/>iOn August 11, 2025 through August 18, 2025, China’s Reexamination and Invalidation Review Department of the Patent Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the Compilation of Key Points of Decisions in Typical Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Cases (2024) (专利复审无效典型案件决定要点汇编(2024)). CNIPA stated that the release was “to focus on explaining the application of law in patent reexamination and invalidation cases and to showcase the latest practices in patent examination in various technical fields.” CNIPA generated the Compilation by extracting 72 key points of decisions from 59 typical cases concluded in 2024. A translation follows.
I. Principle of Good Faith
1. Evidence and explanation for invalidation based on “breach of good faith”
[Case No.] 4W117458 A cyanide-free gold electroplating solution containing sodium gold sulfite and its electroplating process
[Key Points of the Decision] Article 11 of the “Implementing Rules of the Patent Law” targets patent application behaviors that violate the principle of good faith, which is different from defects in the patent technical solution itself (such as lack of creativity, insufficient disclosure of the description, etc.).
If this clause is used as a reason for invalidation, the applicant shall bear the burden of providing sufficient evidence and, based on the submitted evidence, provide a specific explanation of the patent application behavior that violates the principle of good faith.
II. Objects Not Granted Patent Rights
2. Collaboration and division of labor between patent examination and food safety supervision
[Case No.] 4W118080 Human milk oligosaccharide composition for regulating intestinal immune function and its application
[Key Points of the Decision] When determining whether a patent in the food sector involves “harming the public interest” as stipulated in Article 5 of the Patent Law, normative documents such as laws, regulations, and national standards related to food safety supervision serve as an important reference. However, the objectives and functions of the patent system and the food safety supervision system differ. The purpose of food safety supervision is to regulate the manufacturing and sales of food to ensure food safety; the purpose of the patent system is to encourage innovation and creation. Since research and development and patent application generally come first, and application for production and sales licenses comes later, requiring that all raw materials for food invention patents must come from relevant catalogs or standards approved as food raw materials or food additives may inhibit technological innovation among market players.
3. Examination Approach for Food Additive-Related Issues in Food Invention Patents
[Case No.] 4W118080 Human milk oligosaccharide composition for regulating intestinal immune function and its application
[Decision Points] If there is evidence that the safety of a substance used in food preparation has been recognized to a certain extent and there is no evidence that its use in food preparation will endanger human health, then even if the substance has not yet been approved for use as a food additive, using it in food inventions and creations does not necessarily constitute a violation of the public interest.
For substances that have been approved for use as food additives, if the concentration of the substance in the invention exceeds the usage range permitted by existing standards, but there is evidence that the safety of using the substance and its related concentrations in food preparation has been widely recognized in the industry, and there is no evidence that using it in amounts exceeding the usage range permitted by existing standards will endanger human health, then it should not be considered that this situation necessarily constitutes a case of harming the public interest.
III. Existing Technology and Existing Design
(1) Publication Disclosure
4. Determination of whether drug standard documents constitute public disclosure
[Case No.] 4W116478 A Traditional Chinese Medicine Composition for Treating Femoral Head Necrosis and Its Preparation Method
[Key Points of Decision] The quality standards of registered drugs archived in specific units such as the Drug Administration or Drug Testing Institute are usually only accessible to specific personnel and generally do not constitute disclosure within the meaning of patent law.
5. Determination of the time of publication of drug instructions
[Case No.] 4W116478 A Traditional Chinese Medicine Composition for Treating Femoral Head Necrosis and Its Preparation Method
[Decision Points] If a drug has multiple versions of drug inserts, and the drug sales order does not indicate the specific version of the drug inserts, the drug name and sales time on the drug sales order alone cannot prove the release time of a specific version of the drug inserts.
(2) Public use
6. Verification of the authenticity and release time of sold products
[Case No.] 5W135377 Lighting mechanism and hair removal device
[Key Points of Decision] If a product of the same model is obtained from multiple consumers through the “trade-in” channel of an e-commerce platform, and the acquisition process and the query process of transaction information are notarized and preserved, and if these products have the same structure and no obvious signs of replacement or substitution during use are found, then in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, it can be determined that the product was publicly sold on the e-commerce platform on the date when the transaction snapshot was generated.
7. Proof of the disclosure time of measuring instrument products
[Case No.] 5W135507 Gas Meter Signal Acquisition Device
[Key Points for Decision] For water, electricity, and gas metering instruments, if the meter reading displayed on the meter is consistent with the purchase quantity on the meter’s payment record, and the relevant appraisal opinion indicates that the meter has not been disassembled or repaired, it can be determined that the meter reading is the cumulative measured fluid usage after its installation and use. The meter has been in a public use state since the date of the first payment, and the first payment date can be presumed to be the public date of the meter product.
8. Evidence for the claim of “open exhibition”
[Case No.] 6W116747 Bicycle (Women’s)
[Key Points of Decision] The applicant claims that the photograph on Website A proves that the design in question was publicly exhibited at Exhibition B before the application date. If the photograph was uploaded by a website user, and the “exhibition information” displayed on the webpage was also edited and filled in by the user, and the webpage does not indicate the time the photograph was uploaded, and the booth information shown in other evidence related to Exhibition B is obviously inconsistent with the booth information in the photograph, then the photograph is insufficient to prove that it is a true representation of the situation at Exhibition B, and further cannot prove that the design in question was publicly exhibited at Exhibition B before the application date.
