1. Concept: “Inclusive design” in SPC design patent jurisprudence

In Chinese design patent law, “inclusive design” is not a separate statutory category. However, SPC jurisprudence increasingly touches it through:

• Graphical User Interface (GUI) design patents
• Accessibility-oriented interface layouts
• User-centered functional simplification designs
• Ergonomic and assistive product designs

The SPC evaluates these under general design patent principles:

• overall visual effect
• ordinary consumer perception
• product category matching
• non-functional design exclusion

Key legal anchor: Design patents protect visual aesthetic features, not technical or accessibility functions alone.

2. Core SPC test used in inclusive design disputes

Across cases, the SPC applies a consistent 3-step test:

1. Identify design features (excluding purely functional elements)
2. Determine “ordinary consumer” perception
3. Overall visual effect comparison (not partial comparison)

This framework controls almost all inclusive design disputes.

3. SPC Case Law (at least 6 leading cases)

Case 1: Grohe v. Zhejiang Jianlong (Guiding Case No. 85)

Principle: overall visual effect dominates infringement analysis

• SPC held that if the accused design lacks all distinguishing design features, it is generally not similar.
• Emphasized “overall observation + comprehensive judgment”.

Relevance to inclusive design:
Accessibility modifications (e.g., larger handles, simplified forms) do NOT avoid infringement if overall visual impression remains similar.

Case 2: Honda Technology Research v. Patent Reexamination Board

Principle: ordinary consumer standard + whole design approach

• SPC defined infringement test as:
  • comparison from perspective of ordinary consumers
  • considering design as a whole

Inclusive design impact:
Accessible modifications (like simplified dashboards or larger UI icons) are irrelevant if they do not change overall visual impression.

Case 3: Gree Electric Appliances v. Midea Holding

Principle: partial differences are insufficient

• SPC ruled that minor modifications do not defeat similarity
• Must evaluate whether differences create a distinct overall visual effect

Inclusive design relevance:
Adding accessibility elements (e.g., contrast enhancement, tactile indicators) may still fall within infringement scope if overall form remains similar.

Case 4: Lanxi Changcheng Food v. Chen Chunbin

Principle: added features do not necessarily change protection scope

• SPC found that additional decorative or functional elements (like patterns) do not necessarily alter infringement analysis.

Inclusive design relevance:
Accessibility overlays or assistive markings may be legally “non-distinctive” in visual comparison.

Case 5: Arc International v. Yiwu Lanzhiyun Glass Crafts Factory

Principle: product-category dependency

• Design protection depends on:
  • product use category
  • not just appearance

Inclusive design relevance:
Assistive design adaptations (e.g., adapted drinking glass shape for disabled users) are still judged within same product category if use remains identical.

Case 6: Fujian Jinjiang Qingyang Weiduoli Food v. Zhangzhou Yueyuan Food

Principle: product function defines comparison scope

• SPC confirmed that:
  • product classification depends on use scenario
  • sales and usage context matter

Inclusive design relevance:
Accessibility-oriented redesign does not create a new legal category unless use function fundamentally changes.

Case 7: Epoint v. Henan AMR & Glodon (GUI design patent case)

Principle: GUI design infringement and visual cognition

• SPC confirmed:
  • GUI design is assessed via visual interface perception
  • functional UI elements are filtered out if dictated by technical function

Inclusive design relevance:

• Accessibility UI features (screen readers, simplified UI layouts) are not independently protectable unless they alter visual aesthetics.

4. Key doctrinal themes emerging from SPC jurisprudence

(A) Functional inclusivity is NOT protectable unless visually expressed

• Accessibility features alone (voice control, screen reader compatibility) are not design features.

(B) Visual inclusivity may still be protected

Examples:

• high-contrast GUI themes
• simplified icon systems
• ergonomic product shapes

But only if:

• they create a distinct overall visual impression

(C) Ordinary consumer standard is decisive

SPC consistently rejects expert-only analysis:

• focus is on average user perception
• not accessibility users as a separate legal benchmark

(D) Accessibility does not create a “safe harbor”

Even inclusive design improvements:

• do NOT automatically avoid infringement
• do NOT create independent design rights unless visually distinctive

(E) Product category constraint is strict

Even highly modified accessible versions:

• remain in same category if function/use is identical

5. Overall conclusion

The Supreme People’s Court’s approach shows a consistent rule:

Inclusive design improvements are legally relevant only when they change the overall visual effect of the product, not when they merely improve accessibility or usability.

In practice:

• Inclusive design ≠ separate IP category in design patent law
• It is evaluated within standard visual similarity doctrine
• Functional accessibility features are mostly excluded unless they affect appearance