3D Printing
and
Intellectual Property Law
Simon Bradshaw
www.cornwallstreet.co.uk
3D Printing / Rapid Prototyping
2012 3D Print Show, London
www.reprap.org
1981
2013
Relatively simple
Homogenous
No/few components
Mechanical properties
not critical
Registered Designs Act 1949
1C
(1) A right in a registered design shall not subsist in features of
appearance of a product which are solely dictated by the product’s
technical function.
(2) A right in a registered design shall not subsist in features of
appearance of a product which must necessarily be reproduced in their
exact form and dimensions so as to permit the product in which the
design is incorporated or to which it is applied to be mechanically
connected to, or placed in, around or against, another product so that
either product may perform its function.
7A
(2) The right in a registered design is not infringed by—
(a) an act which is done privately and for purposes which are not
commercial;
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
213
(3) [Unregistered] Design Right does not subsist in—
(a) a method or principle of construction,
(b) features of shape or configuration of an article which—
(i) enable the article to be connected to, or placed in, around or
against, another article so that either article may perform its
function, or
(ii) are dependent upon the appearance of another article of which
the article is intended by the designer to form an integral part, or
(c) surface decoration.
226
(1) The owner of design right in a design has the exclusive right to
reproduce the design for commercial purposes—
(a) by making articles to that design, or
(b) by making a design document recording the design for the
purpose of enabling such articles to be made.
Parker v Tidball [1997] FSR 680
Dyson v Qualtex [2006] RPC 31
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
213
(3) [Unregistered] Design Right does not subsist in—
(a) a method or principle of construction,
(b) features of shape or configuration of an article which—
(i) enable the article to be connected to, or placed in, around or
against, another article so that either article may perform its
function, or
(ii) are dependent upon the appearance of another article of which
the article is intended by the designer to form an integral part, or
(c) surface decoration.
226
(1) The owner of design right in a design has the exclusive right to
reproduce the design for commercial purposes—
(a) by making articles to that design, or
(b) by making a design document recording the design for the
purpose of enabling such articles to be made.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
226
(1) The owner of design right in a design has the exclusive right to
reproduce the design for commercial purposes—
(a) by making articles to that design, or
(b) by making a design document recording the design for the
purpose of enabling such articles to be made.
Non-commercial use does not infringe these rights (see Copinger and
Skone James §13-144).
A private user may make a design and may also make a design
document (e.g. a 3D design file).
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
4
(1) In this Part “artistic work” means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of
artistic quality,
(b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building,
or
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
A 3D object may well be a sculpture. But what is a ‘work of artistic
craftsmanship’?
This is not a ‘work of
artistic craftsmanship’
Lucasfilm v Ainsworth
[2009] F.S.R. 2, as
confirmed by Court of
Appeal and Supreme Court
Per Mann J, a WAC needs
a level of artistic rather than
utilitarian purpose.
Does not infringe design right
(‘must fit’ exemption).
Private replication does not in
any case infringe design right.
Utiltitarian design, so not a WAC
and no copyright in shape.
Surface Artwork may be a
more complex issue, however.
Not relevant whether artwork is
embedded in design or is on
surface only (Lambretta).
Section 52 CDPA may limit term
of copyright in mass-produced
artwork to 25 years.
Beware 3D infringement of 2D
original designs (‘Popeye’)
BUT - Section 51 CDPA may
apply (‘Teletubbies’)
Design files are protected by
copyright (Autospin v Beehive).
It is not an infringement of
such a copyright to make the
item in question (Leyland).
Design files are also ‘design
documents’ within Section 51
CDPA 1988.
It is not an infringement of a
design document to make the
item in question from it (Mackie
v Behringer).
Patents Act 1977
60
(5) An act which, apart from this
subsection, would constitute an
infringement of a patent for an
invention shall not do so if (a) it is done privately and for
purposes which are not
commercial;
BUT - Section 60(2) prohibits
supplying the ‘means’ to allow a
patent to be put into effect by a nonlicensee. Unclear if this applies to
disseminating design files.
Design Right
Not infringed by personal use
‘Must fit / Must Match’ exemptions
Does not include surface design
Design right in design files not infringed by use
Copyright
Does not apply to utilitarian 3D objects
Surface artwork covered (but reduced term if mass
reproduction)
Copyright in design files not infringed by use
Patent
Not infringed by personal use
Not many patents likely to be infringed by 3D printers
Issues from dissemination of design files?
Trade Mark
Not infringed by personal use
Not infringed by use that is ‘not in trade mark sense’
The outlook for IP in Objects
• 3D printing is moving from an industrial to a hobbyist / consumer
technology.
• If the evolution of computer technology is a guide, performance
may develop rapidly.
• Private, personal use of 3D printers will not, under UK law,
infringe design rights, patents or trade marks.
• UK copyright protection will not apply to most 3D object such a
printer could reproduce.
• Open source 3D printer designs and data formats, plus 3D
printers that can copy themselves, may result in IP control of
3D objects becoming as problematic as IP control of music.
(via Forbes.com)
‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’
S Bradshaw, A Bowyer and P Haufe, SCRIPTed 7.1 (2010)
‘The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual
Property Law – Learning Lessons from the Past?’
D Mendis, EIPR 35(3) (2013)
‘3D Printing Legal Update’ S Bradshaw, Computers & Law
24(2) (2013)
simon.bradshaw@cornwallstreet.co.uk
www.cornwallstreet.co.uk