DESIGNING *for humans

Comparative Global Design Law

I had the opportunity to review the recently published Comparative Global Design Law, edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill. The book provides an overview of international design intellectual property law and then dives into the details for the major IP jurisdictions, including China, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

This is a great book from the perspectives of either an educational read straight-through or referencing a particular chapter/geography as needed. I appreciated the clarity, and especially the consistency across regions, which is sometimes lacking when there are multiple contributors.

What was most valuable to me was the specific attention given to graphical user interfaces (GUIs) both in the content and the annotated illustrations. For example, the illustrations above are excerpts of how a representative user interface is specified within a design patent (in this example, within Japan). A similar approach is used to convey how physical product designs are documented across jurisdictions.

The one limitation with a work like this is currency, as design laws will change over time, albeit gradually. But it stands as a comprehensive and accessible reference for the state of the art as of 2020.

An Inventor's Dozen

I was granted a patent as co-inventor of “System and Method for Preparing a Pharmaceutical Compound”.  This is my 12th (dozenth?) UX-related patent, and certainly one of the more complex ones.

Officially filed in 2015, the method combines information from an image verification system and a gravimetric verification system to ensure that a drug has been appropriately compounded.

In addition, the system displays both image information and gravimetric measurements obtained during drug preparation steps to a reviewing pharmacist in a clear and easily readable manner, such that the pharmacist can quickly approve or reject a particular drug preparation.

Imitating Designs and Infringing Designs

I wrote a brief reaction to Nielsen Norman Group's recent article on the topic of copying designs. While I certainly agree with NNG's take that it's bad practice to copy an ineffective design, they fail to consider copying designs in the broader context of intellectual property protection and infringement. Read my response - Imitating Designs and Infringing Designs.

 

Photo by frank mckenna on Unsplash

Reviewing A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects

I've written a review of a terrific collection of essays that sit at the convergence of product design and intellectual property - A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects. Read my review, entitled "Objectifying IP" on Medium.

User-Centered Intellectual Property

A little behind on posting this; wrote a thoughtpiece on the efforts of the USPTO to make their touchpoints more user-friendly as they are competing with the likes of Google.

Stanford Law School - Understanding U.S. Intellectual Property Law

The author in front of a patent he co-invented

This summer I participated in Stanford Law School's summer program on understanding U.S. intellectual property law. This certificate-granting course is primarily targeted at international (non-U.S.) intellectual property lawyers, as an overview of U.S. IP law. In fact, among the 40 or so students from around the world, I was the only non-attorney, and one of two Americans, to participate in the week-long program at Stanford's campus.

As a survey course, a broad range of information is covered including utility patents, copyrights, trademarks, design patents, and data-driven litigation. In addition, classes on trade secrets, and on the venture capital process, provided valuable and interesting information from the tech business perspective. The majority of instructors were very good, although I would highly recommend that participants first review a self-paced primer on U.S. IP law, such as the the Michelson Institute videos that I have previously reviewed. This pre-work will make concepts and term much clearer, especially for those who are not native English speakers - but really for everyone.

What I found more valuable than the class time were the field trips we took to meet with in-house IP teams at Google and Twitter. Twitter requested that we sign a non-disclosure agreement, while Google was more open (even letting us wander around a bit of the campus). The Google presentation included representative from key IP areas (copyright, patent, and trademark) and included a useful Q&A session.

One delight from the week occurred during Lixian Hantover's class on design patents. In going through examples of design patents, D753,683 came up on the screen. Coincidentally, I'm a co-inventor on that patent for a graphical user interface on an oven display - resulting in the photo above. Additionally, wandering around Stanford's beautiful campus was a nice experience, I particularly recommend the cactus garden.

Last, but not least,  I'd like to than my employer, EY, for generously funding my participation in the program.

Michelson Institute - Intellectual Property Videos

I recently viewed a largely excellent online video series covering the fundamentals and history of intellectual property in the United States. Published by the Michelson Institute for Intellectual Property, the 3+ hrs of content covers patents, copyrights, trademarks, and even trade secrets. Design patents are given a relatively small section, understandably, but the history and recent context of patenting software is presented more thoroughly. 

The presentation is highly visual and approachable, using dynamic animation and graphics. Aimed at novices, and more specifically, business people who don't necessarily have an IP background, it is still sufficiently broad and detailed enough to serve as refresher for those with some knowledge in the field.

Not to say there isn't room for criticism - there are a remarkable number of glaring spelling errors throughout the videos. At first I noticed one or two, but as I got later into the series they seemed more frequent, as if an editor had grown tired of making corrections. While not catastrophic, the typos leave a mark of unprofessionalism on an otherwise highly refined, and well narrated series.

