Beijing Higher People’s Court, on December 15, 2020, issued a second-instance judgment on the invalidation of a utility model patent named “micromotor”, rejected all litigation requests of Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD, and upheld the original judgment. Our patent attorneys Du Lijian, Liu Jun, and Zhang Yongyu acted for the invalidation petitioner Asia Vital Components Co., LTD to participate in the entire process of this case, got the result that all independent claims and some dependent claims invalid in National Intellectual Property Administration (NIPA), and won all administrative litigations in Beijing Intellectual Property Court and Beijing Higher People’s Court.

Asia Vital Components Co., LTD filed an invalidation request with NIPA for the “micromotor” utility model patent of Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD. The Reexamination and Invalidation Department of NIPA issued an examination decision on the request for invalidation on September 19, 2016, and declared all independent claims and some dependent claims invalid. Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD was not satisfied with the above decision and filed a lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued an administrative ruling on November 29, 2018, and rejected the litigation request of Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD. Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD was not satisfied with the judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court and appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court. Beijing Higher People’s Court issued a second-instance judgment on December 15, 2020, rejected all litigation requests of Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD, and upheld the original judgment.

In this case, regarding the technical inspiration of the utility model, the Beijing Higher People’s Court stated: where the distinguishing technical feature belongs to common knowledge, or technical means related to the closest prior art, or technical means disclosed by other reference document, and the technical means plays the same role in this reference document as the role played by the distinguishing technical feature in the utility model to be protected to solve its technical problem, it may be considered that there is corresponding technical inspiration.

Moreover, Beijing Higher People’s Court stated: when judging the inventiveness of patent by citing reference documents, the technical contents disclosed in the reference documents shall prevail, including not only the technical contents clearly recited in the reference documents, but also the technical contents implicitly disclosed thereby but can be determined directly and unambiguously by those skilled in the art.

In the invalidation procedure of this case, our patent attorneys helped Asia Vital Components Co., LTD fully search for better evidence, deeply explore the reasons for invalidation in combination with the technical solution. During litigation procedures, the patent attorneys of Beijing East IP fully demonstrated the reasons and facts, and therefore, obtained the support of the court to uphold the invalidation decision and reject the litigation requests of Sunonwealth Electric Machine Industry Co., LTD.