蘋果(Apple)和三星(Samsung)的專利訴訟案，可能在業(yè)界引發(fā)兩大效應(yīng)：更多針對(duì)外觀設(shè)計(jì)提出的專利訴訟；以及更多企業(yè)開(kāi)始為產(chǎn)品的“外觀包裝”(trade dresse)注冊(cè)。 對(duì)美國(guó)專利系統(tǒng)來(lái)說(shuō)，這些都是相對(duì)較新，以及仍在使用的部分。以下我會(huì)告訴你，為何要更加關(guān)注它們。 1. 要針對(duì)這些項(xiàng)目興訟非常容易。因?yàn)橥庥^設(shè)計(jì)專利不需要長(zhǎng)期、復(fù)雜的索賠過(guò)程。只需要少數(shù)圖樣證明，而且所需的專家和律師以及支出也比較少。 2. 他們的范圍涵蓋甚廣。以外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利為例，在蘋果與三星的案子中，許多專家都同意它涵蓋了產(chǎn)品外觀和感覺(jué)的“整體印象”。而印象是主觀的，因此律師和專家們都可以在法庭上盡情爭(zhēng)辯。 3. 和你年紀(jì)相仿的陪審團(tuán)成員們很容易了解訴訟重點(diǎn)何在。任何人都能明白iPhone或iPad的相似與不同之處。但當(dāng)有人提出了3G蜂巢式標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相關(guān)的“Alternative e-bit”實(shí)用專利訴訟時(shí)，就不是每個(gè)人都能立即明白了。事實(shí)上，三星的律師有責(zé)任教育陪審團(tuán)，讓他們理解這些復(fù)雜又難理解的專有名詞。從這次官司來(lái) 看，他們?yōu)樵搶＠冻隽藰O大的開(kāi)發(fā)代價(jià)，但卻沒(méi)有獲得任何侵權(quán)賠償。 4. 他們可以藉打官司賺錢。蘋果的10.5億美元損害賠償中，主要是以外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利和外觀包裝等專利為主。 5. 保護(hù)你甚至不知道你擁有的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)。蘋果展示了其iPhone的盒子和外包裝──也就是“外觀包裝”。誰(shuí)會(huì)想到這個(gè)小盒子也是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)？你有想過(guò)能靠它賺錢嗎？好好想想吧！ 6. 每個(gè)人都會(huì)做同樣的事。蘋果與三星的官司帶來(lái)了很大的教訓(xùn)──如果不是今天，那么，不久的將來(lái)必然有其它人會(huì)做同樣的事。當(dāng)IP大賽開(kāi)始時(shí)，你千萬(wàn)不要被排除在外。 7. 產(chǎn)業(yè)的復(fù)蘇看來(lái)更加緩慢。正因?yàn)槿绱?，現(xiàn)在有太多人空閑時(shí)間太多了，而且他們一直想找新的機(jī)會(huì)。去提起外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利訴訟，或是注冊(cè)外觀包裝專利正是時(shí)候。 你可以嗤之以鼻，告訴我有關(guān)黑色圓角方形的專利是多么愚蠢。 但，當(dāng)你忙著看笑話時(shí)，我正忙著申請(qǐng)外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利。 法庭上見(jiàn)！ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯： Joy Teng 參考英文原文：7 reasons to file design patents, trade dresses ，by Rick Merritt

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 東京法院判決三星未侵犯蘋果專利
• MIC:避免重蹈三星專利案覆轍有門道
• 手機(jī)產(chǎn)業(yè)何謂創(chuàng)新？何謂發(fā)明？pXfesmc

{pagination} 7 reasons to file design patents, trade dresses Rick Merritt SAN JOSE, Calif. – The Apple vs. Samsung case sent out two calls to action big as billboards along San Jose’s Highway 101: File more design patents. Register more trade dresses. These are the relatively new and still under-used parts of the U.S. Patent System. I’ll tell you why they are well worth more attention. 1. They are relatively easy to file. Design patents don’t have long, complex claims. Just a few drawings. Fewer experts and lawyers to wait for and pay. 2. They are broad. A design patent, for example, covers “an overall impression” of the look and feel of a product, according to many experts in the Apple vs. Samsung case. That’s very subjective and thus broad and subject to how well your lawyers and experts can argue in court. 3. It’s easy to understand by a jury of your peers. Anybody can understand what an iPhone or iPad looks like and that the look is kinda distinctive. Not everybody can stay awake when someone argues for a utility patent on the alternate e-bit in the 3G cellular standard—something about which the Samsung’s attorneys had to educate the jury. They won no infringement money for their expensive efforts. 4. They make money. A significant fraction of Apple’s $1.05 billion damages award was for design patents and trade dresses. These things pay. 5. They protect IP you didn’t know you even had. Apple showed its iPhone boxes and packaging as part of its trade dress. Who would have thought these little out-of-the-box-experience details could be intellectual property you could monetize? Go figure, and sharpen your pencil. 6. Everybody else will do it. This is a big lesson from the Apple vs. Samsung case. Other people will get it, if not today someday soon. Don’t be left out of the next big IP race. 7. There’s a protracted sluggish recovery going on. Too many people have time on their hands and are hungry for new opportunities. File a design patent. Register a trade dress. Go ahead, scoff. Tell me how stupid it is to have a patent on a black rectangle with rounded corners. While you are busy laughing, I am busy filing a design patent. See you in court!