CNIPA Published Top 10 Patent Invalidation and Re-examination Cases in 2020
Case Spotlight
CNIPA Published Top 10 Patent Invalidation and Re-examination Cases in 2020
国知局发布2020年度专利复审无效十大案件
Date: 2021-04-27
On April 26, the top ten cases of patent reexamination invalidation for 2020 were officially announced at the Open Day of the CNIPA. The top ten invalid patent reexamination cases in 2020 were:
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "Use of β-blockers in the preparation of drugs for the treatment of hemangioma". The panel concluded that the patent was valid on the basis of amendments made. This case is a typical case involving inventions for new uses of drugs and evaluating the inventive step of "second medical use" inventions.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "Distributed Power Collection System Using DC Power Supply”. The panel held that the patent was invalid. The patent relates to the field of photovoltaics and the case emphasizes that the understanding of technical terms should be based on the disclosure of the patent and standard al industry terms in order to avoid the excessive interpretation of technical terms.
- Invalidation case of the utility model patent titled "plate loading and unloading device and mobile glass processing center". The panel concluded that the patent was valid. The case highlights that when evaluating inventiveness, it is necessary to examine whether there is technological novelty in the prior as a whole, and the prior art cannot be simply pieced together.
- Invalidation case of the utility model patent titled "a liquid lens driver for a voice coil motor and supporting lens". The panel held the patent valid patent on the basis of amendments. The patent relates to liquid lenses, and it was decided that when determining whether there is novelty, the focus should be on the integrity of the technical solution and whether the essence of the technical solution was accurately achieved.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "wireless communication system". The panel concluded that the patent was invalid. This case deals with the application of the examination standards for claim amendments in the patent invalidation proceedings.
- Design patent invalidation case for the design patent titled "Graphical User Interface for Mobile Communication Devices". The panel held that the patent was partially invalid. The hearing of this case involved the determination of the scope of protection of a graphical user interface. The decision emphasized that determining the interface view and interaction mode should be determined in combination with the pictures and brief descriptions.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "Butylphthalide cyclodextrin or cyclodextrin derivative inclusion compound and its preparation method and use". The panel held that the patent was valid. This case has significance in the evaluation of inventiveness for improved inventions of known compounds. The decision emphasizes that it is important to explore the technical information reflected behind the experimental data, and to properly identify the technical contribution embodied in the experimental data from the standpoint of a person skilled in the art.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled " a leasing method, system and leasing terminal for mobile power supply". The panel concluded that the patent was valid. This case is a typical case of patent examination in new fields and new formats. The decision emphasizes that when evaluating whether a business method invention is creative, it is necessary to consider the interaction of technical features and non-technical features.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "flat knitting machine". The panel concluded that the patent was valid. This case provides a review of how to accurately understand the meaning of specific technical terms and clarifies the role of "internal evidence" of the patent in question in accurately understanding technical terms.
- Invalidation case of the invention patent titled "Substituted oxazolidinone and its application in the field of blood coagulation". The panel held the patent valid after amendment. This case has a demonstrative effect in judging the creativity of compounds. The case also highlights that the validity of the patent should be considered on the basis of whether the prior art has technological novelty for structural modification on the basis of examining the structure-activity relationship.
Source: http://www.iprchn.com/cipnews/news_content.aspx?newsId=128864
