China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases Top 10 Patent Reexamination Invalidation Cases of 2022
On April 25, 2023, Liu Ming, Deputy Director of the Reexamination and Invalidation Trial Department of China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), announced the “Top Ten Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Cases in 2022” (2022年度专利复审无效十大案件). The top ten patent reexamination and invalidation cases in 2022 include 8 invalidation cases of invention patents, 1 invalidation case of a utility model patent and 1 invalidation case of a design patent. The cases involves artificial intelligence, standard essential patents, genetic engineering drugs, traditional Chinese medicine compound preparations, new energy and other patented technologies, the criteria for judging the inventiveness of new fields and new formats, the application of the “confidentiality review” clause (similar to the U.S. foreign filing license requirement), the determination of conflicts between designs and trademark rights.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “Hepatitis B virus (HBV) iRNA composition and method of use thereof,” the trial conclusion is that it remains valid on the basis of amendments. This case explains the inventiveness of small interfering RNA in the field of biotechnology and provides adjudication guidelines whether there is sufficient disclosure when there is a deviation between the experimental data and theoretical expectations.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “a compound Xueshuantong traditional Chinese medicine preparation and its preparation method,” the trial conclusion is that it remains valid. This case interprets the thinking and proof standards for judging the authenticity of the experimental data of traditional Chinese medicine patents, and plays a guiding role in judging whether there is sufficient disclosure and whether the claims are supported by the disclosure.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “An Electrode Sheet and a Lithium-ion Battery Containing the Electrode Sheet,” the trial conclusion is to remain valid on the basis of amendments. This case involves the field of mobile phone battery technology, and the decision has typical significance in considering the relevance of multiple technical features when determining the technical problem actually solved by the invention.
In the case of invalidation of a utility model patent titled “a retractable transmission assembly and lifting column,” the trial conclusion was to declare all the claims invalid. This case is a typical case where the patent right is declared invalid after the secrecy review clause [foreign filing license requirement] was introduced into the patent law of China. It interprets the applicable standard of law, guides innovators to abide by the legal requirements, and strengthens the national security in the field of intellectual property.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “Phenylpiperazine Derivatives as Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors,” the trial conclusion is that it remains valid. The decision interprets the impact of the relationship between drug indications and mechanisms on judging whether there is sufficient disclosure, and embodies the legislative purpose of the Patent Law to encourage inventions and creations.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “Method for configuring the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of a link in a user equipment (UE),” the trial conclusion is invalidation. In standard-essential patent cases in the communication field, the judgment of whether the 3GPP mailing list documents are disclosed or not is both an important point and a difficult point. This case has exemplary significance for the determination of the evidentiary qualification and probative force of such evidence.
In the case of invalidation of the design patent titled “automobile,” the trial conclusion was invalidation. This case expounds in detail the principles and methods for judging the conflict between design patents and prior trademark rights. The decision emphasizes that when judging whether the trademarks are identical or similar, the general attention of the relevant public should be used as the standard to examine whether the patent in question plays the role of a trademark .
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “Electric Balance Vehicle and Its Supporting Cover, Starting Method, and Turning Method,” the trial conclusion was invalidity. This case provides trial ideas and clears the examination standards for determining whether claims in a divisional application exceed the scope of the disclosure, and helps to promote the consistency in the implementation of the relevant examination standards for divisional applications.
In the invalidation case of an invention patent titled “A Method for Establishing a Neural Network Model for Classification of Scrap Steel,” the trial conclusion is to maintain validity. This case is a typical case of inventiveness judgment of invention patents in the field of artificial intelligence. It explains how to consider the contribution of algorithms, application scenarios and other elements to the overall technical solution in this field, and further refines the inventiveness judgment criteria.
In the case of invalidation of an invention patent titled “Method and Device for Providing Effective Discontinuous Communication,” the trial conclusion is to maintain validity on the basis of amendments. In this case, when judging whether the right of priority is established, the examination of the certificate of assignment of the right of priority has typical significance in judging the validity of the right of priority claim.
The original announcement is available here. Decisions courtesy of IPRlearn.
Back to All Resources