Two CPA Foreign-Related Winning Cases Selected by Supreme People's Court as Exemplary Cases of Year 2019 & Represent 4 Adjudication Rules of High Guiding Value for Technology-Related IP Cases
On 23 April 2020, the Supreme People's Court of China (SPC) published an abstract of the annual report on IP cases it adjudicated in 2019. According to the report, the court has concluded 3,254 IP cases during the year, of which 60 cases, 36 among them being technology-related, were named as exemplary cases. The report further drew 40 adjudication rules of high guiding value from the selected exemplary cases, which were considered as embodying the judicial philosophies, rationales of judgment, and adjudication methods of the court in hearing novel, difficult and complex technology-related IP cases.
China Patent Agent (H.K.) Ltd. (CPA) is glad to share that among the exemplary cases included in the report were two cases CPA handled on behalf of our foreign clients, namely, China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) (appellant) v. Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam & Roger Kingdon Craig (appellee) (No. Zuigaofazhixingzhong 127/2019), a case of administrative dispute over the reexamination of rejected invention patent application; and Alfa Laval AB (appellant) v. CNIPA (appellee) and SWEP International AB (third party to the original instance) (No. Zuigaofazhixingzhong 19/2019), a case of administrative dispute over invalidation of invention patent.
The 2019 exemplary cases comprised 12 patent grant and validity administrative cases, involving 14 adjudication rules. The said two cases of our firm embody 4 adjudication rules which touch upon the following legal issues: i) the relationship between inventive step assessment and sufficient disclosure (enabling) requirement; ii) identification of technical inspiration in inventive step assessment; iii) requirements on specific manners of amending a claim in patent invalidation proceedings; and iv) the basis of reference for determining whether a claim amendment has broadened the original scope of patent protection. In both cases, the court ruled in favour of our clients.
