By Meng Xianghai, King & Wood’s IP Department

Recently, an increasing number of opinions from the State Intellectual Property Office ("SIPO") indicate that applications for patent protection for some inventions do not fall under the scope provided in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the PRC Patent Law, which defines an "’invention’ as any new technical solution relating to a product, a process, or improvement thereof." Thus, to understand what inventions can be patented, numerous terms such as “technical solution” must be properly defined.Continue Reading Inventions Defined under PRC Patent Law

In patent prosecution, an examiner often mentions the term "common knowledge" when evaluating a step forward in an invention, as one cannot patent common knowledge. Common knowledge in the IP sense is generally a fact known or ought to be known to one skilled in the art and can be applied by such a person to solve specific technical problems. Common knowledge can also be a technical means that is most likely to be considered and applied by one skilled in the relevant technical field when working on solutions to specific technical problems. As China’s Guidelines for Patent Examination (the "Guidelines") do not provide a clear definition for "common knowledge", the examiner and the applicant or the applicant’s attorney often disagree on what is common knowledge in a particular patent dispute.

By Chen Wei, Partner at King & Wood’s Intellectual Property GroupContinue Reading Common Knowledge in Patent Prosecution

Written By Yang Hongjun, Partner

The recent decision by the Beijing Higher People’s Court revoking the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) invalidation Decision of Pfizer’s Viagra Patent in China has put an indefinite end to a drawn out battle between domestic drug companies and Pfizer. This case, while not firmly establishing any foundation for patent examinations, has revealed many of the risks associated for all parties in proceeding into a legal dispute regarding patents in China. Continue Reading Viagra Judgment: Impact on future patent filings?