In addition to the Michelson site, the videos are available through YouTube, and offered as a free course offering by Udemy. 

Is the best idea the one that protects the rest of your ideas?

I've co-authored a thought piece for EY's Better Working World site around the need for organizations to effectively define and implement an internal intellectual property strategy.  Is the best idea the one that protects the rest of your ideas? discusses the need to thoughtfully balance more visible protections, such as patents, with trade secrets.

I previously wrote Who's auditing your company's user experiences? for Better Working World.

 

UX Patent for Oven Info Mode

Tracking the progress of patents through the application process can be like watching paint dry (note, I like watching paint dry). While the USPTO has been relatively consistent in hitting two-to-three year timelines, sometimes the process can drag out. But at other times, when it rains, it pours...

Just a few days ago I was describing my most recent patent, displaying securities market information. Only a few days later I found out that I had yet another, unrelated patent granted -  9,961,721 "User interface for oven: info mode".

'721 is the most recent of several utility and design patents that came out of work on a touchscreen oven users interface for BSH Home Appliances, including patents for a demo mode and an oven timer.

Continuation of UX Patent

Last week U.S. patent 9,946,455 was granted for "System and Method for Managing and Displaying Securities Market Information". This was the 10th patent that I have been granted as a co-inventor. The title of this patent, and much of its content, is very similar to patent 9,043,719 which was awarded in 2015. In fact, both patents are based off of the same 2006 patent application. This situation is referred to as a continuation, allowing different claims to be filed based on the original, or "parent", patent application. Even though the '455 patent was filed for in 2015, it maintains the initial parent application filing date of 2006. The key difference between the two patents lies in the details of the claims - the '455 patent has nine claims, while the earlier patent, eighteen. 

 

 

Update on Granted Patents

It's been quite a while since my last post (now there's an understatement). And it's been even longer since I've updated any granted patents. Since my last post on the topic in October 2013 I've been co-inventor on four additional patents. While the majority of my previous patents were design patents, three of the most recent four are utility patents:

• 9,043,719 System and method for managing and displaying securities market information - This was actually the earliest patent I was involved with -  the application was filed back in 2006 and it took 9 years to be granted. It was for user interface work I did with the New York Stock Exchange.
• 9,058,024 User interface--oven timer - One of several patents related to oven user interfaces for BSH Home Appliances.
• D753,683 Oven display screen with graphical user interface - A design patent, also for BSH.
• 9,554,689 User interface--demo mode  - Another oven user interface utility patent.

Past, Present and Future of UX Patents

Several weeks ago I presented on the history and potential future of user experience patents at the User Experience Professionals Association meeting in Seattle - UXPA2016. I covered the basics of "UX Patents", including utility and design patents. Then I went through a whirlwind tour of the last 150 years of patent history, particularly as it relates to the definition and litigation of design patents and user interfaces. The final section of the presentation focused on the upcoming Supreme Court review of the Apple vs. Samsung case, and it's potential impacts on design patents, and the practice of design. The slides from my talk are now available online.

UX Patents at the UXPA Conference

  Patience is rewarded for patents....

After many years of trying to speak at a major UX design conference about patents and their importance to the design field, it's finally happening.  Charles Mauro and I will be presenting No Swiping - Understanding and Designing with UX Patents at the upcoming User Experience Professional Association conference in San Diego.

And speaking of a long time coming, how's 9 years for a patent to be granted?  That's how long it took for patent 9,043,719 System and Method for Managing and Displaying Securities Market Information to get a stamp of approval.  I am a co-inventor of this utility patent and the work as done on behalf of the New York Stock Exchange.

A Model for Design Patents

Image from patent D689,888

....literally.  Over the past week the USPTO granted a series of user interface design patents where I was one of the co-inventors.  The patents related to the design work I led at Bresslergroup for the Spiro PD personal spirometer.  This is a home medical device that integrates a touch screen-based UI for measuring and tracking lung health.  As part of the project, the design team created demonstration screens (pictured above) to communicate proper use of the spirometer, and I served as the model for these illustrations.  So I guess you could say my likeness is now patented.

Philadelphia - Hotbed of UX Patents?

