With the rapid development of global technology, the metaverse industry has gradually formed a new economic zone and business model. It combines blockchain, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, AR (augmented reality) and VR (virtual reality) technologies. The virtual world constructed by the metaverse spans many fields and has a wide range of utilizations, such as shopping, finance, social networking, work, education, performances, and entertainment. From the perspective of the intellectual property protection system that encourages innovation, research and development, the following is a brief introduction of current Taiwan patent/trademark applications and examination relating to metaverse technologies.
Invention Patent
According to the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) analysis report on metaverse-related patents, the global filings surged significantly after 2014, especially from 2016 to 2017. Although the growth slowed in the subsequent years, the COVID-19 outbreak has completely changed the interaction and life of people, and it is generally predicted that the metaverse industry and market size will steadily grow each year in the post-epidemic era after 2022. Per TIPO statistics by 2021 for metaverse-related patents in Taiwan, the top ten applicants are Semiconductor Energy Research Institute, HTC, Acer, Qualcomm, Seiko Epson, MediaTek, and META (formerly Facebook), Alibaba, Coretronics, and Sony. For metaverse-related patent filings worldwide, TIPO data shows that major Taiwanese applicants include HTC, Acer, XRspace (established in 2017), MediaTek, and Coretronics.
In terms of International Patent Classification, the previously-filed metaverse patents were mainly in the categories of optics (G02) and communication (H04), and now it is mostly in the computing category (G06) for Taiwan and many countries around the world. In recent years, Taiwan’s metaverse patent filings in optics category (G02) became closer to that of the computing category (G06). As the metaverse is basically presented in a virtual world created by software and hardware devices, its patent applications may relate to devices (hardware) and/or methods (software). Due to the broad concept of the metaverse, it is important that a metaverse-related patent application must meet the definition of an invention and possesses novelty, inventive-step and industrial applicability. Its technical features cannot be an easy conversion of the existing technology, such as a simple feature using the blockchain for data storage without achieving non-obviousness effects. Despite it is not patentable for a business or commercial method not resulting from the principle of nature, it is possible to file patent protection for an invention implemented by the software program using hardware devices to claim the subject matter as a computer program product.
Design Patent
TIPO has divided the metaverse-related designs into two types: an article by the appearance of physical product (e.g. VR lens), and a graphic/image such as Icons and GUIs (or the shape of NFT). For a virtual and digital design relating to metaverse, it does not have a physical form and hence the name of design must state the applicable article, for example, the design name entitled “Icon of a computer program product.” Also, it is not necessary to show or depict dotted lines for the unclaimed part such as the display monitor. Notably, the design patent right of a graphic/image article or product is limited to the virtual appearance generated by the computer program. The design right does not additionally cover the scope of physical appearance of said article or product, unless design applications are simultaneously filed for both physical and virtual forms of an article/product.
Trademark
Applicants can file trademark registrations for metaverse-related physical goods, virtual goods and/or their services. As a trademark application must designate the classes of goods/services when filing, TIPO has summarized the following classes for metaverse trademark applications:
Class 9 for goods – downloadable virtual image files or software
Class 42 for services – non-downloadable virtual image files or software
Class 35 for services – retail services of virtual goods
Class 41 for services – entertainment services
Since a trademark protection will depend on goods/services filed in the same or different classes, if the applicant has obtained a trademark registration for physical goods, the protection right does not extend to the virtual goods, and vice versa. For trademark of virtual goods based on or made from physical goods, both virtual and physical goods are usually different in nature and function, hence they do not constitute trademark similarity. However, such similarity may apply to trademarks filed in the classes of services because all services are essentially intangible. In order to determine whether or not the trademarks are similar to each other, factors such as likelihood of confusion must be taken into consideration when judging the trademark infringement.
