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 invalidated the invention patent “Power supply for LED” for client
Guide:How to effectively prepare the reasons of invalidation to increase the success rate of invalidation under the circumstance that there are different understandings of the features in the claim
Introduction:
The petitioner filed a request for invalidation against the invention patent named “Power supply for LED” (Patent number: ZL02801831.1) of a well-known international company. Linda Liu & Partners handled relevant issues of the invalidation procedure of the patent on behalf the petitioner. This invention patent is a basic patent which is of great importance in LED illumination field. The Patent Reexamination Board made the invalidation decision on March 17, 2019, announcing the invalidity of all patent rights on the ground of lacking novelty and inventiveness. The patentee filed an administrative litigation against the said invalidation decision. The Beijing IP court made the first instance judgement on February 27, 2019, dismissing the appeal of the patentee.
Highlights:
When preparing for the invalidation request, we found that both the independent claims and subordinate claims of the concerned patent have the features that could be understood in different ways, and it is also hard to find the accurate explanations in the description. Therefore, we presented the reasons of invalidation on the basis of the unclearness of the protection scope of the claims, and then provided different prior arts as evidence for different ways of understanding. Sixteen prior arts were used as evidence in application for invalidation. In the end, the Patent Reexamination Board made the decision that all 42 claims were invalid although the patentee amended the claims.
The patentee presented various causes of action in the subsequent administrative litigations. We produced the statement of the third party opinions, in which detailed counterarguments against each cause of action proposed by the patentee were made from each perspective.
With reference to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as SPC) and cases ruled by the SPC, we refuted the opinion of patentee with regard to the restrictive interpretation on the claim, expressly pointed out the paradox in the patentee’s opinion, and claimed that the interpretation approach used by the patentee violated the principle of fairness.
Regarding the view held by the patentee that the solution of reference 8 has significant problems that can’t be realized and the published contents shall not be seen as prior art, we, with reference to the examination guidance and the prejudications of the Beijing IP Court, proved the eligibility of reference 8 for prior art to evaluate the inventiveness. In addition, we analyzed from technical perspective that the defect of the unreasonableness in the solution of reference 8 is easy to be found and corrected by the skilled person, which would not affect the understandings of the skilled person about the published contents.
Finally, the collegiate panel supported our claims and rejected the appeal of patentee.
As for this case, a full understanding of the technical solution of the patent is the fundamental, while presenting comprehensive evidences, effective reasons of invalidation, and fully refuting the opposite party’s opinion from technical and legal aspects are the key to success.
