China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently released 2020 Top 10 Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Cases.
The declaration of reexamination and invalidation, as an administrative process of granting and verification of patents, always draws the attention of the society, and it works as a vital proceeding for protecting intellectual property rights of patents. CNIPA releases the ranking list every year with an objective of playing the demonstration roles of these cases, because they are conductive to publicize patent protection system, boost innovation and safeguard public interests. The case represented by NTD was picked in the 2020 list, demonstrating our client-oriented service concept. Our attorneys always win trust and recommendation from the clients as we provide the top-quality service in the fields of intellectual property rights.
Case brief:
Patent No.: ZL01819676.4
Title of invention: A Wireless Communication System
Decision: Invalidation as declared
Key points:
The technical solution relates to the operations of the base station and the mobile station (MS) in a wireless communication system. According to the method of further defining the claim specified in Section 4.6.2, Chapter 4, Part IV of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, the patentee amended the claim with a subject of a base station in the process of invalidation. Specifically, the patentee introduces “the wireless communication system includes a synchronous device” in the claim.
On such amendment, the requester filed to the collegial panel that the above technical feature “synchronous device” could not further define the subject “base station” of the claim in essence, or narrow the extent of protection of the subject “base station” of the claim. The reasons were given as follows: first, the operation of the introduced technical feature “synchronous device” was actually the operation of the mobile station, but not the operation of the base station; second, there was no need to adjust the base station to coordinate with the “synchronous” operation of the mobile station. Therefore, such amendment did not comply with “further define the claim” specified in the Guidelines for Patent Examination, which did not comply with Rule 69 of Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law.
At last, the collegial panel decided to support the requester’s opinion, and specified the definition of “further define the claim” in the decision of invalidation, i.e., “further define” means to narrow the extent of protection of the original claim by introducing one or more technical features cited in other claims in the claim. It aims to further narrow the extent of protection of the original subject based on the extent of protection of the granted claim in essence, but not to introduce new technical feature in form.
Attorneys: Patent Attorney Yang Zhang, Patent Attorney Liu Liu, Patent Attorney Liping Jia.
