工業設計轉向無實體及虛擬環境 - 4： 美國對無實體設計保護的政策趨勢

參見MPEP §1502。

圖片來源：https://designdb.wipo.int/designdb/hague/en/,eji6ru4c93u86gp, 國際海亞申請案DM 216,719。

See8 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents §23.02 (2016) (documenting the historical development that led to the design patent act);see also Jason J. Du Mont & Mark D. Janis,Virtual Designs, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 107, 111 (2013) (providing a thorough dive into the foundational debate over whether to enact design patent protection in the United States, and highlighting the holes between copyright and utility patent protection at the time design patent protection was being considered). The “useful article doctrine” of copyright law precludes copyright protection for industrial designs that are not separable and independent from the utilitarian parts of the article.See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 55 (1976) (reporting Congress’s intent to distinguish between “works of applied art,” which receive copyright protection, and industrial designs, which do not receive copyright protection, in passing the Copyright Act of 1976)。

See Andrew Beckerman-Rodau, The Problem with Intellectual Property Rights:  Subject Matter Expansion, 13 Yale J.L. & Tech. 35, 80–81 (2010) (reviewing the overlapping regimes of intellectual property and emphasizing the expanding view of protectable subject matter)。

See 35 U.S.C. § 171 (2012) (enumerating the requirements to receive a design patent); MPEP § 1504.01 (reviewing the jurisprudence interpreting the requirements of § 171); see also 8 Chisum, supra note 71, § 23.03 (detailing the requirements for patenting a design).  The owner of a copyright is given a longer period of protection, which is typically the life of the author plus seventy years; however, because of the longer period of protection, the right of a copyright owner is not absolute.  Merges et al., supra note 52, at 26–27.  The rights of others to use the copyrighted work include, among other rights, fair use and independent creation.  Id。

參見 Schnell，46 F.2d 第205 頁（「國會在1902 年修訂該法案時，並未打算將設計專利的適當主題排除在外——任何新的和原創的印記、裝飾、專利、印刷品或要印刷的圖片） 、塗漆、鑄造或以其他方式放置或加工到任何製造物品上。

Seymour & Torrance, supra note 88, at 192。

35 U.S.C.第171條(2012)。

See ClearCorrect, 810 F.3d at 1299 (discussing the ITCs argument“that the use of the word ‘commerce’ indicates that ‘articles’ should be read broadly”); see also Certain Digital Models, Inv. No. 337-TA-833, USITC Pub. 4555 (May 6, 2013) (Final) (recommending the issue of cease and desist orders to ClearCorrect concerning six infringed patents of Alig。

20 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1927)。

Id。

See supra Section I.C.1 (providing an overview of the history of § 171’s changing language。

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980) (“In choosing such expansive terms as ‘manufacture’ and ‘composition of matter,’ modified by the comprehensive ‘any,’ Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope。

Id. at 308–09 (citing the early history of the first Patent Act of 1793, including thoughts of the author, Thomas Jefferson, that defined statutory subject matter as “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement” (quoting Act of Feb. 21, 1793, ch. 11, § 1, 1 Stat. 318, 319)); supra notes 191–93 and accompanying text (discussing the Supreme Court’s view in Chakrabarty)。

35 U.S.C. § 171 (2012); see supra Section I.B.2(a) (recognizing the courts’ importation of utility patent statutory provisions into design patent law)。