9. Public recognition of use in special management places
[Case No.] 6W124834 Sliding Safety Wall
[Decision Points] For products placed in a restricted access location even if the place has certain requirements on visitor qualifications and visit procedures, and some areas inside are closed and managed, if the product is installed near the entrance of the location rather than in a restricted access area, and people passing by the door of the place can directly observe the product, then it should be deemed that the product is in a state where the public can know if they want to, rather than in a confidential environment where only specific people can know, and thus constitutes disclosure within the meaning of patent law.
10. Certification of the specific structure of the product sold publicly before the application date
[Case No.] 5W135632 A hydraulic support platform machine for underground working faces
[Decision Points] If a specific model of product produced by a manufacturer has been publicly sold before the application date of the patent in question, and multiple pieces of evidence from different sources record the specific structure of the specific model of product and can corroborate each other, then in the absence of contrary evidence, even if the disclosure time of these pieces of evidence is later than the application date of the patent in question, they can also be used to prove the specific structure of the specific model of product that has been publicly sold before the application date.
(3) Internet disclosure
11. Verification of the authenticity and publication time of communication technology standard proposals
[Case No.] 4W111978 Image Decoding Device and Image Decoding Method
[Key Points for Decision] For technical standard proposals submitted as evidence of prior art, their authenticity and publication date can be judged based on factors such as the authority of the standards organization’s website, the organization’s working methods and membership, and the purpose of the server. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as the international standardization organization, typically uploads its standard proposals to the ITU’s official FTP website before a standards meeting for download and discussion by attendees. The system automatically generates the upload date, and the public can also access the website to access relevant technical documents. Taking all of the above factors into consideration, in the absence of contrary evidence, the authenticity of ITU standard proposals should be recognized, and the upload date should be used as the publication date.
12. Determination of the Public Date of Archived Web Pages on the Internet Archive
[Case No.] 4W116322/4W116768 Multi-function Purifier
[Key Points of Decision] When using the Internet Archive’s webpage archives as prior art evidence, the date of publication should be determined in conjunction with the website’s mechanisms. First, the Internet Archive assigns a URL to each webpage file it crawls and archives. A specific numeric field in the URL represents the time the webpage was crawled and archived. Second, elements such as images within a webpage may be crawled multiple times, each with its own crawling time. Therefore, the crawling time of the webpage archive and its contained images may differ. Finally, given the website’s systematic and consistent URL assignment for archived files, the URLs of the webpages and images archived by the website should adopt the same naming conventions and formats. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the numeric field containing the date and time information in the image URL can be considered the image’s crawling and archiving time, i.e., the time the image was published on the Internet Archive website.
IV. Novelty
13. Understanding the principle of single comparison in novelty judgment
[Case No.] 4W117946/4W117974 Conductive Adhesive
[Key Points for Decision] Where a prior art document discloses the code name of a commercially available chemical product but does not disclose the physical and/or chemical performance parameters of the chemical product, if the structure and composition of the chemical product can be uniquely determined, then the introduction of measurement results of the physical and/or chemical performance parameters of the chemical product from other evidence is merely a confirmation of the relevant physical and/or chemical performance parameters of the disclosed chemical product and does not violate the principle of separate comparison for novelty determination.
14. The role of cited documents when using patent documents as comparative documents
[Case No.] 1F554680 User equipment equipped with SDR capabilities
[Key Points of Decision] If a patent document’s description cites a document reflecting its background art, and the cited document meets the requirements of the Patent Examination Guidelines, the patent document’s description is deemed to contain the relevant content of the cited document. When a patent document is used as a reference, any content in the cited document that is closely related to the patent document can be considered disclosed in the reference and does not exceed the reasonable expectations of the parties.
15. Determination of whether “background features” in the field of human-computer interaction are disclosed by prior art
[Case No.] 4W117583 Apparatus, method, and computer-readable storage medium for manipulating user interface elements
[Key Points for Decision] In human-computer interaction technology, background processing serves as a bridge between front-end input operations and output results. Technical features related to background processing should be considered in conjunction with front-end features of human-computer interaction. When the prior art evidence does not clearly document the background processing method, one should consider the technical characteristics of the software’s interactive operation from the perspective of a person skilled in the art. Based on the user’s input operations and the obtained output results, one should determine whether the background processing method can be directly and unambiguously determined, and thus whether it has been implicitly disclosed.
16. Avoid taking the information disclosed in the prior art literally
[Case No.] 4W117756 Method for manufacturing resin for optical materials
[Key Points for Decision] The understanding of the prior art should be based on the perspective of a person skilled in the art, and avoid simply and mechanically taking technically illogical or meaningless information as part of the disclosure.
17. Determination of the Technical Content of Video Evidence Disclosure
[Case No.] 4W117730 Intelligent Adjustment Method for Electric Curtains and Electric Curtain Rails
[Key Points for Decision] The technical content disclosed in video evidence should be based on what can be directly and unambiguously determined from the video, avoiding subjective speculation or imagination. If technical features such as product structure and operating procedures cannot be directly and unambiguously determined from the video due to reasons such as a short display duration, an inaccurate shooting angle, or insufficient clarity, then the video evidence is insufficient to determine that it discloses relevant technical information.
18. Can a PCT application be considered a “conflicting application”?
[Case No.] 1F609940 MPM list construction method, chroma block intra-frame prediction mode acquisition method and device
[Key Points of the Decision] After entering the Chinese national phase, a PCT international application has the same legal effect as a patent application filed directly with the CNIPA. If other statutory requirements are met, a PCT international application that has entered the national phase can be used as a “conflicting application” for novelty evaluation.
