 5 (notarized pictures from WeChat Moments, see the attached figures), did not comply with Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. The decision at issue held that it could not be determined that the three pictures in Evidence 5 related to the same product, and that the three pictures did not clearly and completely show the overall appearance design of the product, so they could not serve as the basis for combination comparison; it therefore decided to maintain the validity of the patent in suit. Dissatisfied, Hua XX Company filed an administrative lawsuit with the court of first instance. After trial, the court of first instance held that Evidence 5 could be used for combination comparison, and therefore ruled to revoke the decision at issue and ordered the China National Intellectual Property Administration to make a new decision. Dissatisfied, Ke XX Company appealed.

In the second instance, the Supreme People's Court held: First, as to whether content published in online spaces requiring authorized access, such as WeChat Moments, constitutes prior design, a comprehensive judgment should be made by taking into overall consideration factors such as the information publishing mechanism of WeChat Moments, the specific circumstances of the publisher, the specific content of the information, and the main use of that publisher's WeChat Moments. If the invalidation petitioner adduces evidence proving that the WeChat Moments is mainly used for commercial purposes, it may be preliminarily presumed that the content of that WeChat Moments is in a state accessible to the unspecified public, unless the patentee has evidence proving that the content of that WeChat Moments has not been disclosed or that a confidentiality obligation has been agreed upon with the specific persons to whom it was disclosed. The evidence in the case shows that the WeChat Moments at issue published several introductions concerning Ke XX Company and traffic signal lights as well as pictures of signal lights bearing promotional wording, and repeatedly reposted videos and official-account articles of "Ke XX Industrial". Accordingly, it can be presumed that the owner of the WeChat account at issue had the subjective intention of making the content of the Moments available to the public for commercial promotion, and that the WeChat account was closely related to Ke XX Company. Ke XX Company claimed that the Moments information containing the compared design did not constitute prior design of the patent in suit, but did not provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to establish its claim. Therefore, the pictures involved in the WeChat Moments in Evidence 5 had been disclosed before the filing date of the patent in suit.

Second, as to whether multiple pictures disclosed in one piece of prior design evidence relate to the same product, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on all the information reflected by the evidence in the case, in combination with the parties' ability to adduce evidence. If the information shown in the evidence provided by the invalidation petitioner can corroborate each other, and the party capable of providing counter-evidence fails to provide evidence sufficient to rebut it, the people's court may find that the multiple pictures relate to the same product. In this case, the three pictures shown in Evidence 5 were all within the "SolidWorks software"; the top of the navigation window on the left side of the software displayed the same name "300-xinhaodeng-2016" in all of them, and the three pictures were in the same position in the navigation window. Considering the functions and nature of the "SolidWorks software", in the absence of contrary evidence, it can be found that the three pictures in Evidence 5 relate to the appearance design of the same product.

Third, when determining whether a design patent is obviously distinct from a combination of prior design features, it is not necessarily required that the overall design of the product corresponding to the design features used for combination has been fully disclosed. If, based on the content already disclosed, an ordinary consumer can determine the product corresponding to the specific design feature used for combination and the relative positional relationship of that design feature within the overall design, then that design feature may be used for combination comparison. In this case, although Evidence 5 did not fully disclose the overall appearance design of the signal light involved, the design feature that Hua XX Company claimed to use for combination was the peripheral decorative rim of the signal light involved in Evidence 5; from the three pictures involved in Evidence 5, especially the first picture, it can be clearly seen that the product involved is a traffic signal light, and the several posts concerning traffic signal lights published in the WeChat Moments involved in Evidence 5 also corroborate that the products in the three pictures are traffic signal lights. Based on the content recorded in the three pictures, an ordinary consumer, relying on his or her level of knowledge and cognitive ability, is able to know the position of the peripheral decorative rim used for combination in Evidence 5 within the signal light as a whole. Moreover, the peripheral decorative rim used for combination has a relatively independent visual effect. Therefore, the peripheral decorative rim in Evidence 5 may be used for combination comparison. Accordingly, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment.

This case clarifies the criteria for determining whether information published in WeChat Moments constitutes prior design and the determination of prior design features that may be used for combination comparison, and has reference value for similar cases.

Attached figures: the patent in suit, Evidence 1, and Evidence 5 (see the original link)

Source: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court of China, original release date: 2026-07-03, original link: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5879.html