Ten Cases of Patent Reexamination Invalidation in 2021

2021Ten cases of invalidation of annual patent reexamination

Patent reexamination and invalidation are the procedures for the re-identification of the scope of protection of patent rights and even the existence of rights, which determine the basis of patent protection and have been of great concern to the society.4Month26day,2021The ten cases of invalidation of annual patent reexamination were officially released in the open day activities of the State Intellectual Property Office.

Case1.“Novel sulfonamides and their use as endothelin receptor antagonists”Invalidation of Invention Patent (Patent No:ZL01820481.3)

Brief of the case:Patentee:Actor Rhein Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Invalidation Requestor:Nanjing Zhengda Tianjing Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.The drug Maxitentan involved in this case is the first oral preparation approved for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension. This case is a patent challenge initiated by a generic drug applicant against the original drug after submitting a generic drug application. The trial of the case involves a number of legal issues in the field of chemical medicine, including the understanding of technical terms in the claims, the nature of the Markush claims, the determination of the priority of Markush compounds and specific compounds, the judgment of the full disclosure of the table compounds, the supplementary experimental data and the creative judgment of the compounds.

Conclusion:remain in effect on the basis of the modifications.

Typical meaning:This case is a typical case of drug compound trial, which has an exemplary effect on the determination of priority, the judgment of full disclosure of the form compound and the creative judgment of the compound.

Case2.“Prodrugs of substituted polycyclic carbamoylpyridone derivatives”Invalidation of Invention Patent (Patent No:ZL201180056716.8)

Brief of the case:Patentee:Yanoyi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., claiming for invalidation:Yitong Liu.The mabalosavir involved in this case is the first and only single-dose oral anti-influenza drug approved at present. The trial process of the case involves legal issues such as whether the Markush claim can be supported by the specification, how to accurately evaluate the disclosure of the technical effect of the specification and the creative judgment of compounds with similar structures.

Conclusion:Maintain effective

Typical meaning: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.; also elaborated"Compounds with similar structures but different uses" should be comprehensively examined in the creative evaluation of the mechanistic research results provided by the existing technology, and if they are not intrinsically related to the mechanism of action of the patent in question, no technical enlightenment can be obtained from the structural improvement of the compound to achieve different uses.

Case3.“The data transmission method and its system for obtaining network connection through image acquisition.”The invention patent is invalid (patent number:ZL201010523284.4)

Case Brief: The patentee is Shanghai Kedou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and the applicant for invalidation is Palm Read Technology Co., Ltd. In the invalidation procedure of this case, both parties submitted a large amount of evidence, and the complexity of the case was high. After the oral trial, the claimant made a withdrawal statement. The focus of the trial in this case is whether the trial procedure is terminated when the claimant makes a request to withdraw the case, that is, Article 72 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law2the understanding and application of the provisions of the paragraph.

Conclusion:Invalidation

Typical meaning:This case interprets the legal provisions that the parties withdraw their request but the trial procedure may not be terminated, and reasonably balances the interests of the patentee and the public.

Case4.“left atrial appendage occluder”The invention patent is invalid (patent number:ZL201310567987.0)

Case Brief: Patentee: Xianjian Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Nullification Requestor: Cai Jingli. The claimant in this case filed a request for invalidation of multiple patent rights of the patentee, and this case is one of them. In the trial of this case, the claimant claimed that the patent involved lacked novelty and creativity, and submitted relevant existing technical evidence. The patentee, on the other hand, claims that the primary evidence presented by the claimant is within six months of the filing date.In the case of "others divulging their contents without the consent of the applicant", the patent in question shall enjoy a "novelty grace period", and the evidence submitted by the claimant shall not undermine its novelty and creativity.

Conclusion:Invalidation

Typical meaning:This case“novelty grace period”The application of interpretation,fully discussesWhether "others divulge their contents without the consent of the applicant" can enjoy the existing technology exemption, and make it clear that in the case of others divulging the contents of inventions and creations without consent, if the evidence can show that the patentee has not made a statement and submitted supporting documents within two months after the patentee has known the situation, he cannot enjoy the grace period of novelty.The decision emphasizes that the patentee should promptly perform the necessary declaration obligations when knowing that others disclose technical content without consent.