19. The role of “cited documents” in determining priority
[Case No.] 4W117594 “Ruxolitinib Phosphate” Case
[Key Points for Decision] If the cited documents in the background technology section of a patent meet the relevant requirements of the Patent Examination Guidelines, the relevant content of the cited documents can be deemed to be recorded in the patent specification. Although the priority document does not directly provide the measurement method and measurement results used to demonstrate the technical effect, if a person skilled in the art can understand the technical field, technical problem solved, technical solution, and expected technical effect of the priority document as a prior application based on the content recorded in the priority document and its cited documents, and if the priority document is the same as the later application in these four aspects, then if the two applications are inventions of the same subject matter, the later application can enjoy the priority of the earlier application.
20. Conditions for claiming a “grace period for not losing novelty”
[Case No.] 5W135853 Integrated Bracket Floating Breakwater Bracket
[Key Points of Decision] If a patent applicant or patentee learns after the application date that “another person has disclosed its contents without the applicant’s consent” and claims to enjoy the novelty grace period, the following conditions must be met: first, the disclosure occurred within six months before the application date; second, the applicant or patentee submits a statement to the CNIPA within two months after learning of the disclosure and attaches supporting materials requesting that the novelty grace period not be lost; third, the technical solution disclosed by others through the disclosure is directly or indirectly derived from the applicant or inventor; fourth, the disclosure by others was not consented to by the applicant.
21. Determination of the Novelty of Monoclonal Antibody Inventions
[Case No.] 4W116893 Selective Reduction of Cysteine Residues in IL-17 Antibodies
[Key Points for Decision] If the improvement of a monoclonal antibody invention over the prior art lies in the selective reduction of specific amino acid residues, and based on the international nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies, the oxidized or reduced form of individual amino acid residues in the sequence generally does not affect their nomenclature, then, in the absence of further supporting evidence, the mere fact that the nomenclature of the monoclonal antibody in the prior art is the same as that of the invention is insufficient to determine that the prior art discloses the monoclonal antibody product claimed in the invention. Furthermore, if the prior art does not disclose the preparation method of the monoclonal antibody, making it impossible to compare it with the preparation method described in the invention, and the relevant physicochemical parameters are significantly different from those of the invention, then it is even less sufficient to determine that the monoclonal antibody claimed in the invention lacks novelty over the prior art.
V. Inventiveness
(1) Determination of Distinguishing Features and the Technical Problem Actually Solved by the Invention
22. Multiple distinguishing features that work together to achieve a specific function should not be considered separately
[Case No.] 1F450934 A plastic pellet processing system and processing technology
[Key Points of Decision] When determining the distinguishing features and the technical problems actually solved, multiple technical features that work together to achieve a specific function and effect should be considered as a whole, rather than being separated and considered separately. Although the application in question and the closest prior art both involve the field of mechanical processing, if the two have different processing objects, resulting in differences in their component structures, functions, and interconnections, and these differences are organically related to each other and jointly produce a specific technical effect, then these distinguishing features should not be considered separately and technical inspiration should not be sought separately in the prior art.
23. The Impact of Different “Application Scenarios” on the Judgment of Inventive Step
[Case No.] 4W111293 A chatbot system
[Decision Points] If the technical solution of a claim is different from the application scenario of the prior art, so that the functions of the corresponding components and the connection relationship between the components are not disclosed by the prior art, and the above-mentioned differences enable the technical solution of the claim to have beneficial technical effects, then the claim has an inventive step.
24. Common knowledge may evolve over time
[Case No.] 1F483654 An analytical method for functional ingredients in cosmetic raw materials
[Key Points for Decision] Common knowledge in a certain technical field may develop and change over time. When determining the technical content implicitly disclosed in a comparative document in combination with common knowledge evidence, if the disclosure time of the common knowledge evidence is later than the formation time of the comparative document, the content disclosed by the common knowledge evidence cannot be simply determined as the content implicitly disclosed in the comparative document.
(2) Judgment of Technological Inspiration
25. Determination of the Role of Distinguishing Features in the Reference Documents
[Case No.] 1F516906 Chip Heat Exchanger and Inverter Air Conditioner
[Key points for decision] When judging whether the prior art provides technical inspiration, one should not only examine whether the comparative document discloses technical means that are identical or similar to the distinguishing features, but also stand in the shoes of a person skilled in the art and analyze, based on the overall work process recorded in the comparative document, whether the role played by the technical means or the technical problems solved are the same.
26. Existing technologies in different application fields can provide combined inspiration
[Case No.] 4W116379 Adsorption-type self-moving device
[Key Points for Decision] In the assessment of inventiveness, the technical problem actually solved by the invention should be re-determined based on the closest prior art. Guided by this technical problem, those skilled in the art are motivated to seek technical means to solve the same technical problem in similar or related technical fields. This is not limited to the fields of application of the patent in question and the closest prior art. If a prior art document in a similar or related field discloses that the same technical means can be used to solve the same technical problem, then for those skilled in the art, the prior art provides technical inspiration for combining the prior art document with the closest prior art to obtain the technical solution to be protected by the claim.
27. The impact of the sequence of process steps on the judgment of technological inspiration
[Case No.] 4W116776 A processing technology for a fake inner mold
[Key Points for Decision] The order of process steps in a method claim may be constrained by the component structures corresponding to each step. If the prior art discloses steps that are substantially the same as those in the patent claim at issue, but in a different order, the impact of each component structure on the process steps should be considered when determining the inventive step. If the differences in component structure between the patent at issue and the prior art make it impossible to reverse the order of the process steps, the prior art cannot be considered to provide technical inspiration.
