Guidelines for Patent Examination(2023Edition) Part IV Chapter III.2.1Article records:

If a patent right involved in an invalidation case for which a review decision has been made is again requested for invalidation on the same grounds and evidence, it shall not be accepted and heard.

If the reasons for the re-submitted request for invalidation (referred to as the reasons for invalidation) or evidence are not considered by the earlier request for invalidation review decision due to time limit, the request does not fall under the above-mentioned inadmissibility and hearing.

       “No longer a matter”The regulation is to solve the problem of patent validity disputes, and then this paper will analyze its connotation and how to determine it from the three levels of timing, subject and object.

1. Timing

Patent Invalidation Procedure“No longer a matter”The timing of the application of the principle occurs after the decision to review the request for prior invalidation has been made. This means that it does not apply even if the two requests are identical in content (regardless of the time limit) until a decision has been made on the prior request.“No longer a matter”Principle.

In addition, if the requestor makes another request on the same grounds and evidence after withdrawing the request, since no review decision has been made in response to the earlier request, it is not a case where the principle of non-justification applies.

2. Subject

This provision applies not only to the same person requesting invalidation, but also to different persons requesting invalidation for the same reasons and evidence.

3. Object

The same evidence

“The same evidence”It is usually the case that the evidence that has a material effect on the final judgment conclusion is exactly the same.Evidence cannot be judged to be different simply because of its different form.: If the two pieces of evidence are only different in form, the technical content is basically the same, and the technical personnel in the field show basically the same technical solution, such as the public text and authorized text of the same patent document, it can be regarded as the same evidence. At the same time,Nor is it appropriate to simply identify evidence of the same substance as the same evidence.: If a patent document including multiple embodiments or a common knowledge book including multiple chapters, the prior decision only considers some of the contents cited by the requester, or the subsequent request for substantial changes to the Chinese translation of the evidence, shall also be regarded as different evidence.

The same reason

The reason is based on evidence facts and legal facts, and is an organic whole produced by the comprehensive use of evidence facts, legal facts and analytical reasoning. In other words, in addition to laws, regulations and review benchmarks, the specific use of evidence, such as combination, feature comparison and specific analysis, should be classified as the coverage of the reasons.This part mainly needs to judge whether the specific description put forward by the requester in the later request and the facts on which the description is based have been determined in the preliminary decision.For example, even if the claimant quotes different parts of the evidence or the patent involved and uses different expressions to express the same fact of a certain technical feature, which actually involves the same reasons and evidence, the prior decision has already made a determination based on the evidence or the overall technical scheme of the patent involved, then the matter is no longer justified.