In design patent infringement disputes, there is a certain number of copies or imitations across categories. Regarding the problem whether such copy and imitation constitutes infringement, there are different practices among courts. Usually, the question of whether the alleged infringing product and the product incorporating the patent concerned belong to products of identical or similar categories is the prerequisite to whether the alleged infringing product falls into the protection scope of the design patent concerned. Therefore, if the categories of products are neither identical nor similar, a conclusion of non-infringement can be obtained without comparison.

New evidence should be determined according to Article 10 of Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Application of the Trial Supervision Procedure of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. Regarding allocation of burden of proof in litigation over infringement of patent process for making non-new products, it may be determined according to the principle of fairness and that of honesty and good faith, taking into consideration such factors as the ability to provide evidence. If the patentee can prove that the product in question is the same as that made by the patent process, and that it has made reasonable effort to prove that the manufacturing process of the product in question falls within the scope of protection of the patent process, using this as a basis and considering the known facts and common experience, it can be presumed that it is very likely that the alleged infringer has used the same process, therefore imposing on the alleged infringer the burden of proof to show that its manufacturing process is different from the patent process.

In determining whether a patent infringement is established based on the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”), attention should be paid to which feature in a claim is compared against which feature of an accused infringing product. Only those features of a product that are not identical to their counterparts in the claim should be taken into consideration for the purpose of DOE. Determination under DOE is different from the determination on inventiveness during patent prosecution – the requirement of “three substantially, one ordinarily” should be met.

Functional features play important role in the determination of identity or similarity between two designs. When judging whether a design is similar to a prior design, functional features should be considered as “having no influence on the overall visual appearance of a design’s product,” so as to avoid the possible situation of “monopolizing a product’s function on the pretext of protecting a product’s design.”

With reference to new protein inventions, applicants always define biological sequences by the combination of homology and function, so as to obtain a broader scope of protection. However, considering that the association between the primary structure and the function of a protein is highly unpredictable, thus defined protein claim is always considered as not supported by the description and not conforming to Article 26.4 of the Chinese Patent Law. Therefore, discussions in this filed focuses on a proper manner to define a new protein patent and subsequently obtained protection scope. This is the first case for successful enforcement of biological patent in China, which clarifies a feasible definition of new protein patent, i.e. defining homology, origin (species), and function simultaneously. Furthermore, this case provides directions to judgment of future invalidation and infringement cases of new protein patents.

This case clarifies that in the determination of inventiveness of a crystalline compound, the wording “structurally similar compounds” specifically refers to compounds having the same central part or basic ring, and has nothing to do with comparison between microcrystalline structures. The microcrystalline structure difference shall be considered only if it brings unexpected technical effect.

The highlight of this case is the confirmation that generally a close-ended claim of a chemical composition shall be construed as the composition merely consisting of the indicated components, and including no other components but impurities in a normal amount, while adjuvants do not belong to the impurities.

With reference to inventive step of compound claims, it is stipulated in the Guidelines for Patent Examination that for a compound NOT similar in structure to a known compound, it will be regarded as inventive when it has a certain use or effect where a compound that IS similar in structure to a known compound, it might be regarded as inventive only if it has an unexpected use or effect. As can be seen, it is important to judge whether a compound is structurally similar to a known compound. This case clarifies that in the determination of inventiveness of a crystalline compound, the wording “structurally similar compounds” specifically refers to compounds having the same central part or basic ring, and has nothing to do with comparison between microcrystalline structures. The microcrystalline structure difference shall be considered only if it brings unexpected technical effect.

The patentee, HU Xiaoquan, owns a patent for invention No. ZL 200410024515.1, titled “Process for the Preparation of an Injection of Adenosine Disodium Triphosphate and Magnesium Chloride,” wherein claim 2 recites the additional technical features, “a freeze-dried powder injection of adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride for injection, consisting of adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride at the ratio by weight of 100 mg to 32 mg.”

This case highlights the premise to admit the post-filing experimental data for determination of inventiveness, i.e. such data should direct to the technical effect described in the original application documents.