◑BACKGROUND

This case is an administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent for the spotlight control system (Patent No. 2018102******). Previously, our client entrusted CENFO’s attorney to request invalidation of the patent involved, and the CNIPA made an invalidation decision.

01

CASE DETAILS

The patentee involved in the case (a well-known foreign lighting company) was dissatisfied and entrusted a top intellectual property law firm to bring the case against the State Intellectual Property Office and our client to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Our client entrusted CENFO's attorney to respond to the lawsuit. The court held that "claims 1-20 of the patent involved in the case do not possess the inventive step stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law implemented in 2009. Therefore, the court declared that the patent rights are all "Invalid", the facts were clearly determined, and the client's interests were ultimately successfully protected.

02

CASE FOCUS

Regarding the plaintiff’s claim that the accused decision omitted the distinguishing technical features of claim 1 compared with evidence 1, it was believed that on the basis of evidence 1, a person skilled in the art would easily think of the distinguishing technical features 2, which had no factual basis and was an afterthought; This patent right requires other items to be inventive relative to the evidence. Our agent grasps the core, interprets the technical solutions of the comparative documents in detail, and fully explains the claims. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted our views and opinions and ultimately rejected the plaintiff’s claim.

The patent in this case involves multiple claims and multiple Chinese and foreign patent prior art documents, which places extremely high demands on the agent's comprehensive capabilities in the fields of telecommunication, machinery, and legal awareness. During the service process, CENFO's two agents organized a professional team to carefully analyze the case and repeatedly study and judge the agency plan. After careful preparation, they fully responded to the lawsuit and achieved a winning verdict, effectively safeguarding the rights and interests of the client.

CONCLUSION

Patent invalidity administrative litigation is an excellent way to respond to invalidity judgments. For patent invalidation requests, the decision at the patent invalidation stage is not the final conclusion. If the right holder is dissatisfied, he or she can file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. If he is not satisfied with the judgment after the lawsuit, he can also appeal to the Supreme People's Court.

Therefore, no matter which party you are involved in patent invalidation administrative litigation, you need professional team services. Only after you have withstood the test of administrative litigation can you protect your rights and interests to a greater extent.