Log in
Log in
Or log in with
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
Sign up
Or log in with
Twitter Twitter
Facebook Facebook
Apple Apple     
  1. Homepage
  2. Equities
  3. United States
  4. Nasdaq
  5. Apple Inc.
  6. News
  7. Summary
    AAPL   US0378331005


Real-time Estimate Cboe BZX  -  05:56 2022-09-28 pm EDT
149.47 USD   -1.51%
05:40pCommunications Services Up on Risk-Appetite Rebound -- Communications Services Roundup
05:34pTech Up as Treasury Yields Slide -- Tech Roundup
05:09pUS Stocks Climb Wednesday, Yields Slump After Bank of England Move
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

IP Metaverse Series - Part III: Industrial Design Protection In The Metaverse

08/16/2022 | 02:11am EDT

This is the third article of a four-part IP Metaverse series exploring IP protections for Metaverse-related technology and consumer-facing brands (see our second published article "IP Metaverse Series - Part II: Patent Considerations").

A major developing area of technology is the so-called metaverse. The exact form that the "metaverse" will take is currently unclear, since development is at an early stage. One of the unknowns is whether there will be a single, "unified metaverse", or whether several metaverses will emerge as walled gardens implemented on competing technology platforms.

It is more clear that the metaverse will likely incorporate Virtual Reality (VR) and/or Augmented Reality (AR) to create virtual spaces for users to interact. Users in these spaces may adorn an avatar with virtual assets such as clothes or accessories, and may interact in many different ways such as purchasing virtual assets or trading these virtual assets with other users.

While widespread adoption of the metaverse is still some time away, intellectual property (IP) owners are already concerned about protecting their IP rights from unauthorized use by third parties in the metaverse. As our trademark colleagues have written previously 1, a number of brand owners are already expanding their trademark portfolios to cover goods and services associated with the metaverse. IP owners are also considering whether other IP rights can provide protection for virtual versions of their goods. One of these IP rights may be industrial design rights.

An industrial design (referred to as a design patent in the US) is a type of IP that provides an exclusive right in novel aspects of the appearance of an article. The statutory regime that creates this IP right recognizes the public policy benefit of providing protection for ornamental aspects of articles, including their shape, configuration, colour, or pattern. The public policy objective of the industrial design rights regime recognizes that articles may have aesthetic value that is expensive to create, but easy to copy.

Under the US statutory regime, valid design patents require compliance with the article of manufacture requirement. There are similar requirements in Canada and other major jurisdictions. To comply with this requirement, applicants must show the design as applied to, or embodied in, an article of manufacture. Industrial design laws have long recognized that software-based objects, including graphical user interfaces (GUIs) can be protected by these rights.

A notable example of design patents being used to enforce rights in software-generated graphical objects is the lawsuit by Apple against Samsung for infringement of Apple's design patents for its iOS home screen design2. In the decision of Apple v Samsung3, the Federal Circuit upheld a jury award which included a significant damages award against Samsung for design infringement. Other examples of protectable ornamental designs in software products include fonts4, and icons.

In jurisdictions with an article of manufacture requirement, design protection must be limited to the protection of the GUIs, fonts, icons and other virtual objects as displayed on a screen of a computing device. This requirement limits design protection and its usefulness for protection of virtual objects.

The metaverse, and the virtual objects that will populate it, thus present a challenge for the current industrial design laws and practices because effective protection requires recognition of virtual objects as articles to which industrial design protection can apply (i.e. without limiting protection to these objects displayed on a two dimensional screen). To address this challenge, the IP offices of several jurisdictions have been looking at amending their practices to better protect virtual goods and other virtual objects.

Article of Manufacture Requirement - United States

In the United States, 35 USC § 171 provides protection for designs and requires that "[w]hoever invents any new, original and ornamental design or an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor." To comply with the article of manufacture requirement, the USPTO has required design patent applicants to show the design applied to or embodied in an article of manufacture.