 

ENIAC Computer - Philadelphia (approx 1946)

 

When one thinks of the centers of interaction design innovation, Philadelphia may not be the first city to come to mind (unless you live/work here, of course).  But a couple of recent items in the UX patents world might make you think otherwise:

• On May 21st, Twitter was granted patent 8,448,084 for user interface mechanics, aka "pull to refresh".  While Twitter, the patent assignee is a west coast firm, the inventor, Loren Brichter is based out of West Chester, PA - not quite Philadelphia, but close enough.  See this recent Wall Street Journal piece on Brichter's, referring to him as a "high priest of app design".  With their Innovator's Patent Agreement, Twitter is promising that the 084 patent "will only be used for defensive purposes".  We'll see how this plays out going forward.
  
   
• Then, on June 1st, Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reported on another local development.   Flatworld Interactive is currently suing Apple for infringement on touch screen patents for swiping gestures invented by Slavko Milekic, professor at University of the Arts in Philadelphia.  Moreover, Flatworld Interactive is partly owned by John McAleese,  formerly of Philadelphia-based law firm Morgan Lewis - a firm that represents Apple.  

Interesting times - in an interesting place.  And rememember, the Constitution, which provides the rights to patents, was written right here in Philadelphia.

Learn more about interaction design patents at my upcoming presentation - No Swiping.  Patents in the Interaction Design Process.

No Swiping. Patents in the Interaction Design Process.

I am collaborating with PhillyCHI  and special guest, Leonid “Lenny” Kravetz, to discuss the basics of design and utility patents, and the relevancy of patents to the interaction design process.

More info below; and for additional details and registration, go to the PhillyCHI site.

** REGISTRATION REQUIRED FOR THIS EVENT **

• Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013
• Time: 6:00PM – 9:00PM (social time from 6:00PM-7:00PM)
• Location: Bresslergroup, Marketplace Design Center, 2400 Market St. 1-2 (basement), Philadelphia
• Phone: 215-209-3046

About the Presentation

While the visibility and value of user interface patents is greater than ever, the area remains unfamiliar to many interaction designers.  In this informative session, a designer and a patent attorney will explain the basics of design and utility patents. highlight significant examples and discuss the role of patents in the design process.  We will also facilitate a design activity where participants will generate design concepts to avoid infringing on existing patents.

About the Presenters

Rob Tannen, PhD is Director of Research & Interaction Design at Bresslergroup.  He has over 15 years’ experience leading  interface design projects across a variety of industries including aviation, consumer products, manufacturing,  financial services and healthcare.  He is a frequent speaker and contributor to online and print publications including FastCompany.com & Design Bureau as well as his own blog,DesigningForHumans.com. Rob earned a PhD in human factors and is a Certified Professional Ergonomist.  He has consulted on several patent cases and projects.  Follow Rob on Twitter @RobTannen.

Leonid “Lenny” Kravetz is a patent attorney at Panitch, Schwarze, Belisario and Nadel, LLP in Philadelphia, PA. Lenny focuses his practice on patent prosecution and intellectual property transactions in computer-related technology areas. He specializes in developing IP strategy for young technology companies and blogs on this topic at StartupsIP.com. Follow Lenny on Twitter @lkravets.

About Our Sponsor

Bresslergroup is a Philly-based product development firm that’s been delivering innovative solutions for over 40 years. We’re proud to have won more than 80 international design awards and authored well over 130 patents. Our team of PhD-led researchers, engineers, interaction and industrial designers clarify problems and deliver user-centric solutions. Visit www.bresslergroup.com to learn more, and follow us on Twitter at @Bresslergroup.

About PhillyCHI

PhillyCHI is the Philadelphia region’s chapter of the ACM SIGCHI, an interdisciplinary academic and professional group interested in Human-Computer Interaction, User Experience, Usability, and other related disciplines. PhillyCHI holds monthly meetings and socials to network and discuss current topics in HCI. Learn more at phillychi.acm.org or follow along on Twitter at @PhillyCHI.

The Past Present & Future of User Interface Design Patents

 

Animated graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof US D609715 S1

 
Last week I attended the United States Patent & Trademark Office's 7th Design Day.  Design Day 2013 focused on  "Designs in the New Digital Age" - design patent issues related to user interfaces. While UI patents had been touched on in previous years, this was the first time that the day-long meeting placed emphasis on this rapidly growing area, and was clearly motivated by last year's Apple-Samsung case. 

 The attendees  and presenters were predominately lawyers and USPTO examiners, along with a handful of  design experts like myself.  As in previous years, the majority of designers attending were drawn from  Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA), but with the growth of user interface patents I would expect to see a larger involvement with  interface/interaction designers and organizations in the future.

The opening presentations by the USPTO staff included an update on the written description requirement for design patents by Joel Sincavage, Design Practice Specialist.  Without getting into the details, suffice it to say that the majority of lawyers in the audience were not happy to hear what was being presented and the Q&A turned into what I can only imagine a contentious school board or city council zoning meeting must be like.

