June 30, 2022

Volume XII, Number 181

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 30, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

China’s Patent Office Releases Top 10 Patent Reexamination Invalidation Cases of 2021

On April 26, 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced the Top 10 Patent Reexamination Invalidation Cases Released in 2021 (2021年度专利复审无效十大案件发布).  Invalidation cases cover utility models, invention patents, designs and layout designs of integrated circuits.  Note that many of the petitioners appear to be straw persons as the real party of interest does not need to be disclosed in invalidations.

  1. Invalidation of the invention patent titled Novel sulfamides and their use as endothelin receptor antagonists


Patent number: ZL01820481.3

Patentee: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Petitioner: Nanjing Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: valid on the basis of amendment

This case is a model case for the invalidation of drug compounds and serves as an exemplary case for determining sufficient disclosure in priority documents and inventiveness.

  1. Invalidation of invention patent titled Substituted polycyclic carbamoyl pyridone derivative prodrug

Patent number: ZL201180056716.8





Patentee: Shionogi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Petitioner: Liu Yitong

Trial conclusion: valid

This case has reference significance for accurately evaluating the technical effect described in the specification and whether the Markush claim can be supported by the specification.

  1. Invalidation of invention patent titled Data transmission method and system for obtaining network connection through image acquisition

Patent number: ZL201010523284.4

Patentee: Shanghai Kedou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

Petitioner: Palm Reading Technology Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: invalid

This case has interpreted the legal provision that the parties’ withdrawal of their claims is not subject to termination of trial procedures, so as to reasonably balance the interests of the patentee and the public.

  1. Invalidation of invention patent named left atrial appendage occluder

Patent number: ZL201310567987.0

Patentee: Lifetech Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

Petitioner: Cai Jingli

Trial conclusion: invalid

This case interprets the application of the “novelty grace period” and decides to emphasize that the patentee should perform the necessary declaration obligations in a timely manner when he knows that others have disclosed his technical content without consent.

  1. Invalidation of invention patent named axial flow fan

Patent number: ZL200710026747.4

Patentee: Guangdong Midea Refrigeration Equipment Co., Ltd.

Invalid petitioner: Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: invalid

This case involves the determination of the validity of the evidence involving a unilateral authentication report and the technical comparison of the product claims using intrinsic definitions and extrinsic public evidence.

  1. The case of revocation of the exclusive right of the layout design of the integrated circuit named “Image Sensor CS3825C”

Registration number: BS.175539928

Patentee: Zhuhai Siwang Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

Petitioner: Shenzhen Xinzhirui Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: valid

This case interprets the rules of judgment regarding the object of exclusive rights protection, the scope of original trial and the period of application for registration.

  1. Invalidation of a design patent named instrument case

Patent number: ZL201030122941.5

Patentee: Fujian Shunchang Hongrun Precision Instrument Co., Ltd.

Invalid requester: Xiamen Xike Automation Technology Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: declared invalid

This case clarifies the knowledge level and cognitive ability that “general consumers” as the subject of judgment should have, and analyzes the different influence weights of various design features on the overall visual effect.

  1. Invalidation of a utility model patent named explosion-proof device

Patent number: ZL201521112402.7

Patentee: Contemporary Amperex Technology Co Ltd

Petitioner: Dongguan Tafel New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. Jiangsu Tafel New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.

Trial conclusion: valid after amendment

This case is a typical case of inventiveness of structural products in the field of new energy. The decision emphasizes that the determination of existence of technical enlightenment should be based on the relationship between the distinguishing features.

  1. Invalidation of an invention patent titled Quinoline Derivatives for the Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis

Patent number: ZL201210507318.X

Patentee: Janssen Pharmaceutica NV

Petitioner: Wang Liqun

Trial conclusion: valid after amendment

This case clarifies whether there is a “reasonable expectation of success” in determining the inventiveness of an invention for medical use.

  1. Invalidation of a utility model patent titled Articulating Joint for Plumbing

Patent number: ZL201920390483.9

Patentee: Zhejiang Tianyan Holdings Co., Ltd.

Petitioner: Meng Xianglin

Trial conclusion: valid

This case clarifies the allocation of the burden of proof and access to domestic priority documents when verifying the priority of evidence.




© 2022 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 130
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Aaron Wininger IP Attorney China Portfolio Development
Director of China Intellectual Property Law Practice Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

Aaron Wininger is a Senior Attorney and Schwegman’s Director of China Intellectual Property. Aaron counsels both U.S. and Chinese companies on portfolio development and preparation of their patent applications and office action responses. He has worked with clients in the areas of software, networks (wired and wireless), lasers, medical devices, semiconductors and physics.

Aaron prosecutes both Chinese and U.S. trademarks. He has also drafted and prosecuted hundreds of U.S. and international patent applications in a broad spectrum of areas, including computer hardware and software,...

408-278-4059
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement