Recently, our firm won the first instance of an administrative litigation case for invalidation of an invention patent, in which it is ruled that the invention patent should be comp...
Introduction In the chemical field, it is difficult to seek invalidation of a patent claiming to have achieved unexpected technical effect. This case provides a strategy for success...
We successfully maintained the validity of the invention patent ”Coaxial Connector” for our client
Guide: If a claim is substantially different from the evidence and the technical problems to be solved by the two are not the same, then the claim should be regarded as novel over the evidence.
Case brief: The patentee is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of electronic components. In July 2019, the petitioner field a request for invalidating an invention patent of the patentee for several reasons, of which one reason is that some of the claims had no novelty over Evidence 1 and 2 respectively. Entrusted by the patentee, after analysis, we argued that due to the limitations of literal expressions, it seemed that the petitioner’s claim was reasonable if some claims were mechanically and literally interpreted; however, the problems to be solved by the invention patent and Evidence 1 and 2, and their technical solutions and working principles were completely different, and the petitioner’s understanding and assertion of the scope of protection of some claims was unreasonable. In our opinion statement and the oral hearing, we explained in detail the differences between the two in the problem to be solved, technical solution, and working principle. Based on the disclosure in the specification, we clarified the scope of protection of the claims, and emphasized the substantial differences between the invention patent and the Evidence 1 and 2 and the presence of novelty in all the claims. The collegial panel supported our claim and made the decision of examination of invalidation request on January 21, 2020 where all the claims were maintained valid.
