Collagen Light Beauty Device and Eye Massager B2B OEM Cooperation IP Risk Control Guide

Intellectual property protection for collagen light beauty devices and eye massagers typically relies on a coordinated layout of three types of patents. The protection objects, rights content, and enforcement logic of the three types differ fundamentally, and they must be separately agreed upon and handled in B2B cooperation.

Protection Object. An appearance design patent protects the shape, pattern, or combination thereof, as well as the combination of color with shape or pattern, creating an aesthetically pleasing and industrially applicable new design. For collagen light beauty devices, appearance design may cover the overall streamlined body contour, the curved shape of the light guide, the layout and form of buttons, and the concealed design of the charging port; for eye massagers, it may cover the overall shape of the strap-type or head-mounted design, the curvature and material texture of the eye contact area, and the interface layout of the control panel.

Rights Content. The protection scope of an appearance design patent is based on the appearance design shown in the drawings or photographs, and the brief description can be used to interpret the appearance design shown in the drawings or photographs. Rights content includes: prohibiting others from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented appearance design product for production and business purposes without permission.

Enforcement Characteristics. Infringement determination for appearance design adopts the principle of "overall observation and comprehensive judgment," using the visual cognition of an "ordinary consumer" as the standard to determine whether the accused infringing design and the authorized appearance design have no substantial difference in overall visual effect. This means appearance design enforcement does not focus on "whether the technical function is the same," but only on "whether it looks similar enough." In the LUNA facial cleansing device case, the court found infringement based on the fact that the accused infringing product and the patented product were "basically identical in overall shape and structure, arrangement and distribution of bristles and raised arcs, and position settings of buttons and charging ports," awarding 3 million yuan in damages.

Protection Object. A utility model patent protects new technical solutions proposed for the shape, structure, or combination thereof of a product that are suitable for practical use. For collagen light beauty devices, structure patents may cover the installation structure of the optical module, the design of heat dissipation channels, and the detachable connection mechanism between the light guide and the body; for eye massagers, they may cover the laminated structure of the airbag module, the integration method of the heat compress sheet and the massage head, and the strap adjustment mechanism.

Rights Content. The protection scope of a utility model patent is based on the content of its claims, and the description and drawings can be used to interpret the content of the claims. The rights content is the same as that of an invention patent: prohibiting others from manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product without permission.

Enforcement Characteristics. Infringement determination for utility models adopts the "all-elements rule": the accused infringing technical solution must contain all technical features recorded in the claims (identical or equivalent) to fall within the protection scope. If any one technical feature is missing, there is no infringement. The impact of this rule on OEM cooperation is twofold: on the one hand, the OEM factory can avoid utility model patents by changing a non-core structural feature; on the other hand, if the OEM factory's "change" is merely a simple equivalent replacement (such as changing a screw connection to a snap-fit connection, achieving basically the same function and effect), it may still be found to be equivalent infringement.

Protection Object. An invention patent protects new technical solutions proposed for a product, method, or improvement thereof. For collagen light beauty devices, invention patents may cover dynamic adjustment methods for optical parameters, control logic for temperature control algorithms, and matching methods for energy output and skin impedance; for eye massagers, they may cover multimodal collaborative control methods and massage program generation methods based on user data.

Rights Content. The protection scope of an invention patent is based on the content of its claims. Rights content includes manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing the patented product, as well as using the patented method and using, offering for sale, selling, and importing products directly obtained by the patented method. Method protection is unique to invention patents.

Enforcement Characteristics. Infringement determination for invention patents also applies the "all-elements rule," but due to the more complex technical solutions, equivalent infringement is more commonly found. The stability of invention patents is generally higher than that of utility models and appearance designs, but they may also undergo invalidation proceedings. According to the Supreme Court's 2025 reply, if the patent evaluation report considers that the patent does not meet the authorization conditions, the court cannot directly dismiss the lawsuit solely based on this, but should adjudicate in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

Brand-Led Design. The brand provides complete appearance design drawings (renderings, CMF files, structural diagrams), and the OEM factory is only responsible for implementation and mass production. In this case, the copyright and appearance design patent rights of the appearance design should belong to the brand. The contract should stipulate: the OEM factory shall not use the appearance design solution provided by the brand for any other customer, and shall not apply for an appearance design patent on its own.

