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 revoked the decision of invalidation for our client made by the CNIPA regarding the patent “Synchronizing Apparatus for Transmission “in the first instance of the patent administrative litigation
Guide: For invention patents with complex technical features that simplify the structure of the prior art, when considering the technical effects brought about by multiple distinguishing technical features, we should not only consider each technical feature separately, but also should take these features into consideration as a whole.
Case brief: This case involves the rights protection of a gearbox components manufacturer. In the course of rights protection, the company’s invention patent was invalidated. In the subsequent administrative litigation, the court of first instance held that the decision of invalidation ignored the correlation between the respective distinguishing technical features, and the fact that creative efforts were required to obtain the patent at issue after combining various pieces of evidence, so the decision of invalidation made by the CNIPA was revoked.
The transmission principle and the components of the automobile gearbox involved in this case were very complicated, and the claims defined a great number of technical features. Moreover, the evaluation of inventiveness involved the invention with a simplified structure. Therefore, what are the distinguishing technical features and how to compare the features also became a focus of attention in this case. The court of first instance stated in its judgment that when those skilled in the art improved the force transmission mechanism of Evidence 1, they must also consider the thrust of the sleeve at the same time. Therefore, it was improper for the accused decision to separate the distinguishing feature of claim 1 from Evidence 1 into two and analyze them separately. In addition, although those skilled in the art had the motivation to simplify the structure of Evidence 1, they inevitably needed to change the structure of other components because while reducing the components they had to make sure that the simplified components could realize the thrust of the sleeve. Therefore, it was inappropriate to conclude that the simplified structure was obvious, without the suggestion of other evidence. So far the defendant in the first instance has not filed an appeal, and only the third party has appealed. We hope to receive a fair judgment in the second instance.
