1. Is GUI design allowable?

Yes, GUI designs have become patent eligible in China since May 1, 2014. 

2. What type of GUI design is acceptable? 

Design patents in China protect static GUIs and animated GUIs (also referred to as “sequential GUIs” or “dynamic GUIs”). 

Here are the examples of these types of GUI designs below.

3. What are the required representations (drawings) for GUI designs?

In the practice of China, it is better to show the 3-D product in 7 views, i.e., front view, rear view, left view, right view, top view, bottom view, and perspective view, which are in accordance with orthographic projection. In some cases, the views can be omitted if there are no essential features therein. Further, if two views are identical or symmetrical, one of them can be omitted.

However, as for a GUI design patent, the hardware displaying the GUI is not necessarily illustrated in the above way for showing the 3-D product, and the view simply showing the GUI would suffice. Further, when animated GUIs are involved, at least the key frames shall be submitted to illustrate how the GUI changes.

Generally, the drawings could be filed in the form of technical drawings (such as rendering drawings or line drawings) or photographs.

If you choose the form of rendering drawings to show the product, the rendering drawings should avoid shadow, reflection, and noise points. In addition, the edges of the product in the rendering drawings should be smooth (without burr).

If you choose the form of line drawings, the line drawings, except for some reference views therein, should not contain any surface shading. Reference views may contain surface shading, but they are just for reference such as showing the status of the product in use, instead of defining the protection scope of the design.

If you choose the form of the photograph to show the product, for example, screenshots of the GUI, the drawings should satisfy the following rules: 
(1) The photographs shall be clear and avoid vagueness resulting from focusing problems, etc.
(2) The background of the photographs shall be plain and avoid showing other contents except the product incorporating the design.
(3) The photographs shall avoid strong light, blinking, shadow, reflection, etc. 
(4) The product in the photographs should not be allowed to indicate generally accompanied by additional inside filling or liner unless the additional inside filling or liner must be kept in order to show the design clearly.

4. What kind of description is required for filing a GUI design application?

Unlike conventional design patents, a detailed description regarding how the users can interact with the GUI is required for the GUI design patents. For example, if animated GUIs are involved, we should specify how the GUI changes would be initiated by the interaction step by step. 

4. What kind of description is required for filing a GUI design application?

Unlike conventional design patents, a detailed description regarding how the users can interact with the GUI is required for the GUI design patents. For example, if animated GUIs are involved, we should specify how the GUI changes would be initiated by the interaction step by step. 

5.  Is there any other requirement for GUI design filings?

Under China’s practice, the title for a graphical user interface (GUI)-related design shall include three elements: 1) The term “graphical user interface;” 2) The use of the graphical user interface (GUI); and 3) The product for which the related GUI is applied. Particularly, as to element 3), if the drawings do not show the carrier of the graphical user interface (GUI), element 3) generally should be “display screen.”

6. Is there any active/concluded case laws relating to GUI designs?

There are two concluded cases in China relating to the infringement of GUI design patents. 

(1)    （2016）京73民初276号; Beijing Intellectual Property Court; December 25,2017

This is the first case relating to the infringement of the GUI design patent in China. The patent involved is No. ZL 201430329167.3, with the title of Computer with Graphical User Interface. The court held that:

In the case that there is no special infringement determination rule for this new type of design (GUI), the trial of this case still applies the existing design infringement rules (that is the same to other design patents).

Both product and design should be considered to determine the scope of design patent right protection. In this case, the product shown in the views of the patent is a computer, and it was also named "computer with graphical user interface". Therefore, the product "computer" is a limitation to the scope of the patent right. The plaintiff has the right to prohibit others from using the same or similar design on computers or similar products.

The alleged infringing act is that the defendant provided its customers with the alleged infringing software. the alleged infringing software does not fall under the category of design products. Software and computer are not the same or similar products. Accordingly, even if the user interface of the software is the same or similar to that of the patent, the alleged infringing software does not fall into the protection scope of the patent. 

In addition, since users only downloaded the software on their computers, but not made, sold, or offered to sell the computers (the plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove this), there is no direct infringement. Thus, the court also held that the defendant did not commit contributory infringement. 

The plaintiff then appealed. However, during the appeal, the patent has been determined invalid by Patent Office. Thus, the appealed court rejected the case. 

(2)    （2020）沪73民初494号; Shanghai Intellectual Property Court; June 21,2021

The patent involved is No. ZL 201930044419.0, with the title of Graphical user interface for mobile phone. In this case, the court also held that the alleged infringing interface did not fall into the protection scope of the patent. However, the reason is that the alleged infringing interface is not identical or similar to the patented design on the overall visual effect. 

The court held that:

Comparing the design of the alleged infringing interface with the patent, the search bar, recruitment information introduction bar, function options, popular screening conditions, recruitment information list, and function options at the bottom of the alleged infringing graphical interface are arranged from top to bottom. The layout and design of the two are quite different:
1. the search bars of the two are different;
2. function options bars of the two are different;
3. the recruitment information list is displayed in the left and right columns in the alleged infringing interface, but is displayed in three columns in the patent;
4. the numbers of function options at the bottom and icon shapes are different.
Comparing the changing state views of the alleged infringing interface with the patent, the two also have the above-mentioned differences. 

According to the method of overall observation and comprehensive judgment, the overall visual effects of the alleged infringing interface and the patent are not identical or similar. The accused infringing interface does not fall into the protection scope of the patent. 

The Judge of the case, Jiangang Shang, also expressed his opinion in an article that, the design of a product could be presented either by hardware or by software, and the patent law could not exclude design displayed in the form of software in the data. He thought that different from traditional design patents, the essence of a GUI is to show the design through software, and the alleged infringing interface could be viewed on the mobile phone, and thus the alleged infringing interface is the same kind of product as the patent. It appears that the Judge, Jiangang Shang, holds different views from the judgment of（2016）京73民初276号.