Recently, the State Intellectual Property Office officially issued Invalidation Decision No. 580488, marking that our company successfully assisted the client in comprehensively challenging and invalidating Patent ZL2017XXXX7737.7, safeguarding the fairness of market competition and the client's legitimate rights and interests.
Case Introduction
This case focuses on a basic technical improvement in the compressor field - the innovative design of the terminal cover assembly, whose performance is crucial to the overall efficiency and stability of the compressor. Faced with the patent barrier of this key technology, our team was entrusted with the task, conducted in-depth analysis of the technical context, and traced the origin of the technology to Japan. To accurately formulate the invalidation strategy, we carefully screened patent documents worldwide and finally identified two of the most relevant existing technologies as the core comparison objects. The in-depth excavation and comparative analysis of these technical achievements laid a solid foundation for our invalidation reasons.
By virtue of our accurate grasp of technical details, our company successfully constructed an evidence combination consisting of multiple existing technical documents, fully proving that the claims (items 1-9) of the involved patent did not show sufficient innovative height based on the existing technology. As stated in the key points of the judgment, when the distinguishing technical features are disclosed by other existing technologies, and those skilled in the art can easily combine these technologies to solve the same problem, the patent loses its due inventiveness.
Recently, the State Intellectual Property Office officially issued the Invalidation Request Review Decision, supporting all our invalidation requests, declaring that all claims (items 1-9) of the patent do not possess novelty or inventiveness, thus being invalidated.
Key Points of Judgment
If a claim has distinguishing technical features compared with the closest existing technology, but the above-mentioned distinguishing technical features are disclosed by other existing technologies, and those skilled in the art can obtain technical inspiration to combine the above-mentioned existing technologies to solve their technical problems, then the claim does not possess inventiveness compared with the combination of the above-mentioned existing technologies and common general knowledge in the field.
Typical Significance
This case is not only a vivid demonstration of the patent invalidation request review process, but also a profound interpretation of the principles of "novelty" and "inventiveness" in the Patent Law in practice. True technological innovation must be based on a solid intellectual property foundation, and any patent protection obtained through simple patchwork or imitative improvement lacks legal support.
Annex (Front page of the involved patent invalidation decision):