As part of its consideration of providing design protection for virtual assets, the USPTO has conducted public consultations5 on this requirement. In this review, the USPTO considered positions from the public on the protection of "designs for projections, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality" (PHVAR). Such PHVAR designs are clearly relevant to effective industrial design protection for virtual assets in the metaverse.

The supporters of PHVAR design protections recognize that these virtual assets are new forms of ornamental software-generated objects analogous to GUIs, fonts, and logos, which have been protected for decades. The requirement that the article be "tangible" is not an explicit requirement found in 35 USC § 171. Proponents argue that removing the requirement for a computer-generated icon to be illustrated on a screen in the design patent application would be an important step to protecting new and emerging technologies (and would support a design protection scheme that is technologically neutral).

Opponents to PHVAR design protections argue that virtual assets are not fundamentally new types of designs, and in many cases are simply the virtual representation of a physical asset. Furthermore, maintaining a connection to the article of manufacture (i.e. screen) serves as notice and helps distinguish ornamental aspects from those that are functional. They argue that this provides an efficient distinction between what is protected and what is prior art. On the subject of prior at, opponents have raised concerns about a lack of prior art related to PHVAR in the US. The implication is that allowing design patent applications for PHVAR may lead to issuance of a large number of design patents of questionable validity, which in turn could stifle innovation in the metaverse.

It is unclear if the USPTO consultations will lead to legislative changes related to the article of manufacture requirement. What is clear is that many US companies are making significant investments in developing metaverse technologies. In the long run, there will be pressure for IP laws to support these investments in order to prevent unauthorized copying and encourage innovation.

Article of Manufacture Requirement - Worldwide

Around the world, several key design jurisdictions have modified their design patent/industrial design legislation to allow more protection for virtual assets, which could include protection of these assets in the metaverse.

In April of 2020, Japan revised their Design Act6 to protect graphic images which are not stored on a physical device. These changes allow for protection of images without the requirement of their depiction on a display screen. The changes also provide design protection to images projected on non-display devices such as walls or floors, opening the possibility for improved PHVAR protection for devices that provide VR/AR functionality in a particular room or space. The graphical images however must be used in the operation of a device or displayed as a result of a device performing its function.

Similarly, Korea added graphic images to the definition of design under their Design Patent Act7 in October 2021. These images can be protected without including a display screen in the drawings8. Much like Japan, the images must be used in the operation of a device or exhibit some sort of function.

European Union Registered Community Designs (RCD's)9 recognize graphic symbols and two-dimensional designs as products. This means that hardware such as screens and physical devices do not need to be illustrated in application drawings for digital designs. Though RCD's must name the category of products to which they are applied, this is purely for classification purposes and should not limit the scope of protection10.

China enacted design patent legislation11 to bring it in line with other major jurisdictions. This includes providing protection to partial products, such as a computer-generated images and GUI's when shown on a display screen. In addition to requiring a display screen in the drawings, the category of physical devices with which the images are to be used must still be exhaustively listed in the application. One sign that Chinese courts are moving away from the connection to a physical device is a recent GUI design case by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court 12which was decided based on the overall visual effect of software and not specifically the physical device which the software is used in.

Article of Manufacture Requirement - Canada

The Canadian Industrial Designs Act requires that a registrable design must be applied to a "finished article"13. This has posed problems for protecting digital designs which may not relate to or be displayed on any one physical object. It is not clear whether a PHVAR design (such as a hologram or a digital avatar) would be considered a "finished article" under the Act. The Canadian Industrial Design Manual issued by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) adds further uncertainty by requiring any design application relating to an electronic icon or other virtual object to include the words "Display Screen" in the name the article which is the subject of the application.

Currently, there is no indication that CIPO has made any significant progress toward clarifying whether industrial design protection for PHVAR designs can be obtained in Canada. Changing CIPO practices to explicitly permit industrial design applications for PHVAR designs would be very helpful in supporting Canadian innovators working on making the metaverse a reality (pun ironically intended).


