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 series of patents ”Network Structure Having Excellent Durability Against Compression” for our client
Guide:When the raw materials and/or manufacturing methods are different or similar, the technical features not disclosed in the evidence constitute substantial differences.
Case brief: The new generation of cushioning material BREATHAIR produced by the patentee is a structure formed by complex entanglement of fibers into a three-dimensional shape, and has excellent performance and extensive applications. On May 14, 2019, three companies filed invalidation requests respectively against the patentee’s three invention patents involving the mesh structure. Based on the patent literature, they claimed that the mesh structure of the patent at issue had no novelty and inventiveness, and the disclosure in the specification was insufficient and the essential technical features were absent. We emphasized that the raw material specifications and manufacturing methods of the relevant products in the petitioner’s evidence were different from those of the patented product involved, and it could not be presumed that their products had the same performance parameters as the patented product involved. Moreover, the Patent Law does not require the patentee to disclose how each process parameter affects the performance of the product in a specific way. Regarding the claim that the distinguishing technical features were common knowledge, the petitioner did not provide evidence on the common knowledge. The CNIPA held oral hearings on August 17 and 18, 2019, and finally supported our aforementioned claim and made the decision affirming the validity of all three invention patents.
