China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases Top Ten Cases of Patent Reexamination for 2020
On April 26, 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the Top Ten Cases of Patent Reexamination for 2020 (2020年度专利复审无效十大案件发布). The cases cover a variety of technologies including pharmaceuticals, wireless communications, business methods, and more. Multiple foreign companies’ patents were challenged including Bayer, Sharp, and others. Brief summaries with links to the patents and decisions follow. 
I. Patent number: ZL200880111892.5 Decision Number 46004
Invention Title: Use of β-blockers in the preparation of drugs for the treatment of hemangioma
Patentee: University of Bordeaux
Petitioner: Yabao Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: valid after amendment
This case is a typical case of inventions for new uses of drugs, and it relates to inventive step evaluation of “old drugs with new uses” inventions. Impermissible hindsight should not be used in the evaluation of inventive step.
II. Patent number: ZL201210253614.1 Decision No. 47400
Invention Title: Distributed Power Collection System Using DC Power Source
Patentee: SolarEdge Technologies Ltd
Petitioner: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: invalid
The patent relates to the field of photovoltaics. It was decided to emphasize that the understanding of technical terms should be based on the disclosure of the patent and the usual meanings in the field to avoid excessive interpretation of technical terms.
III. Patent number: ZL201520396790.X Decision No. 35297
Title of invention: Sheet material handling equipment and mobile phone glass machining center
Patentee: Suzhou Hengyuan Precision CNC Equipment Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: Shenzhen Genesis Machinery Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: valid
In the evaluation of inventive step, it is necessary to examine whether there is technical enlightenment from the “whole” of the existing technology, and the existing technology cannot be simply pieced together.
IV. Patent No.: ZL201820385939.8 Case No. 46459
Title of Invention: A Voice Coil Motor for Driving Liquid Lens and Its Lens Group
Patentee: Ai Peiyi (Dongguan) Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: valid after amendment
When the cited art claims foreign priority and the instant application is filed after the foreign priority date, if the cited art and priority document recite the same information, CNIPA can use the cited art based on the foreign priority date for examination of the instant application.
V. Patent No.: ZL01819676.4 Decision No. 46741
Title of Invention: Wireless Communication System
Patentee: Sharp Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: Invalid
This case interprets the application of the examination standards for claim amendments in the patent invalidation procedure.
VI. Design Patent No.: ZL201830455426.5 Decision No. 44580
Title of Invention: Graphical User Interface for Mobile Communication Equipment
Patentee: Beijing Jinshan Security Software Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: Shanghai Touchle Information Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Mengjia Network Technology Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: Partially invalid
The trial of this case involved the determination of the scope of protection of the graphical user interface in a design patent. The decision emphasized that the determination is based on both drawings and description.
VII. Patent No.: ZL02123000.5 Decision No. 43478
Title of Invention: Butylbenzene phthalein cyclodextrin or cyclodextrin derivative clathrate, its preparation method and application
Patentee : CSPC Zhongqi Pharmaceutical Technology (Shijiazhuang) Co., Ltd., CSPC Enbipu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: Zhang Yiying
Reexamination Decision: Valid
This case has reference significance for how to evaluate the inventive step of the improved invention of known compounds. It was decided to emphasize the mining of the technical information reflected behind the experimental data, and those skilled in the art should properly identify the technical contribution embodied by the experimental data.
VIII. Patent No.: ZL201580000024.X Decision No. 44984
Title of Invention: A rental method, system and terminal for mobile power supply
Patentee: Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Bohe Wisdom Technology Co., Ltd.
Petitioner: Shenzhen Street Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Zhixiang Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Yunchongba Technology Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: valid
This case is a typical case of patent examination in new fields. It was decided to emphasize that when evaluating whether a business method invention is inventive, it is necessary to consider the interaction of technical features and non-technical features.
IX. Patent No.: ZL201610534695.0 Decision No. 47197
Title of Invention: Flat Knitting Machine
Patentee: H. Stoll AG and Co KG
Petitioner : Shima Seiki Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: Valid
This case provides an examination idea on how to accurately understand the meaning of specific technical terms, and clarifies the role of the “internal evidence” of the patent involved in accurately understanding the technical terms.
X. Patent No.: ZL00818966.8 Decision No. 45997
Title of Invention: Substituted oxazolidinone and its use in the field of blood coagulation
Patentee: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH
Petitioner : Nanjing Zhengda Tianqing Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Reexamination Decision: Valid after amendment
To determine whether the specification fully discloses the claimed technical solution, it should be based on the overall content of the specification combined with the ordinary technical knowledge of the person skilled in the art. If the person skilled in the art reads the entire content of the specification and combines the ordinary technical knowledge that he has mastered and can obtain enough information to know the technical means to realize the invention, solve its technical problems, and anticipate its technical effects, then the specification meets the requirements of full disclosure.
Back to All Resources