Recently, Zhifan IP Attorneys achieved favorable outcomes in both first-instance and second-instance administrative litigations for our client’s patent invalidation case, successfully maintaining the invalidation ruling that declared the patent entirely invalid. This result ensured our client’s exemption from infringement compensation.

Case Introduction

Our client filed an invalidation request against the patent involved in the infringement litigation and succeeded in having the patent completely invalidated.

The patentee, dissatisfied with the result, filed an appeal. Our client entrusted us to represent them in this administrative litigation. The first-instance judgment rejected the appeal.

The patentee continued to file an appeal. The second-instance judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Key Points of the Judgment

Both Evidence 4 and Evidence 8 belong to vibration devices. Evidence 4 shares the same working principle as the patent in question. The patentee argued that Evidence 8 differed from the patent in operation principles of the motor, addressed distinct technical problems, and achieved different technical effects, and thus there is no technical motivation to combine Evidence 8 with Evidence 4.

Both the first instance and the second instance determined that, Evidence 4 disclosed most of the technical features of the patent in question, and the distinguishing technical features 1 and 2 between Evidence 4 and the patent in question reflect that the material of the rotor of the patent in question and the connection method between the rotor and the rotating shaft are different from those in Evidence 4. Evidence 8 provides the technical motivation for using iron to make the core of the rotor and arranging the rotor on the rotating shaft. Therefore, this technical motivation could be applied by those skilled in the art to Evidence 4, which has nothing to do with the movement method of Evidence 8. In addition, the material of the rotor and the connection method between the rotor and the rotating shaft will not affect the original movement method in Evidence 4 in which the stator generates a change in magnetic poles and the magnet on the rotor is repelled to cause the rotor to rotate back and forth.

Typical Significance

To determine whether an invention or a utility model is obvious to those skilled in the art, first of all, it is necessary to correctly identify the distinguishing features of the invention or utility model relative to the closest prior art. The key is to determine whether the prior art as a whole provides any technical motivation, that is, whether the prior art provides the motivation to apply the distinguishing features of the invention or utility model compared with the closest prior art to the closest prior art to solve the technical problems existing therein.

If such a motivation exists, it will motivate those skilled in the art to improve the closest prior art and obtain the technical solution claimed by the invention or utility model when facing corresponding technical problems. If certain technical features are limited means commonly used in the art, they should generally be recognized as conventional choices in the art, and therefore generally are not sufficient to endow the relevant patent or patent application with inventiveness.

Appendix: Administrative Judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the People's Republic of China