1. Brigitte Chan, Prudence Etkin, Tamara Céline Winegust, “IP Metaverse Series - Part I: Brands are Plugging in and Cashing in - Protecting Trademarks and Copyright in Virtual Goods and Services”, Bereskin and Parr (16 March 2022), online: <https://www.bereskinparr.com/doc/ip-metaverse-series-part-i-brands-are-plugging-in-and-cashing-in-protecting-trademarks-and-copyright>.


3. Apple Inc v Samsung Elecs Co, 786 F (3d) 983 (Fed Cir 2015).

4. “TYPEFACE OR TYPE FONT”, US PATENT NoD824,994S (24 April 2017).

5. USPTO, “Summary of public views on the article of manufacture requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 171” (2022) United States Patent and Trademark Office Working Paper, online: < https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO-Articles-of-Manufacture-April2022.pdf>.

6. Ishō-hō [Design Act], Act No 3 of 2019, Art 2.

7. Dijainbohobeob [Design Protection Act], amended by Act No 18500, Oct. 19, 2021 (S Kor).

8. Dijainbohobeob Sihaenggyuchik [Enforcement Rules of the Design Protection Act], amended by Partial amendments to the Enforcement Rules of the Design Protection Act, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy Ordinance No 433, Oct. 21, 2021 (S Kor).

9. EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, [2002] OJ, L 3/1 Title II S 1 art 3(b).

10. EUIPO, “The design and its products” (19 November 2017), online <>https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/the-design-and-its-products>.

11. Zhōnghuá rénmín gňnghéguó zhuānlě fǎ [Patent Law of the People's Republic of China] (promulgated by the Standing Comm. Of the Thirteenth Nat'l People's Cong., Oct 17, 2020, effective June 1, 2021).

12. Beijing Qihoo 360 Technology co, ltd v. Beijing Jiangmin New Science & Technology, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, 25 December 2017.

13. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industrial Design Office Practice Manual, December 2021 update (Ottawa: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, 2017) at s 8.04.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mr Victor Krichker
Bereskin & Parr LLP
Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West
40th Floor
Ontario M5H 3Y2
Tel: 4163647311
Fax: 4163611398
E-mail: marketing@bereskinparr.com
URL: www.bereskinparr.com

© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about APPLE INC.
05:40pCommunications Services Up on Risk-Appetite Rebound -- Communications Services Roundup
05:34pTech Up as Treasury Yields Slide -- Tech Roundup
05:09pUS Stocks Climb Wednesday, Yields Slump After Bank of England Move
04:36pUS Stocks Climb Wednesday Following Bank of England Move
04:32pWall Street bounces off lows as UK steps in to calm bonds
04:20pWall Street ends sharply higher as Treasury yields dip
04:16pBiogen, Thor rise; Apple, Equitrans Midstream fall
01:58pTop Midday Decliners
01:57pWall Street bounces off lows as UK steps in to calm bonds
01:26pEquities Rebound Midday After Bank of England Moves to Support UK's Bond Market
More news
Analyst Recommendations on APPLE INC.
More recommendations
Financials (USD)
Sales 2022 393 B - -
Net income 2022 99 527 M - -
Net cash 2022 56 159 M - -
P/E ratio 2022 24,9x
Yield 2022 0,60%
Capitalization 2 439 B 2 439 B -
EV / Sales 2022 6,07x
EV / Sales 2023 5,72x
Nbr of Employees 154 000
Free-Float 99,9%
Duration : Period :
Apple Inc. Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends APPLE INC.
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
Income Statement Evolution
Mean consensus BUY
Number of Analysts 44
Last Close Price 151,76 $
Average target price 182,20 $
Spread / Average Target 20,1%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Timothy Donald Cook Chief Executive Officer & Director
Luca Maestri Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
Arthur D. Levinson Independent Chairman
Kevin M. Lynch Vice President-Technology
Jeffrey E. Williams Chief Operating Officer
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capi. (M$)
APPLE INC.-15.09%2 438 897
DZS INC.-32.43%306