Introduction

A recent patent invalidation case handled by Tranfan Law Office offers a critical reminder for designers: merely changing a common geometric shape such as converting a round bottle into a square one does not constitute a protected innovation.

Tranfan Law Office successfully represented a client in filing a request for invalidation with the Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the Patent Office (CNIPA), ultimately resulting in the design patent at issue being declared invalid in its entirety.

Case Background

The disputed patent, filed on April 26, 2024, and granted on December 13, 2024, covered a packaging bottle design. Our team led by Lawyer Robby Hang identified prior art that was structurally and proportionally nearly identical, except for one key difference:

• Disputed Patent: Square/rectangular cross-section (Our Clients Design in Figure 1).
• Prior Art: Circular cross-section (Prior Design in Figure 1).

Tranfan Law Office argued that the disputed patent lacked an “obvious difference” from the existing design, violating Article 23(2) of the Chinese Patent Law.

The Invalidation Decision

The CNIPA Panel agreed with Tranfan Law Office, finding that the overall visual impressions were essentially the same. The alleged differences were dismissed as follows:

1. Square vs. Round: A common geometric shape variation and routine in the packaging industry.
2. Bottom Surface: Was not shown in the reference pictures.
3. Other Minor Details: Localized variations with no significant visual impact.

Final Ruling: The patent was declared entirely invalid.

 Key Takeaways

1. Avoid obvious substitutions: Changing a circle to a square (or triangle) is not enough for patent protection.
2. Focus on overall impression: Novelty must create a distinctly different overall visual impact.
3. Conduct prior art searches: Always assess whether your design is truly new before filing.
4. Defend against weak patents: If a patent is merely a geometric variation, it is vulnerable to invalidation.
5. Be Thorough: Include complete information such as reference pictures of all angles of a design.

Conclusion

This case reinforces that true innovation requires more than superficial changes. The patent system protects genuine creativity, not routine design swaps.