On September 18, 2025, the CNIPA ruled to invalidate a design patent named "Hair Styler" (Patent No. 2015302437121) owned by Dyson due to unclear views. The invalidation request was filed by Shenzhen Shuye Technology Co., Ltd., whose brand Laifen has rapidly emerged in the hair dryer market in recent years.

I. Core Reason for Invalidation: Unclear and Inconsistent Views

According to the collegiate panel's opinion, the submitted drawings for the patent in question contained serious inconsistencies and ambiguities, specifically including:

1. Non-correspondence between the bottom view and the right-side view, front view, and rear view:

· The bottom view shows a protrusion at the bottom of the handle, but this structure is not correspondingly depicted in the right-side view.

· The bottom view lacks contour lines representing the side formation of the handle.

· The number of lines representing the chamfer at the bottom of the handle in the bottom view, as well as the relationship between the handle's cross-sectional diameter and the diameter of the arc connection, are unclear.

2. Indeterminate air outlet structure:

· The structural shape of the air outlet on the front of the main body cannot be determined from Perspective View 1 and the front view.

· The positional and connecting relationships between the various rings are unclear.

Based on this, the panel concluded that the patent in question failed to clearly show the appearance design of the product for which protection was sought, thus failing to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 27 of the Patent Law. The scope of patent protection could not be determined, making it impossible to compare and judge against prior designs. Consequently, the patent was declared invalid, and other grounds for invalidation were not reviewed.

"Article 27 of the Patent Law stipulates: To apply for a design patent, a request, drawings or photographs of the design, and a brief description of the design shall be submitted.
The relevant drawings or photographs submitted by the applicant shall clearly show the appearance design of the product for which patent protection is sought."

II. Typical Significance of This Case

China's Patent Law first introduced the "clear display" requirement during the 2008 amendment, significantly elevating the importance of formal requirements in the examination and invalidation procedures for design patents.

In past design patent cases, disputes often focused more on novelty and inventiveness. However, in recent years, with increasing case volumes and stricter examination standards, the clarity and consistency of views have gradually become crucial grounds for review in invalidation proceedings.

In the Dyson case, the non-correspondence and ambiguity in the patent views directly led to the scope of protection being "unable to be determined". This indicates that:

1. Even if a design is highly innovative, it risks being invalidated due to formal defects if its drawings lack completeness and consistency.

2. "Clear display" has evolved from merely a formal requirement during application to a substantive standard of review in invalidation proceedings.

III. Implications of the Case

1. Implications for Applicants

When submitting a design patent application, it is essential to ensure:

· Complete correspondence between the six views (or necessary views), avoiding missing or contradictory structures.

· Accuracy in details, such as contour lines, chamfers, and connection relationships, which must be clearly identifiable.

Any ambiguity or omission can become a critical weakness in subsequent invalidation proceedings.

2. Implications for Industry Competition

In highly competitive consumer goods sectors like haircare appliances, local companies (such as Laifen) are increasingly challenging the patent barriers of multinational corporations. Compared to arguments based on substantive inventiveness, attacking formal requirements often proves to be a more cost-effective and direct strategy.

IV. Conclusion

For Dyson, this invalidation ruling not only weakens its design patent barrier in China but also reflects how local brands like Laifen are actively using patent strategies to compete for market share in the fiercely contested haircare appliance market.