Case5.“axial flow wind wheel”The invention patent is invalid (patent number:ZL200710026747.4)

Case Brief: Patentee: Guangdong Midea Refrigeration Equipment Co., Ltd., Invalidation Requestor: Zhuhai Gree Electric.Co., Ltd.Midea, Gree and Oaks are the three major competitors in the domestic air-conditioning industry. Patent disputes between them continue. This case is Gree's second request for invalidation of Midea. The axial flow wind wheel used on the outside of the air conditioner involved in the case has an important impact on the efficiency of the air conditioner and is one of the key patents in the patent war of the three enterprises.

Conclusion:Invalidation

Typical meaning:This case involves the determination of the validity of the evidence of the unilateral entrustment appraisal report, and at the same time, it provides a trial idea for the technical comparison of the product claims defined by parameters and the use of public evidence.

 

Case6.“Image SensorCS3825C”The revocation of the exclusive right to design the integrated circuit layout.(Registration No:BS.175539928)

Brief of the case:PatentRight person: Zhuhai Siwang Semiconductor Co., Ltd., and the author of the revocation opinion: Shenzhen Xinzhirui Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. The trial of this case involves a number of revocation provisions, including Article 2 of the regulations on the protection of objects, Article 4 of the regulations on originality, and Article 7 of the regulations on the time limit for applying for registration.

Conclusion:Maintain effective

Typical meaning:This case interprets the judgment rules of the object of exclusive right protection, the scope of originality trial and the time limit for applying for registration.It has reference significance for the trial of layout design cases.

Case7.“Instrument casing”The design patent is invalid.(Patent No:ZL201030122941.5)

Case brief: patentee: Fujian shunchang hongrun precision instrument co., ltd., applicant for invalidation: Xiamen xike automation technology co., ltd. This case involves a number of controversial issues, includingWhether "intermediate products" belong to the object of design protection, the determination of the subject of judgment, and the rules of comparative judgment of design.

Conclusion:Invalidation

Typical meaning:This case clarifies as the subject of judgment.“general consumer”Should have the level of knowledge and cognitive ability, analysis of the design features for the overall visual effect of different influence weight.

Case8.“Explosion-proof device”The case of invalid utility model patent(Patent No:ZL201521112402.7)

Case Letter: Patentee: Ningde TimesNew Energy Technology Co., Ltd., the claimant for invalidation.:Jiangsu Tafel New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Dongguan Tafel New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.The main focus of the dispute in the trial of this case lies in two aspects, one is the understanding of the technical scheme, and the other is the influence of multiple structural features as technical improvement points on creative judgment.

Conclusion:remain in effect on the basis of the modifications.

Typical meaning:This case is a typical case of creative judgment of structural products in the new energy field, and the decision emphasizes that attention should be paid to the relationship between distinguishing features when judging whether there is technical enlightenment.On the basis of accurately identifying the technical problems to be solved by the patent involved and the technical effects that can be achieved, objectively judge whether the existing technology has given the corresponding technical enlightenment.

Case9.“Quinoline derivatives for the treatment of latent tuberculosis” "Use of substituted quinoline derivatives in the treatment of drug-resistant mycobacterial diseases"The invention patent is invalid.(Patent No:ZL201210507318.X,ZL200580017016.2)

Case Brief: Patentee: Jansen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nullification Requestor: Wang Liqun. This series of cases involves two patent rights that relate to global45First anti-TB drug in years“Bedaquinoline”. The trial of this series of cases involves a number of controversial points, including the understanding of the specific technical terms of the claims, how to consider the experimental data of the instructions, and the judgment of the improvement motivation and reasonable expectation of success of the invention for medical use.

Conclusion:remain in effect on the basis of the modifications.

Typical meaning:This case makes it clear that in the creative judgment of the invention of medical use, the existence“Reasonable expectations of success”.

Case10.“A kind of live joint for water supply and drainage”The case of invalid utility model patent(Patent No:ZL201920390483.9)

Case Brief: Patentee: Zhejiang Tianyan Holding Co., Ltd., Invalidation Requestor: Meng Xianglin. The trial process of this case involves many legal issues such as the burden of proof, the determination of the authenticity of electronic evidence, the determination of the use of public evidence chain, and the judgment of practicality.

Conclusion:Maintain effective.

Typical meaning:This case clarifies the allocation of the burden of proof and access to national priority documents when verifying the priority of evidence.At the same time, this case also explains the practical significance.The understanding of "can produce positive effects" and the rules for determining the authenticity and probative force of different types of evidence such as WeChat chat records and exhibitions.