OEM-Led Design. The brand proposes functional requirements and style directions (such as "minimalist technological feel" or "rounded skin-friendly feel"), and the OEM factory completes the specific appearance design. In this case, the ownership of the appearance design depends on the contract agreement. According to Article 6 of the Patent Law, for a service invention-creation completed by the OEM factory's designer, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the OEM factory. If the brand wishes to obtain the appearance design patent right, it must explicitly agree on the transfer of rights in the contract and pay the corresponding consideration.

Joint Design. The brand provides brand tone and user insights, the OEM factory provides engineering constraints and manufacturability suggestions, and both parties jointly determine the final appearance. In this case, the appearance design may constitute a "jointly completed invention-creation." According to Article 8 of the Patent Law, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the units that jointly completed it, i.e., both parties share it. The exercise rules for a shared patent are: if there is an agreement, follow the agreement; if there is no agreement, any co-owner may implement it alone or license others to implement it by ordinary license, but the royalties collected from licensing others shall be distributed among the co-owners; apart from the above circumstances, exercising the shared patent right shall require the consent of all co-owners.

The appearance design files (renderings, 3D models) of collagen light beauty devices and eye massagers themselves constitute works under copyright law. This means that even without applying for an appearance design patent, the copyright of the design drawings automatically arises. In B2B cooperation, the ownership of copyright is easily overlooked.

If the brand commissions the OEM factory's designer to draw renderings, and the contract does not specify copyright ownership, according to the Copyright Law, the copyright of a commissioned work belongs to the commissioned party (the OEM factory). The brand can use it free of charge "within the specific purpose of the commissioned creation," but cannot prevent the OEM factory from using similar designs for other customers.

Therefore, appearance customization contracts must simultaneously address copyright ownership and appearance design patent application right ownership. Recommended clause: "The copyright of all design documents created by Party B for the performance of this contract (including but not limited to renderings, 3D models, CMF solutions, and structural diagrams) shall belong to Party A from the date of creation. Party B confirms that the above works are 'commissioned works,' and Party A has the right to modify, use, and apply for appearance design patents on its own or through a third party."

There are mainly three scenarios for IP licensing cooperation in collagen light beauty devices and eye massagers:

Brand Co-branding. Beauty device brands collaborate with anime IPs, artists, or fashion brands to launch limited edition products. The core of co-branding is the integration of IP elements into the appearance design and the use of co-branded logos.

Celebrity/Influencer Cooperation. The brand invites celebrities or influencers to participate in product design ("co-designed edition") or endorsement. This may involve portrait rights authorization, name rights authorization, and "title" commitments (such as "Chief Experience Officer" or "Co-Designer").

Technology Brand Licensing. The OEM factory or solution provider licenses its technology brand (such as a trademark for a specific optical technology) to the brand, and the brand uses expressions such as "equipped with XX technology" in product promotion.

In celebrity co-branding cooperation, "title" commitments are an easily overlooked risk point. The brand may promise the OEM factory or channel partners that a certain celebrity will serve as "Chief Designer" or "Co-Experience Officer," but in reality the celebrity only agrees to "image use" and does not agree to "title granting."

A CIETAC case clarified the responsibility allocation for this risk: In multi-level subcontracting cooperation, "title" clauses appearing in downstream contracts cannot automatically bind upstream licensors. Unless explicitly agreed in the upstream contract, the liability for breach of contract due to unfulfilled titles is borne by the signing party itself.

For beauty device OEM cooperation, this means: if the brand promises the OEM factory that "this product is co-designed by a certain celebrity," but the licensing contract between the brand and the celebrity does not include a "designer title" clause, and the OEM factory designs product packaging and promotional materials based on this promise, once the title cannot be fulfilled, the OEM factory's losses may not be fully recovered from the brand—because whether the contract between the OEM factory and the brand explicitly stipulates this title obligation is the key.

Discovery Channels. Common channels for discovering patent infringement include: e-commerce platform inspections (discovering similar products), exhibition monitoring, dealer reports, third-party monitoring services, and competitor patent monitoring. For collagen light beauty devices and eye massagers, due to high product appearance recognition, e-commerce platform inspections are the primary discovery channel.

Preliminary Assessment. After discovering suspected infringing products, three preliminary assessments need to be completed: Rights Basis Assessment—whether the patent is valid, whether it has undergone invalidation proceedings, and the conclusion of the patent evaluation report; Infringement Comparison Assessment—whether the accused product falls within the patent protection scope, which is a technical judgment requiring professional personnel; Commercial Impact Assessment—the sales scale of the infringing product, sales channels, and impact on the brand's market share.

Compensation Calculation Methods. According to the Patent Law and judicial interpretations, the amount of compensation is determined in the following order: actual loss suffered by the right holder due to infringement → benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement → reasonable multiple of patent licensing fees → statutory compensation (30,000 yuan to 5 million yuan).

Calculation of Actual Loss. "The actual loss suffered by the right holder due to infringement can be calculated based on the total number of patent product sales reduced due to infringement multiplied by the reasonable profit per patented product. If the total number of reduced sales of the right holder is difficult to determine, the total number of infringing products sold in the market multiplied by the reasonable profit per infringing product can be regarded as the actual loss suffered by the right holder due to infringement."

Calculation of Infringement Benefits. "The benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement can be calculated based on the total number of infringing products sold in the market multiplied by the reasonable profit per infringing product."

Non-Infringement Defense. If the accused product does not fall within the patent protection scope, non-infringement can be claimed. For utility models and invention patents, it is necessary to compare the technical features in the claims one by one; for appearance designs, it is necessary to demonstrate substantial differences in overall visual effect.

Prior Design/Prior Art Defense. If it can be proven that the accused product uses prior design or prior art before the patent application date, there is no infringement.

Legitimate Source Defense. For sellers, if it can be proven that the product has a legitimate source (purchased from regular channels, unaware that it is an infringing product), compensation liability can be exempted, but sales must still cease.

Patent Invalidation Declaration. If the patent has authorization defects, a request can be filed with the National Intellectual Property Administration to declare the patent invalid. If the patent is declared invalid, the basis for the infringement lawsuit no longer exists. However, note that the invalidation procedure usually takes 6-12 months, during which the infringement lawsuit may continue.

In ODM mode, the technical solution is provided by the OEM factory, and the brand sells under its own trademark. According to judicial practice, the brand is not automatically exempt—only when it simultaneously satisfies not participating in the technical solution design, no intent to induce or abet, and the technical solution is completely independently provided by the OEM factory can it be exempted from infringement liability; once traces of brand participation in technical design are left in the contract or technical documents, the brand may still be identified as a joint manufacturer.

This means that if the brand makes specific modification requests to the technical solution during ODM cooperation (such as "increase the power of this optical module a bit" or "can the heat compress temperature reach 45 degrees"), it may be deemed to have participated in the technical solution design, thereby bearing joint infringement liability.

The contract should stipulate information notification and collaboration obligations after infringement occurs: "When either party discovers that a third party may infringe the intellectual property rights under this contract, or receives a third-party infringement accusation, it shall notify the other party in writing within [5] working days. Both parties shall negotiate and determine the response plan, including whether to file an infringement lawsuit, whether to conduct settlement negotiations, whether to apply for patent invalidation, etc. Without the written consent of the other party, neither party may unilaterally reach a settlement with a third party or waive rights regarding the intellectual property rights under this contract."