图形用户界面外观设计侵权认定问题研究
Research on the Identification of Infringement in Graphical User Interface Appearance Designs
摘要: 图形用户界面(GUI)外观设计侵权纠纷的实践案例反映出了其在保护范围、侵权判定标准及侵权行为认定等方面的问题。外观设计的保护客体与载体需有明确区分,确认GUI外观设计的保护客体为设计方案并未否认其与产品载体的依附关系,而是弱化了产品载体在GUI外观设计专利保护中的影响。“无形产品”在现行法律的文本解释层面还是在现实运行层面均无归属,作为外观设计专利载体的“产品”,目前仍只能限于有实体的“有形产品”,GUI外观设计专利的保护范围受到实体产品的限制。在具体侵权认定中,“一般消费者”的认知水平应高于普通公众,区别特征应考虑相对性的视角在“整体”标准下综合判断。在软硬分离的背景下,间接侵权理论在GUI外观设计专利侵权行为定性问题中具有特殊价值。
Abstract: Practical cases involving infringement disputes over graphical user interface (GUI) appearance designs have revealed issues concerning the scope of protection, infringement determination standards, and the identification of infringing acts. The protectable subject matter of a GUI design patent is the design solution itself rather than the product, which does not imply that GUI designs can exist independently of products but rather weakens the influence of the product carrier in the protection of GUI design patents. Under the current legal framework, neither textual interpretation nor practical enforcement recognizes “intangible products” as valid carriers. Thus, the “product” serving as the carrier of a design patent must still be limited to tangible, physical products, thereby restricting the scope of protection for GUI design patents to their associated physical embodiments. In determining infringement, the cognitive level of the “average consumer” should be higher than that of the general public, and distinguishing features should be assessed from a relative perspective under the “overall appearance” standard. Against the backdrop of the separation between software and hardware, the theory of indirect infringement holds particular significance in qualifying acts of infringement involving GUI design patents.
文章引用:姚欣然. 图形用户界面外观设计侵权认定问题研究[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2025, 14(7): 64-70. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2025.147588

参考文献

[1] 管育鹰. 局部外观设计保护中的几个问题[J]. 知识产权, 2018, 28(4): 11-25.
[2] 李宗辉. 论人工智能时代图形用户界面的外观设计专利保护[J]. 电子知识产权, 2020(6): 38-47.
[3] 李安. 试析软件产品作为外观设计专利产品的适格性——兼评国内GUI外观设计专利侵权第一案[J]. 中国发明与专利, 2017, 14(8): 36-41.
[4] 王迁, 闻天吉.《专利法》保护图形用户界面外观设计的界限——兼评金山诉萌家案[J]. 知识产权, 2023(9): 63-87.
[5] 杨凤云. 现行法律框架下GUI设计的授权确权条件及对策(上) [J]. 电子知识产权, 2018(6): 73-78.
[6] 钱亦俊. 论外观设计专利性判断主体——一般消费者的能力[J]. 知识产权, 2011, 21(8): 37-42.
[7] 李青文. 规则与方法: 局部外观设计的专利保护路径[J]. 电子知识产权, 2020(3): 51-60.
[8] 范晓宇. 设计经营理念下日本外观设计制度的改革及其启示[J]. 知识产权, 2019, 29(10): 89-96.
[9] Perry, S.J. (2008) What Is the Point of the Point of Novelty Test for Design Patent Infringement-Nail Buffers and Saddles: An Analysis Fit for an Egyptian Goddess. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 90, 401-422.
[10] 李秀娟. 外观设计侵权判定中的新颖点分析——以美国外观设计新颖点测试为中心[J]. 电子知识产权, 2014(6): 68-75.
[11] 马云鹏. 局部外观设计制度下图形用户界面保护路径的重构[J]. 电子知识产权, 2022(6): 66-75.
[12] 丁楚濛. 图形用户界面外观设计专利侵权客体研究[J]. 人民检察, 2024(13): 48-51.
[13] 詹靖康. 奇虎诉江民侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案评析——兼论国家知识产权局第六十八号令[J]. 电子知识产权, 2018(1): 52-59.