*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court made the final judgment in a case involving an administrative dispute over the invalidation of a utility model patent. It was determined that, compared with the closest existing technology, although the corresponding structural naming of the involved patent was different, the structures, functions, uses and effects of the two were not substantially different. This corresponding structure did not constitute a distinguishing technical feature that differentiated the involved patent from the existing technology. Therefore, the involved patent lacked creativity and should be declared invalid.

This case involves a patent owned by Nai [REDACTED] company, titled "A Fixed Furnace Pre-combustion Furnace Applicable for Treating Alternative Fuels in Cement Kilns" (hereinafter referred to as "the involved patent"). In response to the invalidation request made by Zhong [REDACTED] runtian company against this patent, China National Intellectual Property Administration made a decision to declare the patent rights invalid in their entirety. After Nai [REDACTED] company appealed against this decision, the first instance court held that the closest prior art in this case, namely Evidence 4 (which is Nai [REDACTED] company's prior patent), did not disclose the pyrolysis section furnace grate in this patent. Therefore, the court ruled to revoke the decision in question. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Zhong [REDACTED] runtian company appealed against this decision.

The Supreme People's Court's second instance judgment held: Firstly, the relevant content in the patent specification indicates that regardless of whether it is in the pyrolysis section or the combustion section, the materials targeted by this patent and the reaction temperature are the same. If the same materials can be burned in the combustion section, they will necessarily be able to burn or partially burn in the pyrolysis section as well. Although the structure corresponding to evidence 4 "combustion platform" in this patent is named "pyrolysis section grate" in this patent, their working principles are the same. There is no substantive difference in the structure between this patent and evidence 4's technical solution. Secondly, claim 1 of this patent only limits the pyrolysis section to be a horizontal platform with a width range of 500-1200mm. Compared with the combustion platform described in evidence 4, except for the difference in whether the platform is horizontal and the platform width, there are no substantive differences in other structures between the two. The patent specification also does not record that Nai [REDACTED] company claimed that the pyrolysis section has the effect of contacting less oxygen. Moreover, Nai [REDACTED] company claimed that the pyrolysis section is wider than the combustion section. In fact, it is more related to the scale of material processing. That is, the technical personnel in this field can design platforms of different width ranges according to the scale of material processing. There is no substantive difference in the usage between the two. Finally, the working principles and structural settings of the pyrolysis section grate in this patent and the materials, reaction temperature, air or oxygen content related to the combustion platform in evidence 4 are the same or basically the same. This patent did not record that changing the combustion platform to the pyrolysis section grate would bring unexpected technical effects under the condition that other technical means remain unchanged. Nai [REDACTED] company also did not submit corresponding evidence to prove that the pyrolysis section grate in this patent has unexpected technical effects. That is, there is no substantive difference in function and effect between the two. In conclusion, the decision of the challenged ruling that the combustion platform in the closest existing technology disclosed the pyrolysis section grate in this patent is correct. Based on this, the distinguishing technical features and the technical problem to be solved by this patent identified in this decision are not inappropriate. All claims of this patent lack creativity.

This case once again emphasizes that in the process of creativity examination, one should understand the patented technology and the existing technology from the perspective of a person skilled in the field, that is, the relevant technical terms should be defined based on the meaning that a person skilled in the relevant technical field would typically understand after reading the claims, the description and the drawings, avoiding merely relying on the literal meaning to understand and determine the technical features.

Authors: Liu Xiaojun, Liu Dan, Gou Junhua