28. The impact of the technical effect of the specification on the conclusion of the “three-step method”
[Case No.] 4W116583 Electromechanical Rear Derailleur
[Key Points of Decision] If the “three-step approach” can be used to determine that the prior art contains a technical suggestion for combination, then the technical solution of the invention is obvious to those skilled in the art. Even if the patent in question also describes other technical effects, as long as those skilled in the art can determine such effects from the technical solution obtained by combining the prior art, the conclusion of the inventive step determination will not be affected.
29. Consideration of Parameter Characteristics in Judgment of Technological Inspiration
[Case No.] 4W117515 Method for producing knot yarn and vortex nozzle
[Decision Points] For claims containing specific parameter features, if the closest prior art discloses a device with the same components and similar parameter settings, and solves the technical problem claimed to be solved by the patent in question, and the difference between the two is that the claim describes specific parameters of the specific dimensions of the components, then if the prior art has provided corresponding guidance on the selection of the parameters and the patent specification in question does not record that the selection of the above parameters will bring about a technical effect that is significantly better than the prior art, the parameters are routine choices made by those skilled in the art.
30. Determination of Technical Inspiration of Combination Drug Inventions
[Case No.] 1F409289 Combination Use of Nitroxanol and Its Analogs with Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Cancer Treatment
[Key Points for Decision] In the assessment of the inventiveness of a combination drug invention, when determining whether two or more prior art documents provide inspiration for combination, comprehensive consideration should be given to factors such as whether the prior art provides an expectation of successful replacement, the differences in treatment methods and efficacy between chemical drugs and antibody drugs, and the specific targets and mechanisms of action. It cannot be determined that a prior art provides clear technical inspiration simply because it generally mentions that it “can be used in combination with other drugs.”
31. Determination of the Technical Inspiration of Medical Inventions
[Case No.] 1F409289 Combination Use of Nitroxanol and Its Analogs with Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Cancer Treatment
[Key Points for Decision] For inventions involving medical uses, if a prior art document only broadly lists numerous candidate indications for a specific drug component, and the pathogenesis and treatment mechanisms of different indications vary widely, and if the prior art document does not verify whether the drug can treat the aforementioned indications, then, given the complexity of the drug’s mechanism of action and the differences between different indications, those skilled in the art will generally not be able to obtain clear technical inspiration from the prior art document.
32. Consideration of the implications of combining different versions of communication standards in the assessment of inventive step
[Case No.] 4W116433 Carrier Aggregation Feedback Method, Apparatus, and System
[Key Points for Decision] In the inventive step evaluation of patents in the field of communications technology, if the distinguishing features between the technical solution of a claim and the closest prior art are partially disclosed in other comparative documents, but the comparative document and the closest prior art are from different versions of communications technology standards, and the aforementioned distinguishing features are applicable to different scenarios and solve different technical problems in different versions of the standards, then the comparative document cannot be considered to provide technical inspiration for the introduction of the distinguishing features.
(3) Determination of the inventiveness of inventions in relevant technical fields
33. Review of Supplementary Experimental Data
[Case No.] 4W117821 “Fruquintinib Crystal Form” Case
[Key Points for Decision] The effects demonstrated by the supplementary experimental data submitted by the patentee should be obtainable from the disclosures in the original application documents. If the technical effects demonstrated by the supplementary experimental data are measured under the conditions clearly stated in the specification, or if, despite different testing conditions, the technical effects are a concrete manifestation of the effects described in the original application documents, then such technical effects can serve as the factual basis for the inventive step evaluation.
34. Determination of the Inventiveness of Traditional Chinese Medicine Compositions
[Case No.] 4W116478 A Chinese medicine composition for treating femoral head necrosis and its preparation method
[Key Points for Decision] While there is considerable flexibility in adjusting the medicinal ingredients and dosages in traditional Chinese medicine compositions, this does not mean that individual ingredients and dosages in existing formulas can be arbitrarily added or modified. Instead, the principles of medicinal compatibility based on syndrome differentiation and treatment must be adhered to. If only the combination of individual medicinal ingredients in a formula and their conventional efficacy are known, without understanding the position, function, or structure of each ingredient within the formula, and without clear technical guidance, it would be difficult for those skilled in the art to select the appropriate medicinal ingredient based on the syndrome, and the resulting traditional Chinese medicine composition would be non-obvious.
35. Determination of the Inventiveness of Crystalline Forms of Pharmaceutical Compounds
[Case No.] 4W117821 “Fruquintinib Crystal Form” Case
[Key Points for Decision] Studying the polymorphs of pharmaceutical compounds and identifying advantageous drug crystal forms that meet the requirements for drug production and use is a common motivation in the field. Changing conditions such as the crystallization solvent and temperature to obtain different crystal forms is a routine technical means in this field. On the one hand, inventions of crystal forms of known compounds are inventions with strong technical implications in the field of medicinal chemistry. Generally, inventiveness is recognized only when they produce a technical effect that would be unexpected by those skilled in the art. On the other hand, the technical means for obtaining the crystal form is also an important factor in determining whether there is a technical implication. The more conventional the technical means, the stronger the technical implication, and accordingly, the higher the requirements for the technical effect.
36. Determination of the Creativity of Inventions for Medical Use Indicated by Physiological Indicators
[Case No.] 4W117065 Use of Degarelix in the Preparation of a Drug for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer
[Decision Points] For a pharmaceutical use invention drafted using “Swiss-type” claims, if the pharmaceutical use is further refined by characterizing the subject of administration through a specific physiological indicator, and based on information on the pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, and therapeutic effects of the disease, a person skilled in the art can sufficiently confirm that the physiological indicator has actual clinical medication guidance value, then it can generally be determined that the physiological indicator has a substantial impact on the scope of protection of the invention.
