I.Case in brief

This case relates to a patent for a cooled regenerated catalyst circulating method in the field of catalytic cracking, which is mainly used for catalytic cracking of heavy raw materials and catalytic upgrading of gasoline. The patent involved has achieved commercial success in the society and won the national science and technology award after it was published. The title of the patent is: “Method and equipment for circulating cooled regenerated catalyst”. Specifically, it relates to a fluidized catalytic cracking process where hydrocarbon feedstock is caused to contact and react with the catalyst in the riser reactor, the reactant flows into the settler to separate the catalyst from oil and gas, the separated catalyst to be regenerated is stripped in the stripping section and then enters the regenerator for coking regeneration, and thereafter, the regenerated catalyst is returned to the riser reactor for recycling. Claim 1 recites “fluidized media distribution facilities are provided at the lower part, and a catalyst mixing buffer space is provided in the downstream”, and such technical feature is also described in the description accordingly. The key technical dispute in this case focuses on the “mixing buffer space” located “downstream”.
Continue Reading Formulating Invalidation Strategy to Force Patentee to Pick One out of Insufficient Disclosure of Description and Lack of Inventiveness

I.Case in brief

China began to implement exhaust emission standards in 2001, which has gone through five stages and will soon enter in the sixth stage (CHINA VI). The exhaust gas reduction technology used in each stage is different accordingly. The two patents involved in this case protection is a metering pump device being used for exhaust gas purification, and the two involved exhaust gas reduction technologies meet CHINA V emission Standards and will not be adopted by CHINA VI Standard. Once China fully enters the CHNIA VI era in terms of exhaust emission standards, the metering pump devices claimed in the two patents conforming to the CHINA V Standards will be completely obsolete. Therefore, for the Plaintiff (i.e. the Patentee), there is a technical timeliness limitation in the case, i.e., if the Plaintiff cannot win the patent infringement lawsuit before China fully enters the CHINA VI stage, the technologies claimed in the subject patents will be out of date, and the subject patents will also be useless.
Continue Reading Designing Invalidation Strategy to Obtain Technical Feature Interpretation Favorable for Non-infringement Defense in Invalidation Procedure

The Patentee KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. is a world-renowned company and has been a world leader in the field of consumer health and home care. Since the launch of the first Philips bulb more than 120 years ago, innovation and people-orientation have been at the core of the company’s motivation. This innovation has undoubtedly attracted consumers enormously, and innovative products have infiltrated people’s daily lives.
Continue Reading Determination of Invention Patent as Prior Design in Invalidation Proceedings of Design Patent

Through comparative study with European and American practices, this part puts forward suggestions for improving the current examination standards for compound patents in China, especially the examination standards for inventiveness issue.
Continue Reading Stability Analysis of Patents with Compound Subject Matter during Invalidation Stage

According to pertinent provisions of the Chinese Patent Law, where any entity or individual thinks the grant of a Chinese patent right fails to comply with provisions since the date of grant and announcement of the patent, it or he may request Reexamination and Invalidation Examination Department of China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to declare the patent right invalid.
Continue Reading Brief introduction of prioritized examination of patent invalidation proceedings in China

On April 28, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Granting and Confirmation of Patent Rights (I) for public comment by June 15, 2020.  This version is the version that the Supreme People’s Court reissued after the old version issued in June 2018.  This article highlights the articles in this version of the revised draft that have caused widespread concern as follows.
Continue Reading Supreme People’s Court Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Granting and Confirmation of Patent Rights (I) (Draft for Comment)

By Jing Xu, Chao Zhang King & Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

On December 10, 2019, the IP Tribunal of Supreme People’s Court of China (“the Court”) announced the final judgement for the appellate case with respect to patent infringement dispute between the appellant Company A and the appellee Company B.
Continue Reading The IP Tribunal of Supreme People’s Court of China finds direct infringement for the manufacturer of products implementing the patented method in the fields of network and communication

by Zhang Xiaoxia  KING & WOOD MALLESONS


On 27 February 2018, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC) and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning Heightening Reform and Innovation in Intellectual Property Right Trial Field. The second part of Article 2 specifically stresses two points: “First, adhering to the value orientation that intellectual property rights create value, and right holders deserve interests in return. A judicial determination mechanism for damages, with compensation as the principal means and punishment as the supporting means, shall be established, and the problem of “low-value compensation” in action against infringements on intellectual property rights shall be resolved first. Second, tightening punishment for infringements on intellectual property rights and reducing enforcement costs.
Continue Reading Principles for Determining Damages Compensation in Intellectual Property Cases

By Song Xinyue and Ge Min, IP Litigation, Beijing

Allocation of burden of proof is an area of great concern in a process patent infringement dispute.  In practice, the accused infringing process is usually strictly controlled by the accused infringer and hard to approach, which poses great challenges for a patentee of a process patent to produce evidence and enforce its legitimate right.  Fortunately, a patentee of a process patent for manufacturing a new product doesn’t have to bother with producing evidence showing the defendant’s infringement, as the Patent Law and the Rules of Evidences in Civil Procedures both set forth that the accused infringer shall furnish proof to show that the process used in the manufacturing of its products is different from the patented process as long as the patentee can prove that the process patent directs to a new product and that the accused infringer have made identical products.  However, a patentee holding a process patent for manufacturing a known (not new) product will not be so lucky. 
Continue Reading Invocation of Presumptions and Burden of Proof in Patent Disputes over Manufacturing Processes