CNIPA Announces Top Ten Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Cases 2021
Recently, on the occasion of the 22nd World Intellectual Property Day (26 April 2022), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced the Top Ten Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Cases 2021. The following is a list of the top ten cases along with a brief description of the reference value thereof.
1. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "Novel sulfonamides and their use as endothelin receptor antagonists", in which the patent is maintained valid as amended. This is a typical case involving examination of pharmaceutical compounds, with guiding value on the determination of priority, assessment of sufficient disclosure of tabular compounds and that of inventive step of compounds.
2. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "Prodrug of substituted polycyclic carbamoylpyridone derivative", in which the validity of the patent is maintained. This case has reference value in accurate evaluation of the technical effect recited in the description and whether Markush claims can be supported by the description.
3. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "A data transmission method and system for acquiring network connection through image acquisition", wherein the patent is declared invalid. This case construes the legal provisions that in light of achieving a reasonable balance of the interests of the patentee and the public, the examination procedure may not necessarily cease where the invalidation request is withdrawn by the party.
4. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "Left atrial appendage occlusion", in which the patent is declared invalid. This case construes the application of the grace period for disclosure without loss of novelty, and the decision stresses that the patentee, if knowing that someone reveals the technical contents without consent, should promptly perform the duty to disclose.
5. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "Axial flow fan", in which the patent is declared invalid. This case involves the determination of the probative value of a unilaterally commissioned authentication report, and provides some thoughts for examination concerning the use of published evidence for technical comparison in case of product claims defined by parameters.
6. A case of revocation of the exclusive right in the integrated circuit (IC) layout-design titled "Image sensor CS3825C", wherein the validity of the right is maintained. This case construes the rules for assessment of the subject matter of the exclusive right protection, examination scope of originality, and due time for filing an application for registration of a layout-design.
7. An invalidation case regarding the design patent titled "Instrument case", wherein the patent is declared invalid. This case clarifies the knowledge level and cognitive ability of a normal consumer as the one who gives judgment on comparison of designs should possess, and analyses the weight of impact of various design features on the overall visual effect.
8. An invalidation case regarding the utility model patent titled "Explosion-proof device", the validity of which is upheld as amended. This is a typical case involving inventive step assessment for structural products in the field of new energy. The decision stresses that in assessing whether technical inspiration exists, attention should be paid to the relation between the distinctive features.
9. An invalidation case regarding the invention patent titled "Quinoline derivatives for the treatment of latent tuberculosis", wherein the validity of the patent is maintained as amended. This case makes clear that in assessing inventive step of a medical use invention, accurate evaluation should be made as regards whether "reasonable expectation of success" exists.
10. An invalidation case regarding the utility model patent titled "A union joint for water supply and drainage", wherein the validity of the patent is upheld. This case clarifies the allocation of burden of proof of and access to domestic priority documents when verifying the evidence of priority.