If the difference between this type of invention and the closest prior art is reflected in the use of physiological parameters to further refine the characterization of the drug administration object, then based on the technical information disclosed in the invention specification, the connection between the physiological indicator and the therapeutic effect should be grasped to determine the technical problem actually solved by the invention. By analyzing the general therapeutic effect of drugs on diseases in the prior art and the significance and application of the physiological indicator, it should be judged whether the technical problem can be solved.
37. Inventiveness Examination of Patent Applications Involving Computer-Assisted Medical Technology
[Case No.] 4W116678 Inspection Methods for Computer-Assisted Orthodontic Appliances
[Key Points for Decision] If a computer-assisted medical technology solution is based on existing computer-assisted modeling technology, is solely based on medical principles, and simply incorporates relevant factors that typically need to be considered in the medical field as simulation parameters and incorporates them into its simulation calculation range, and does not produce technical effects beyond those achieved by existing computer simulations, then the technology solution does not possess inventiveness.
38. Inventiveness assessment of technical solutions for achieving human-computer interaction using artificial intelligence technology
[Case No.] 1F399901 Virtual Robot Interaction Method, Device, Storage Medium and Electronic Device
[Key Points for Decision] When evaluating the inventiveness of model training conducted to simulate the personalized behavior of specific objects in specific situations, it is necessary to focus on whether the specific objects, application scenarios, and training objectives have a substantial impact on the technical solution. If the prior art does not involve a computer model or method modified for this training purpose, and the application scenarios and simulation objects differ from those of the patent application in question, resulting in differences in the collected training data, the training methods used, the desired training objectives, and other aspects of the model, then the prior art does not provide any inspiration for conducting corresponding training on the computer model to solve the same technical problem.
39. The role of application scenarios in determining the inventiveness of AI algorithm patents
【Case No.】1F397311 Method and apparatus for processing images
[Key Points of Decision] For inventions involving the application of artificial intelligence algorithms to specific scenarios, the assessment of inventiveness should consider the application scenario and model algorithm as a whole, and comprehensively consider whether substantial adjustments and changes are made to the model algorithm characteristics when applied to different scenarios. If the algorithm model of the patent in question is substantially different from the prior art in terms of training data, input data, output data, model selection, etc. due to its application to different specific scenarios, and solves different technical problems, then the technical solution of the patent in question is inventive.
40. Examination of the Inventiveness of Claims Containing Parameter Relationships in the Field of Optical Lenses
[Case No.] 4W115749 Camera Optical Lens
[Decision Points] For optical imaging systems obtained using optical design software, the creativity of the optical imaging system can be judged by regressing the optical design process. When making the judgment, full consideration should be given to whether creative work is required to determine the initial structure and construct parameter relationships as constraints for optimizing the optical imaging system during the design process. Regarding the “linkage” phenomenon in which a change in one parameter in the system may trigger changes in other parameters, it should be understood that whether this “linkage” necessarily occurs depends on the physical properties between the parameters. The parameters defined in the claims can be considered in a classified manner: for parameters that have an “inevitable linkage” relationship with the above-mentioned parameter relationships used as constraints, the optimization process should fully consider whether the linkage changes of these parameters will cause the parameter relationships to fail to meet the relevant limitations of the claims; and for parameters that have no “inevitable linkage” relationship with the above-mentioned parameter relationships, the parameters can be “fixed” as needed to clarify that they will not change during the optimization process.
VI. Specification
41. Requirements for citing foreign patent documents in patent background art
[Case No.] 4W117594 “Ruxolitinib Phosphate” Case
[Decision Points] Where a foreign patent document is cited in the background art of a patent, if the publication date of the cited foreign patent document is no later than the publication date of the patent in question, even if the patent application is submitted before the implementation of the “Patent Examination Guidelines (2023)” or the patent right is granted based on the application, the content of the cited document can also be used as the basis for determining the disclosure content of the patent application or patent right.
42. Requirements for the level of detail in the description in determining “sufficiency of disclosure”
[Case No.] 4W117305 Mayonnaise-like food
[Key Points for Decision] Patent specifications, especially embodiments, should be as detailed as possible to facilitate understanding and implementation of the invention’s technical solution by those skilled in the art. However, this does not necessarily mean that the embodiments must list every detail of the invention. If technical details not listed in the embodiments are achievable by those skilled in the art based on common knowledge or in combination with conventional technical means, and there is no evidence that such details will result in the invention being unable to resolve the relevant technical problem or achieve the corresponding technical effect, then the omission of every detail will not result in insufficient disclosure in the specification.
43. Determination of whether a technical solution containing parameter features is sufficiently disclosed
[Case No.] 4W116759 A negative electrode sheet, secondary battery, and electrical device
[Decision Points] If the specification only proposes the relationship that should ultimately be satisfied between the parameters, but does not provide specific technical means for those skilled in the art to implement to satisfy the parameter relationship, and there are no theoretical rules to follow when using the parameter-defined relationship, then the solution defined by the parameter relationship cannot be implemented due to the lack of technical means to solve the technical problem.
VII. Claims
(1) Understanding of the Claims
44. Understanding of “Created Words” in Claims
[Case No.] 4W117583 Apparatus, method, and computer-readable storage medium for manipulating user interface elements
[Decision Points] During the patent reexamination process, the terms in the claims should generally be understood as having the meanings commonly used in the relevant technical field. For “made-up words” that do not have a common meaning in the field, one should objectively understand their meaning based on the limitations of the claims themselves and the description of the technical problem to be solved and the technical effects produced by the technical solution in the specification. The patent examination files generated during the patent examination process serve as a reference for understanding the scope of protection of the claims.