This was followed by a much more subdued update regarding the United State's implementation of the Hague Agreement, which will streamline the process of filing design patents across multiple countries.

The subsequent presentations predominately focused on user interface design and comprise my summary.  While the presentations were not structured in a chronological order, there was a clear pattern of discussing the history of UI design patents, current data and future needs:

Past
For context, the patentability of user interfaces has been a topic of discussion for decades, but has only been formalized in recent years and is still evolving.    Cathron Brooks, Supervisory Patent Examiner at the USPTO, described "how it all started" with Xerox applying for design patents on its user interfaces in the 1980s, which catalyzed discussion and debate over what characteristics of user interfaces could be patentable.  

Charles Mauro of MauroNewMedia contextualized the Xerox patents within a timeline, mapping key events in user interface development with important patent events from the 1960s to the present:

 

Charles Mauro's timeline of UI development & patent events

In addition, Masashi Omine, a Deputy Director of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) described the history of interface design patents in his home country, starting from the patenting of liquid crystal display designs (e.g. digital watches) starting in 1986, subsequently extending to graphic images (2006), and more recently, dynamic graphics (2011).  On a related note, China does not currently provide any patent protection for user interface designs, although this may change long-term.

Present
Rob Katz of Banner & Witcoff provided summary statistics on the current state of user interface design patents, which make-up about 2% of all design patent applications.  This translates to roughly 500 UI design patent filings per year with the USPTO, but has been rapidly accelerating. Brooks of the USPTO indicated that "Generated Images" (referring to user interfaces and icons) are the fatest growing segment of design patents.  

It's important to keep in mind that design patents are only one form of intellectual property of protection for user interfaces, which can also be covered by utility patents, trademarks and copyrights.  Mauro suggests that all of these forms of IP protection are needed to cover the entire user experience (UX), but that current processes  are not integrated, requiring a strategic approach. Apple demonstrated such a strategy in their case against Samsung, which included multiple design patents, utility patents and trade dress IP.   Katz  mentioned that it is rare for a design patent to include both aspects of the physical product design and the user interface design, as it is typically more effective to patent each separately. 

 

Charles Mauro's depiction of the multiple forms of UX IP protection

 While user interface patents are growing in prominence and value, there are constraints in the design patent application process.  For example Brooks discussed some of the basic requirements for user interface design patents, which include referencing a physical object or system such as a computer or display screen.  Dynamic interactions such as animations or transitions can be submitted as a series of static images like a "flip book" or storyboard, but only those images presented are covered by the patent.

Future
The takeaways from Design Day 2013 were clear - user interface design patents are more important now than ever, and there is a need to evolve the processes around protecting them.  In the short-term this includes increasing staffing at the USPTO to support the growing number of UI design patent applications, and to continue the dialogue between stakeholders at events like Design Day.  I also strongly recommend that user interface designers improve their education and processes around patents.  

Looking further ahead I would expect the USPTO processes to catch-up (or at least narrow the gap) with the design and technology  it is intended to protect.  This may mean more suitable forms for documenting and describing interactive designs as well as a more cohesive approach to combining related forms of IP such as design and utility patents as appropriate.

Finally, consider what David Kappos, former director of the USPTO, wrote last week in the National Law Journal in a piece entitled Design: The New Frontier of Intellectual Property.  Kappos, perhaps anticipating the discussions that would take place at Design Day 2013, admonished:

"But for the breakthrough ­innovators of the 21st century, design has moved onto a much larger stage. It is where high function meets high style. And the traditional disciplines of IP — patents, trademarks and copyrights — are no longer ends unto themselves but are now viewed as component parts of a larger whole."

Patent Skills for User Experience Design

The Design Story of the Year

The Apple/Samsung patent case was arguably the most important design event of 2012.  Not just because it gave a measureable value to design patents and the role of intellectual property in user experience design, but because of its visibility and potential impact on design processes.  

Over the last couple of weeks, two important thought pieces were published that bring attention to this impact. 

In his excellent blog, Foss Patents, Florian Mueller discusses the Apple '915 "pinch-to-zoom" patent.  Mueller gets to the heart of the matter when he considers non-infringing alternatives (i.e. Samsung's) to this interaction: 

"there's no question that one can work around that claim limitation, like any claim limitation of any given patent, in a legal sense, and there's also no question that the '915 patent doesn't cover all scrolling and all pinching operations, but the question is what price one has to pay for non-infringement in terms of a degradation of the user experience. Is it intuitive?"

