*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court concluded an appeal case concerning an administrative dispute over the invalidation of an invention patent. The case clarified that when judging the inventiveness of a patent in invalidation proceedings, it is necessary to avoid directly or simply presuming that the patent's technical solution is obvious based solely on "same principle"; when the same patent right is repeatedly subject to invalidation requests, the relevant determinations of prior decisions should be treated with greater caution during the examination process.

Heng [REDACTED] Company is the patentee of the invention patent (hereinafter referred to as "the Patent") with patent number 20061006****.1 and title "Magnetic Repulsion Suspension Device". Ying [REDACTED] Company and Hong [REDACTED] Company filed invalidation requests against the Patent on June 8, 2024, and September 6, 2024, respectively. The State Intellectual Property Office conducted a combined examination and issued an examination decision on February 5, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the appealed decision), declaring the Patent invalid in its entirety on the grounds that all claims lacked inventiveness. Heng [REDACTED] Company disagreed and filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance. The court of first instance dismissed Heng [REDACTED] Company's lawsuit. Heng [REDACTED] Company, dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

The second instance court further found that, apart from the challenged decision, from 2015 to the date of this judgment, the State Intellectual Property Office had issued nine invalidation request review decisions on ten invalidation requests, all of which upheld the validity of this patent right.

The Supreme People's Court held that, in assessing inventiveness, even if the claimed technical solution and the closest prior art originate from the same natural laws or scientific principles, their specific implementation methods may still differ substantially, and their technical effects may vary. When assessing inventiveness, one should avoid directly or simply presuming that the patented technical solution is obvious based solely on "same principle." Instead, one should focus on examining and judging the differences and connections between the patent and the closest prior art in terms of the technical problem to be solved, the technical means employed, and the technical effects achieved. Even if both are based on the same principle, but employ different specific technical means to solve different technical problems and achieve different technical effects, and there is no evidence to prove or fully demonstrate that the distinguishing technical features are common means or general knowledge in the field for solving the corresponding technical problem, nor have they been disclosed in the prior art for use in solving the technical problem, the inventiveness of the patented technical solution should not be easily denied on the grounds of "easy to conceive" or "easy to obtain."

Claim 1 of this patent employs a structure of "annular permanent magnet at the base + a single suspended permanent magnet above". By specifically setting the upper annular surface of the annular permanent magnet to have opposite magnetic poles to the lower magnetic end of the suspended permanent magnet, the magnetic force generated in a specific area outside the center of the annular permanent magnet allows the suspended permanent magnet to levitate at a predetermined position above the base, simultaneously achieving vertical gravity balance and anti-tipping effect. Furthermore, by setting a horizontal control device, the suspended permanent magnet can stably levitate at a reference position and rotate freely. Evidence 2-1, on the other hand, employs a structure of "annular permanent magnet above + suspended body below + additional electromagnet". It discloses that the annular permanent magnet possesses both magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion. However, its overall technical solution utilizes the magnetic attraction of the annular permanent magnet combined with an electromagnet to achieve a controlled and adjustable magnetic dynamic levitation. The magnetic repulsion in the specific area outside the center mainly serves a buffering function to prevent collisions of the suspended body, rather than using this magnetic repulsion to achieve gravity balance of the suspended body. Moreover, this technical solution does not require control of horizontal movement. The difference between this patent and Evidence 2-1 is not merely a simple adjustment of relative positions, but differs in the implementation method of magnetic levitation, specific technical means, and the achieved technical effects. Based on these distinguishing technical features, the actual technical problem solved by claim 1 of this patent should be to provide an alternative technical solution that enables the levitated body to achieve static balance and anti-overturning in the vertical direction, and to allow free horizontal rotation. Prior art Evidence 2-2 only discloses the magnetic field distribution pattern of the annular permanent magnet, without disclosing the specific application method. Prior art Evidence 2-3 discloses a horizontal servo system that corrects horizontal offset in a magnetic repulsion levitation system of another technical solution. The aforementioned prior art does not provide corresponding technical inspiration, namely, to eliminate electromagnetic control in the vertical direction, utilize a specific magnetic repulsion region outside the center of the annular permanent magnet to balance the weight of the levitated body, and then set up a horizontal control device to control the horizontal movement, so as to simultaneously achieve vertical balance and anti-overturning effects, while allowing the levitated body to rotate freely horizontally.

In its second-instance judgment, the Supreme People's Court specifically pointed out that in cases where the same patent right is repeatedly subject to invalidation requests, the relevant determinations of prior decisions must be treated with greater caution during the examination process. Each invalidation request examination procedure is an independent legal procedure, and the evidence and reasons upon which subsequent procedures are based must be different from and not substantially the same as those in the prior procedure. Each case should be judged independently based on its own evidence and reasons, and is not automatically bound by prior decisions. This is a necessary requirement of the principles of procedural due process and case-by-case examination. However, prior decisions, as legally binding administrative documents, also have certain legal significance in subsequent procedures. First, Article 6 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes clearly stipulates that patent examination files can serve as the basis for interpreting claims. The records of claims interpretation and patentee statements in prior decisions are part of the examination files. Secondly, regarding controversies where discretion exists in the patent invalidation request examination procedure, such as the definition of the cognitive level of "a person skilled in the art" and the judgment of whether technical inspiration exists, the prior decision's determination on these issues, while not absolutely binding, objectively reflects the examination standards, allowing patentees and the public to form reasonable expectations. When subsequent examinations face the same or similar technical issues and legal disputes, if a determination is made that differs substantially from the prior decision, greater caution should be exercised, and the legitimacy and necessity of deviating from existing discretionary standards should be comprehensively and carefully assessed to ensure sufficient justification. In this case, several prior documents in the prior decisions have disclosed the special magnetic field distribution of ring permanent magnets and the basic principles of magnetic levitation achieved by balancing gravity through magnetic repulsion or attraction. However, ultimately, due to differences in inventive concepts or specific technical solutions, the prior decisions determined that this patent possesses inventiveness relative to the prior documents. In this case, the challenged decision, without supporting evidence of relevant common knowledge, without sufficient explanation, and inconsistent with previous examination standards, determined that the distinguishing technical features belonging to the core inventive concept of this patent are "easy to conceive" and "easy to obtain," which is unconvincing. Accordingly, the second-instance judgment overturned the first-instance judgment and the challenged decision and ordered a new decision to be made.

The second-instance judgment in this case thoroughly elucidates the legal significance of the decision on the prior invalidation request, which not only strengthens the credibility of the patent system, but also helps to maintain the uniformity and predictability of examination standards.

Written by : Xu Zhuobin and Li Xiuli