45. Understanding the Scope of Protection of Process Claims
[Case No.] 4W117474 Preparation of Acrylic Acid
[Decision Points] For method claims, if a person skilled in the art can determine that a certain process step has been implicitly defined in the technical solution by other process steps in the claim based on an overall understanding of the process flow design and the connection between the process steps, then even if the process step is not recorded in the text of the claim, it should be understood as part of the scope of protection of the claim.
(2) Independent claims should state necessary technical features
46. The role of “essential technical features”
[Case No.] 4W117786 Composition containing amlodipine and bisoprolol
[Key Points for Decision] Essential technical features are technical features that are indispensable for an invention to solve its technical problem, and their sum is sufficient to constitute the invention’s technical solution, distinguishing it from other technical solutions described in the invention’s background art. Requiring an independent claim to include essential technical features is intended to ensure that the technical solution it defines can solve the claimed technical problem, rather than requiring them to be present in an embodiment or to be technical features designed to achieve a superior technical effect.
(3) Claims should be based on the description
47. The determination of “support” should be based on the technical problem that the invention is intended to solve.
[Case No.] 1F678174 Preparation Method of Hydroxymethylfurfural
[Key Points for Decision] Whether a claim is supported by the description should be determined based on the technical problem the invention seeks to solve, and is generally not based on the “technical problem actually solved by the invention” in the inventive step assessment. The technical problem the invention seeks to solve can be determined based on a combination of the background art and its existing deficiencies described in the description, the “objective of the invention,” “technical problem to be solved,” and “beneficial effects” described in the summary of the invention, as well as content related to the “technical problem” and “beneficial effects” in the specific implementation methods.
48. Understanding the “generalization of claims” in “support” judgments
[Case No.] 5W135482 A power tool
[Decision Points] When judging whether a claim is supported by the specification, one should first clarify the technical problem that the patent in question intends to solve. Then, based on the technical means for solving the technical problem recorded in the specification, including the embodiments, one should analyze what kind of technical guidance the content disclosed in the specification provides to those skilled in the art. Finally, one should judge whether those skilled in the art can summarize the technical solution requested for protection and solve the technical problem of the patent in question based on the technical guidance and the general technical knowledge they possess.
49. The relationship between claims and embodiments in “support” judgments
[Case No.] 1F678174 Preparation Method of Hydroxymethylfurfural
[Decision Points] If a person skilled in the art can determine, based on the contents of the specification and combined with his or her ordinary technical knowledge, that the invention can also be implemented by other equivalent or alternative embodiments besides the embodiments, and that the technical problem of the invention can also be solved, then the claims should be allowed to be summarized to cover the above-mentioned other embodiments.
50. Consideration of Technical Features Not Considered “Improvements” in “Support” Judgment
[Case No.] 4W117756 Method for manufacturing resin for optical materials
[Key Points for Decision] When determining whether a claim is supported by the description, for technical features that are irrelevant or have little relevance to the claimed improvement over the prior art, if they fall within the scope of the prior art, those skilled in the art will generally be able to easily identify alternatives and foresee their technical effects.
51. Determining whether a product claim containing functional or effect features can be supported by the specification
[Case No.] 4W113250 Solid Oral Extended Release Pharmaceutical Dosage Form
[Key Points for Decision] For product claims, the use of functional or effect features to define the invention should generally be avoided as much as possible. If a technical feature cannot be defined by structural features, or if definition by structural features is more appropriate than definition by functional or effect features, and definition by functional or effect features is unavoidable, the specification must disclose sufficient information to enable a person skilled in the art to determine the primary factors influencing the function or effect, and which methods disclosed in the specification or other alternative methods known in the art can be used to achieve the function or effect.
52. Determining whether a claim containing a parameter formula can be supported by the description
[Case No.] 4W117069 Device for pumping suspension containing gas
[Decision Points] For claims defined by a formula containing multiple parameters, if the specific values of the relevant parameters and the necessary relationship between them and other parameters are not defined, so that the claims contain parameter values and technical solutions that are obviously unable to solve the technical problem of the patent in question, and the patent document also does not provide effective guidance on how to select the parameters that are constrained by the formula and have interrelated influences, so that it is difficult for those skilled in the art to determine the technical solution that can solve the technical problem of the patent in question from the scope of the claim, then the claim’s generalization exceeds the scope disclosed in the specification and is not supported by the specification.
53. Examination of whether claims containing parameter relationships in the field of optical lenses can be supported by the description
[Case No.] 5W131967 Optical Imaging Lens
[Key Points for Decision] For optical imaging systems obtained using optical design software, technical features involving parameter relationships in their claims are primarily divided into two categories: one primarily reflects system performance, such as miniaturization and large aperture; the other represents constraints used during the design process to optimize the optical imaging system, such as lens power distribution and lens surface shape restrictions. For the former, if the claim reflects a commonly pursued goal for such optical imaging systems, but the specification only provides a few examples with specific values but lacks technical means for achieving the stated goal, the claim may not be supported by the specification. For the latter, the specification should be combined with an analysis to determine whether the parameter relationship as a whole has technical significance and whether this technical significance corresponds to the claimed technical effect. If any of these conditions are not met, the claim may not be supported by the specification. If both conditions are met, the claim should be further evaluated to determine whether the parameter relationship is common. If it is common and its numerical range can be summarized through examples, it is generally considered supported by the specification. If it is uncommon, the specification should provide examples near the end values. If the numerical range is wide, at least one example with intermediate values should generally be provided; otherwise, the claim may not be supported by the specification.