Mueller continues:

"But the question is whether the pinch-to-zoom gesture that Apple has made so popular that it's commonly expected, and instinctively performed, by users can be implemented without infringing the '915 patent or adversely affecting the user experience."

Mueller is implying (perhaps not intentionally) that effective interaction design, requires  awareness of what interactions are infringing and the consequences of designing around them.  Taking this a step further, we might consider whether the value of infringing, or rather licensing to avoid infringement, provides a greater user experience than developing a non-infringing alternative.  I posit that it is extremely rare for interaction designers to think in these terms when deciding a design direction.

Charles Mauro gets much more direct and specific about the implications of intellectual property on interaction design in his comprehensive analysis of the Apple v. Samsung case.  Mauro starts out by providing a clear review of the case and the issues at stake, but it is his synthesis and conlusions that are most relevant here.  Mauro argues that it was not the individual design patent, utility patent or trademarks that were at stake, but the collection of Apple intellectual property which collectively define the total user experience:

"The asserted Apple patents covered the look of the iPhone, the style of the screen-based interface, design of the icons and related screens, and some of the essential gesture-based interaction behaviors of the iPhone product. The sum of these patents covered essentially the iPhone you may or may not have in your hand from the standpoint of what you cognitively experience when you use the device. In retrospect this was a brilliant strategy because it gave Apple the opportunity to secure (conceptually) protections well beyond those that accrue to any single patent related to iPhone technology.  This was likely an essential legal strategy of Apple since it is the Total User Experience (TUX) of the iPhone that drives commercial success, not any individual feature or function as presented in a single patent asserted."

Consequently, Mauro advises, intellectual property development needs to focus broadly on the overall user experience, not narrowly on individual design elements and functions:

" IP practitioners should make use of all available forms of IP protection including design patents, utility patents, copyright, trademark and in litigation, trade dress, to create an interlocking set of protections that cover the look, feel and function of your products and services"

 Again, I would argue that when designers are creating a product design strategy, patents are not at top of mind.

Will Design Adapt?

After the Apple v. Samsung case, everyone seems to get the importance of interaction design to intellectual property law.  But are we seeing the importance of intellectual property law in the design process?  Both Mueller and Mauro understand the symbiosis, even if the design community generally does not.  

Despite the high importance of patents to the design process, the area still receives relatively little attention among the design community.  For example, the program for the industry-leading Interaction13 conference does not include a single presentation on the topic of patents or intellectual property, despite the huge visibility and importance of the Apple v. Samsung case.

For those designers, who are interested in designing effectively with patents, here are three key steps to getting started

1. Gain an understanding of the fundamentals of patents.  There are various resources for this, and I have yet to find a single one that I strongly recommend, so please provide your suggestions in the comments.  Keep in mind this is not a one-time read and learn activity. Patents are a dynamic area and it is important to stay informed in an ongoing manner.   A couple of recent recommendations include a section run in the NYTimes earlier this year (recommended for interaction designers) and a series on Core 77 about design patents (recommended for industrial designers).    Also, PatentlyO is a blog/feed for daily updates on patent news - not necessarily always relevant for a designer, but an effective way to stay in the loop.
2. Read the existing patents in your area of design and track new patent applications going forward. I personally like Arch Patent which is a recent newcomer and has some nice search and filtering tools, but of course there's always Google's patent search.
3. Integrate patent review as part of your design process.  In many organizations this is done after the creative process, to check for potential infringment.  I advocate also reviewing patents before and during the creative process so that designers understand the constraints and opportunities available.  Just as designers advocate understanding user needs and business goals in order to design effectively, they should also embrace knowing the intellectual property space.

 

Update 17 Dec 2012 - Matthew Smith has posted an overview of design patents that can serve as a reference and introduction to the legal details (courtesy of PatentlyO).

 

For User Interfaces, Cracks in the Patent System

The New York Times has published a very interesting article and interactive section on the trends and issues in software patents, particularly relevant to mobile user interfaces.  The main article, The Patent, Used as a Sword, posits that the current patent system, which was founded around mechanical devices, is less than effective for the more conceptual and ambiguous world of software patents.  Not surprisingly, it focuses on recent Apple-related cases,  including a chart, mapping out the players in recent smartphone patent suits.

Of particular interest is the paired interactive content including a video and comparative examples of some well-known Apple patents with associated prior art (pictured above).  The Times asks the reader "if you were on a jury, what would you decide?"

Also of interest to UI patent followers, the upcoming NYTech presentation Apple vs Samsung: What the Case Means to Software Development and UX Design, which will be moderated by my colleague Charles Mauro.