Do the words “as described” in a design patent claim affect the claim scope?
Apparently yes, according to a recent Federal Circuit opinion, Smartrend Mfg. Grp. V. Opti-Luxx, Inc., No. 24-1616 (Nov. 13, 2025). The case involved both utility patent and design patent infringement, but it was a single sentence about the design patent that stood out.
A design patent has only a single claim, which “shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described.” 37 CFR 1.153(a). The MPEP clarifies when the words “as described” are required in the claim of a design patent: “When the specification includes a proper descriptive statement of the design …, or a proper showing of modified forms of the design or other descriptive matter has been included in the specification, the words ‘and described’ must be added to the claim following the term ‘shown.’” MPEP 1503.01(III). MPEP 1503.01(II)(A) lists different types of acceptable descriptive statements, including a description of “the appearance of portions of the claimed design which are not illustrated in the drawing disclosure.”
Smartrend obtained a design patent on an LED light panel for school buses, such as the following:
At issue was the meaning of the oblique lines in the drawing. According to the MPEP, “Oblique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly polished or reflective surfaces, such as a mirror.” MPEP 1503.02(II). Accordingly, the district court instructed the jury that surface of the panel could be transparent or translucent, which helped lead to a verdict that Opti-Luxx’s translucent panel infringed Smartrend’s design patent.
The Federal Circuit reversed on this point. Its opinion noted that Smartrend’s patent claimed the design “as shown and described,” and the patent’s description included the statement, “The oblique shading lines visible in the front and perspective views denote transparency.” This the Court viewed this as limiting the scope of the claims: “Where a design is claimed ‘as shown and described’ … then the patent’s scope of protection is limited by the drawings and accompanying description in the patent.” The finding of infringement of the design patent was vacated, and the case was remanded to the district court for a new trial, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “transparent” when construing the scope of Smartrend’s design patent claim.
The attorneys at Renner Otto aim to be leaders in navigating the constantly evolving field of Intellectual Property. However, the information on our website is provided for general informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
For more information or to schedule a complimentary consultation, please contact us.