[Article / Designs] Relaxation of procedures for applying the exception to loss of novelty of designs (Takuma Sasano, Yuki Mori, Patent, April 2025)

Read the Japanese version / 日本語版を読む

Article information

Article type: Publication review

Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30

Categories: Designs

Topics: Grace periods

Published on this website: 2026-09-29

[Article / Designs] Relaxation of procedures for applying the exception to loss of novelty of designs (Takuma Sasano, Yuki Mori, Patent, April 2025)

1. Background to the amendment

Previous problem: Identifying and proving every disclosure within 30 days of filing was difficult. Cases occurred in which a slight omission of proof led to rejection based on the applicant’s own disclosed design.

Outline of the amendment: Proof of one disclosure on the earliest day dispenses with proof of later disclosures of identical or similar designs.

2. Main revisions to the Examination Guidelines

(1) Identifying the disclosed design to be proved

A space for attaching photographs of the disclosed design was added to the “document providing proof.” In practice, even if a photograph does not show the entire design, it may be recognized as the disclosed design if “the entire article disclosed at the exhibition” can be objectively understood from text or other material.

(2) Definition of the “earliest day”

The order by hour and minute is irrelevant. Where several disclosures occurred on the same day, proof of any one of them suffices.

(3) Treatment of portions and components of an article

If disclosure of a “bicycle” is proved, its “saddle” and “frame” are also treated as proved if they can be separately identified.

3. Practical points: Risks remaining after procedural relaxation

Despite the relaxation, an applicant’s mistaken similarity assessment may lead to a fatal ground for rejection.

Even if the applicant omits proof believing designs to be similar, if the examiner finds them dissimilar, the disclosed design falls outside the exception and becomes a reference for rejection.

If a “teaser advertisement showing only a portion” and “the subsequent entire product” are found dissimilar, each requires proof.

Even where shapes are identical, separate proof is safer if patterns (prints, etc.) differ substantially.

Relaxation of procedures for applying the exception to loss of novelty of designs

https://lnkd.in/gMtyQudD

https://lnkd.in/grC9rf8q

意匠の新規性喪失の例外適用手続の緩和 — jpaa-patent.info

Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510488902290554880/

Related articles and decisions

Further reading — [Article / Chinese and US designs] Points to note in international design applications designating China and the United States (Design Committee, Patent, April 2025)

Updates and corrections

This log starts on 30 September 2026. Display and classification checks are distinct from a review of the legal analysis.

2026-09-30 — Presentation update: added the article type, this change log and a link to consultation options. The existing article text was preserved.

2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.

Intellectual property enquiries

Contact Hideki Takaishi about legal advice or speaking engagements

Find the right consultation option

Images from the original AMEBLO article

English translations of the original image text

Original images retained for comparison

Original AMEBLO article

https://ameblo.jp/hideki-takaishi/entry-12971652075.html