Publications / Attorney Publications

  • Application of the “Other Unjustified Means” under Article 44 Paragraph 1 of the New Trademark Law

    2018-07-02

    Appointed Translators: Jason WANG / Austin CHANG, Beijing East IP Law Firm
    Author: Baoqing ZANG, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB)
    Original Chinese text: China Industry and Commerce Newspaper June 21, 2016

  • Misrepresented Experimental Data Will Kill a Patent

    2018-04-12

    On February 28, the Beijing IP Court (“IP Court”) issued a decision in Qilu Pharmaceutical v. the PRB ((2017)京73行初字No. 5365), which reversed a ruling by the Patent Reexamination Board (“PRB”) that upholds the validity of Patent No. 200910176994.1 (the “’994 patent”) owned by Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical (“Sihuan”). The IP Court holds that the inauthentic experimental data presented in the original description result in the failure to satisfy the enablement requirement.

  • Some Essential Aspects of Utility Model Patent in China

    2018-04-09

    China has three types of patents, i.e., invention, utility model, and design. The utility model patent does not have the counterpart in some other jurisdictions such as the USA, so some essential aspects of the utility model patent will be introduced below for better understanding of it.

  • Can a Markush Claim be Split?

    2018-03-30

    On December 20, 2017, in the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO (PRB) v. Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. ((2016)最高法行再41号), the Supreme Court held that a Markush claim, when drawn to a class of chemical compounds, should be interpreted as a set of Markush elements rather than a set of independent specific compounds. The present case is a petition for retrial filed by the PRB, requesting the Supreme Court to review the second-instance decision made by the Beijing High People’s Court (“High Court”). In reversing the PRB’s decision in the invalidation proceedings instituted by Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Winsunny”), the High Court recognized a Markush claim as claiming a set of parallel technical solutions. 

  • Determining Common Knowledge Under the View of Availability Bias

    2018-03-28

    Abstract: Currently “common knowledge” has become a hot topic in academic research. How to correctly determine common knowledge has become the key to improve the quality of patent examination. This paper introduces the availability bias theory to point out that the common knowledge determining process tends to produce availability bias, give too much weight to the easily conceived technical knowledge, and turn a blind eye to a lot of other information that must be considered, leading to errors in determining common knowledge. In patent examination, the availability of parts, the availability of work methods and the availability of technical problems may lead to the availability bias. In the end, the countermeasures is put forward.

  • Admissibility of Late-filed Experimental Data is the Matter in China

    2018-02-11

    Just at the beginning of this year, the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) of SIPO issued a decision in a notable patent invalidation trial against Novartis’s patent on Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan), holding all the claims of the patent invalid as being obvious.

  • Determination of Similarity Criteria in Design Infringement

    2017-03-06

    The similarity criteria is always a focus of attention in determination of design infringement. Conventionally, people often discuss whether two designs are alike in determining design infringement without objective analysis standards.

  • Determination of Service Invention

    2017-02-27

    For a service invention-creation, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the entity. After the application is allowed, the entity shall be the patentee. In these cases, the Supreme Court provided a method to determine whether an invention-creation in a patent application is a service invention.

  • Determination of Patent Infringement Related to Components

    2016-12-23

    The type of the infringement of making and selling a component patent that contains a patented component has been expressly determined, in the judicial interpretation published by the Supreme People’s Court in December 2009, as infringing actions of “using” and “selling” a patented component.