VIII. Lack of Support for Amendment
54. Consideration of technical features only described in the background art of the specification during amendment
[Case No.] 4W112638 Warp knitting machine
[Decision Points] During the substantive examination of a patent application, if the applicant modifies and adds a technical feature to the claims that is only recorded in the background technology section of the specification, then when determining whether the modification exceeds the scope recorded in the original application documents of the patent in question, it is necessary to examine whether the technical feature is directly related to the technical solution of the patent in question and is sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to recognize that it is part of the technical solution of the patent in question.
IX. Identification of Evidence
(1) Qualification and probative value of evidence
55. Evidence Review of Unilateral Test Reports
[Case No.] 5W135377 Lighting mechanism and hair removal device
[Key Points of Decision] During the invalidation procedure, the test report submitted by one party and issued by a qualified third-party organization shall be examined to determine whether the sampling, delivery for inspection, sample preparation, testing methods, and especially the selection of tools in the testing process comply with national standards or industry specifications, and whether the testing methods are scientific.
56. The probative value of a unilaterally commissioned appraisal opinion in invalidation proceedings
[Case No.] 4W115889 An electrode sheet and a lithium-ion battery containing the same
[Key Points of Decision] During the invalidation procedure, if the appraisal opinion commissioned by one party contains obvious flaws, including the cleanliness of the samples submitted for inspection, the experimental conditions of the inspection process, the accuracy of the experimental results, and the standardization of the inspection approval process, the collegial panel will not recognize the evidentiary value of the appraisal opinion.
57. Verification of Witness Testimony
[Case No.] 5W132828 A CNC wire saw
[Key Points for Decision] The testimony of an interested witness cannot usually be used alone as the basis for determining the facts of the case. However, if the testimony of the witness is logically clear, without obvious contradictions, and corroborated by other evidence in the case, then the testimony of the witness can constitute a link in the “chain of evidence” and play a probative role.
58. Determine the correspondence between the sales page and the product on the shopping website
[Case No.] 5W132976/5W133604 A rotating opening and closing base structure and air purifier
[Key Points for Decision] If a shopping website assigns unique product codes to all items it sells, it can generally be assumed that there is a strict correspondence between the sales page on the website containing the product code and the physical product identified with the product code, unless there is evidence to the contrary proving that the platform’s rules have been violated. If a party claims that the product code or product model does not correspond exactly to the physical product purchased, the burden of proof lies with the party.
59. Understanding the “Perfecting the Legal Form of Evidence” in Invalidation Proceedings
[Case No.] 5W135315 A vehicle-mounted integrated camping box and camping box system
[Key Points of the Decision] “Improving the legal form of evidence” in patent invalidation proceedings generally refers to a party submitting supplementary evidence that is identical to the principal facts set forth in the original evidence, in order to make the form of the original evidence comply with statutory requirements or to make it more authoritative, such as by submitting supplementary notarized documents or original evidence. If the supplementary evidence differs from the principal facts set forth in the original evidence, i.e., the supplementary evidence substantially adds new facts to be proved, then the supplementary evidence does not constitute evidence that improves the legal form of evidence.
(2) Standard of proof
60. Determination of the Use of Public “Chain of Evidence”
[Case No.] 4W116721, 4W116782, 4W116834, 4W117343 Hot-pressed high-strength components with excellent corrosion resistance after painting and their manufacturing method
[Key Points of Decision] During invalidation proceedings, when a single piece of evidence has limited probative value due to factors such as form or type, further consideration should be given to whether the various pieces of evidence can corroborate each other to form a chain of evidence. This process can be combined with comprehensive considerations such as industry practices and experience to ultimately assess whether the facts to be proven meet the “high probability” standard of proof. If the petitioner has fulfilled its burden of proof, and the patentee merely raises an objection and fails to provide evidence despite having the ability to do so, this is insufficient to negate the probative value of the petitioner’s evidence.
X. Procedure
61. The review panel may reasonably change the way evidence in the case file is used.
[Case No.] 1F478571 Semiconductor Wafer Surface Topography Measurement Device Based on Dynamic Quantitative Phase Imaging
[Key Points of Decision] During the review procedure, the collegial panel may, based on the evidence in the file that has been used in the substantive examination stage, appropriately adjust the way evidence is used, including changing the combination of evidence, such as changing the closest prior art, or changing the cited part of the evidence. This not only does not exceed the reasonable expectations of the re examination requester, but also enhances the rationality and sufficiency of the examination opinion.
62. A request for invalidation may be made against a patent right that was valid before the patent was abandoned.
[Case No.] 5W136585 Coil Devices and Components with Configurable Turns
[Key Points of the Decision] Where a patentee submits a declaration of abandonment of patent rights, and the patent rights terminate from the date of issuance of the formalities acceptance notice for the declaration of abandonment, the applicant may still file a request for invalidation for the rights of the patent right that remained valid from the application date to the date of issuance of the above-mentioned formalities acceptance notice.
63. The Role of “Expert Opinions” in Invalidation Procedures
[Case No.] 4W115889 An electrode sheet and a lithium-ion battery containing the same
[Key Points of Decision] In the invalidation procedure, if the “expert opinion” submitted by the parties is not used to prove the facts to be proved in the case itself, but is an evaluation of relevant facts, especially including the judgment conclusion on legal issues, then the “expert opinion” can only be used as a reference for the collegial panel and cannot be used as evidence.
