*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court issued a final judgment in an administrative dispute regarding the invalidation of a utility model patent. The court held that, although the corresponding structural elements of the patent in question were named differently from those of the closest prior art, there were no substantial differences in their structure, function, use, or effect. Consequently, the corresponding structural elements did not constitute distinguishing technical features between the patent in question and the prior art. The court concluded that the patent lacked inventive step and should be declared invalid.

This case involves a utility model patent titled "A Fixed Grate Pre-combustion Furnace for Processing Alternative Fuels in Cement Kilns" (hereinafter referred to as "the Patent"), owned by Nai Company.In response to a request for invalidation of this patent filed by Zhong Runtian Company, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued a decision declaring the patent rights in their entirety invalid. After Nai Company filed a lawsuit challenging this decision, the first-instance court ruled that the closest prior art in this case—namely, the combustion platform described in Evidence 4 (which is a prior patent held by Nai Company)—did not disclose the pyrolysis section grate featured in the patent at issue. Consequently, the court overturned the contested decision. Both the CNIPA and Zhongmo Runtian Company appealed the ruling.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second-instance ruling that: First, the relevant content of the specification of the Patent indicates that, whether in the pyrolysis stage or the combustion stage, the materials and reaction temperatures addressed by the Patent are identical; if the same materials can burn in the combustion stage, they must necessarily burn or partially burn in the pyrolysis stage as well.Although the structure corresponding to the "combustion platform" in Evidence 4 is named the "pyrolysis section grate" in this patent, the working principles of the two are identical, and there is no substantial structural difference between the technical solutions of this patent and those of Evidence 4.Second, Claim 1 of this patent merely defines the pyrolysis section as a horizontal platform with a width range of 500–1,200 mm. Compared to the combustion platform described in Evidence 4, aside from differences in whether the platform is horizontal and its width, there are no substantial structural differences between the two. Furthermore, the specification of this patent does not record the effect claimed by Nai Company that the pyrolysis section involves less contact with oxygen.Furthermore, the claim by Company Nai that the pyrolysis section is wider than the combustion section is, in fact, more closely related to the scale of material processing; that is, a person skilled in the art can design platforms with different width ranges based on the scale of material processing, and there is no substantial difference between the two in terms of their intended use. Finally, the operating principles and structural configurations of the pyrolysis section grate in this patent and the combustion platform in Evidence 4—as they relate to the material, reaction temperature, and air or oxygen content—are identical or substantially identical.The present patent does not disclose that modifying the combustion platform into a pyrolysis section grate, while keeping other technical means unchanged, can yield an unexpected technical effect, nor has Company N submitted corresponding evidence to prove that the pyrolysis section grate of the present patent possesses an unexpected technical effect; that is, there is no substantial difference between the two in terms of function and effect.In summary, the contested decision correctly determined that the combustion platform in the closest prior art discloses the pyrolysis section grate of this patent. Based on this, the contested decision's identification of the distinguishing technical features and the technical problem addressed by this patent is not improper, and all claims of this patent lack inventive step.

This case once again emphasizes that, during the examination of inventive step, the patent technology and prior art should be understood from the perspective of a person skilled in the art; that is, relevant technical terms should be defined based on the meaning that a person skilled in the relevant technical field would ordinarily understand after reading the claims, specification, and drawings, avoiding an understanding and determination of technical features that is confined solely to their literal meaning.