64. Determination of the Amended Text in the Consolidated Trial of Multiple Invalidation Requests for the Same Patent Right
[Case No.] 5W132976/5W133604 A rotating opening and closing base structure and air purifier
[Key Points of Decision] When two invalidation requests for the same patent right are heard together, if the patent owner only submits an amendment text that meets the amendment timing in request (1) and does not amend the claims in request (2), the above-mentioned amendment text in request (1) should be used as the text for the combined hearing to maintain the consistency of the examination text.
65. Understanding the “Conflict of Interest” of an Agency in Invalidation Procedures
[Case No.] 4W116237 Screw compressor with multi-layer coated rotor screw
[Key Points of Decision] Section 3.6 (3) of Chapter 3 of Part IV of the Patent Examination Guidelines stipulates that the applicant and the patentee in the same invalidation case may not entrust the same patent agency. Accordingly, if the agency, in carrying out the matters entrusted by one party, causes or may cause damage to the substantial interests of the other party in the invalidation case due to its previous acceptance of other matters entrusted for the same patent right, the agency shall not be allowed to do so; otherwise, the agency shall be allowed to do so.
XI. Design
66. Comparative Judgment of Partial Design
[Case No.] 6W128122 The connection between the spray gun nozzle and the machine body (partial)
[Key Points for Decision] When making a comparative assessment of a partial design, the approach of “overall observation and comprehensive assessment” should be adopted, starting with the portion for which protection is sought. The “overall” here does not refer to the entire product represented by both dashed and solid lines, but rather to the “part” for which protection is sought, represented by solid lines. When making a “comprehensive assessment,” consideration should be given to the visual impact of the differences and similarities between the claimed part and the comparative design, as well as any changes in the position and/or proportional relationship of the part within the overall product.
67. The impact of product type on the validity of a design combination and the method of judgment
[Case No.] 6W126786 Toy (Bubble Tank)
[Key Points for Decision] In the comparative assessment of design combinations, the same or similar product categories are not a necessary condition for a combination to be considered valid. Even if the existing designs used in the combination do not belong to the same or similar product categories, the combination may still be considered valid.
To determine whether a combination is valid, three aspects can be considered: first, whether the content used in the combination is an existing design feature that can be used for combination, that is, whether it is an existing design feature that can be naturally distinguished physically or visually; second, whether the design features used in the combination are components with the same or similar uses or functions, or whether there is a precedent for a corresponding combination in existing designs; finally, whether the specific method of combination exceeds the knowledge and cognitive ability of ordinary consumers, that is, if the combination is carried out, can it form a relatively coordinated and unified organic whole in appearance without excessive modification or significant changes to the design elements of the various parts involved in the combination. If the above conditions are met, the combination can generally be considered valid.
68. Judgment on the legal use of trademark rights by design patent holders
[Case No.] 6W125581 Packaging Box (Extended Twist Drill)
[Key Points of the Decision] If the trademark text and design on the packaging box of the patented design at issue are identical to the patentee’s registered trademark, and only partially identical to the applicant’s trademark, then the identical portion is the overlapping text and design marks of both parties’ registered trademarks, and both parties may legally use them. Even if the patented packaging box at issue can be used for the goods category approved for use by the applicant’s trademark, this does not deny its use for the goods category approved for use by the patentee’s trademark. In other words, it constitutes the patentee’s lawful use of its registered trademark and does not conflict with the applicant’s prior trademark rights.
69. Consideration of the Scope of Rights of Prior Trademarks with High Reputation in “Rights Conflict” Cases
[Case No.] 6W124730 Wine Box (Yuguihetianxia)
[Key Points for Decision] When determining whether a design conflicts with a prior trademark right, the category of goods for which the trademark is approved for use is not the absolute limit. Factors such as the trademark’s distinctiveness, reputation, the relevance of the goods to the trademark, and whether the patentee in question has subjective bad faith must also be considered. When the prior trademark right has high distinctiveness and reputation, and if the logo of the patent in question has the potential to weaken the trademark’s distinctiveness or exploit its goodwill, the prior trademark’s scope of rights may be extended to cover different or dissimilar categories of goods to maintain fair competition in the market.
70. Examination of cases involving conflicts between design patents and copyrights
[Case No.] 6W127201 Milk Dragon Fan
[Key Points of Decision] When a petitioner claims that the work in question was made into an animated video and then made public on a relevant online platform, and cites this as evidence of the possibility that the patentee had access to the work, the first step is to examine the relevance between the work and the video, including factors such as the relationship between the copyright holder and the publisher of the video, whether the static image depicted in the work’s images and the dynamic image depicted in the video are the same image, and whether there is temporal rationality between the time the work was completed and the time the video was released. Secondly, whether the release of the animated video constitutes disclosure should be determined in light of the publishing mechanism of the relevant platform. If the work in question was indeed made public on an online platform via an animated video before the date of the patent application in question, then the patentee had access to the work.
XII. Integrated Circuit Layout Design
71. Understanding “Commercial Utilization” of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs
[Case No.] JC0027 GLF71301
[Key Points of the Decision] The term “commercial utilization” referred to in Article 2, Item (5) of the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs refers to the act of importing, selling, or otherwise providing protected layout designs, integrated circuits, or items for commercial purposes. The term ‘providing in other ways’ should be understood as equivalent to’ import ‘and’ sale ‘, and should not include promised sales or similar acts that have not actually occurred.
72. Determination of originality in integrated circuit layout designs
[Case No.] JC0027 GLF71301
[Key Points of the Decision] An exclusive right holder’s prior layout-design also falls within the scope of comparative layout-designs. To qualify for exclusive protection, an exclusive right holder’s subsequent layout-design must be substantially different from the prior layout-design, and such substantial difference must not constitute a generally recognized conventional design.
