The number of new IPR cases heard by the Supreme People Court in 2019 increased by 146%, the proportion of second instance cases rose from 1.5% to 44.1%, and the proportion of patent cases rose from 43.8% to 50.2%.

(Source: China Court Network)

2019 China Intellectual Property Development Press Conference

The State Council Information Office held a press conference at 10 am on April 23, 2020 (Thursday). Shen Changyu, director of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, was invited to brief on China’s intellectual property development in 2019 and answer questions from reporters.

In terms of accelerating the building of a strong IP country and improving the quality and efficiency of patent and trademark examination, the examination period for high-value invention patents was compressed to 17.3 months, and the average examination period for trademark registrations was compressed to 4.5 months, exceeding the annual target set by the State Council. Cumulative reduction and exemption of patent and trademark-related expenses for the whole year was 7.93 billion yuan.

With regard to the further improvement of intellectual property laws and regulations, the revision of the Trademark Law was completed, and the amount of compensation for malicious infringement of the exclusive right to use trademarks was increased from more than double and less than three times to more than double and less than five times; the upper limit of statutory compensation was increased from three million yuan to five million yuan. The revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law was completed to further strengthen the protection of trade secrets. CNIPA also continued to advance the revision of the Patent Law and its implementation rules, copyright law, and new plant variety protection regulations.

(Source: China Net)

In 2019, China’s intellectual property layout in the countries along the “Belt and Road” maintained a good momentum of development

The 2nd “Belt and Road” International Cooperation Summit Forum in 2019 clearly proposed “strengthening international cooperation on intellectual property protection”. It marks that China and the countries along the “Belt and Road” have entered a new stage of high-quality IP development.

Preliminary statistics show that in 2019, the number of national patent applications published by China under the “Belt and Road” agreement was 5,293, an increase of 8.5% year-on-year, and entered a total of 24 countries. Among them, a total of 2,676 applications were published in South Korea, ranking first among all the destination countries; Vietnam, Singapore, Russia, and South Africa ranked second to fifth with 571, 557, 434, and 355, respectively. The top-five application destination countries accounted for 86.8% of the total number of patent applications published by China in countries along the route. The layout of patent applications continues to show a high degree of concentration. According to the 35 technical fields classification standards published by the World Intellectual Property Organization, in 2019, digital communications ranked first in China’s patent application in the countries along the route, with 840 publications; computer technology and organic fine chemistry ranked second and third with 480 and 287 respectively.

In 2019, China’s top ten applicants for patent disclosure in the countries along the route are all enterprises: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd., Ping An Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huaxing Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd., and Midea Group Co., Ltd., ranking one to five with application amounts of 786, 166, 127, 108, and 105 respectively.

(Source: Sohu News)

The reform of dividing simple and complicated civil litigation procedures by the Beijing courts in 2019 has achieved initial results

Xinhuanet Beijing, April 23 (Reporter Wu Wenxu, Xie Hao) The Beijing Higher People’s Court held a press conference on the 23rd to introduce the preliminary results of the pilot reform of dividing simple and complicated civil litigation procedures by the Beijing courts.

According to reports, the Beijing courts focus on five aspects: optimizing judicial confirmation procedures, improving small-value litigation procedures, improving summary procedure rules, expanding the scope of application for sole appointment, and improving electronic litigation rules. Combined with the actual work of the courts of the whole city, a “1 + 6” system and standard system was established to implement the working methods and six supporting implementation rules, so as to improve the quality and efficiency of trials.

Since the pilot started on January 15th, Beijing’s various courts have actively promoted implementation and achieved initial results. 42,774 electronic litigation cases were filed online, 53,832 cases were heard online, and 134,158 cases were served online; on January 17, the Fengtai Court took the lead in applying the “Implementation Measures for the Reform of dividing simple and complicated civil litigation procedures” to efficiently resolve a batch of cases; on January 21, the city’s four intermediate courts and intellectual property courts took the first step in applying the second-instance sole system simultaneously; the Tongzhou court used small-value litigation procedures to efficiently conclude more than 200 cases within 10 days; the Chaoyang Court concluded nearly 700 KTV infringement cases in one month using element-based documents

Jin Xuejun, vice president of the Beijing Higher People’s Court, said that the Beijing courts took people’s actual experience of civil litigation as the key criterion for testing effectiveness of the pilot reform. The courts strive to resolve disputes more justly, efficiently, conveniently and at low cost, making people feel fair and just in every judicial case.

(Source: Huaxia Jingwei Net)

White Paper on “The Status of Intellectual Property Protection in Beijing 2019”

In the 2019 National Business Environment Assessment, Beijing’s “Intellectual Property Creation, Protection and Utilization” index ranked first in the country.

In terms of creativity, according to the “China Intellectual Property Index Report 2019”, Beijing’s comprehensive strength of intellectual property has ranked first in the country for ten consecutive years. In 2019, the city’s patent applications amounted to 226,100, including 129,900 invention patent applications, with the best proportion of invention patents in the country; the number of patents granted is 131,700, of which the number of invention patents authorized is 53,100. The number of PCT applications accepted was 7,200. The city has 132 invention patents per 10,000 people, ranking first in the country and nearly 10 times the national average. In addition, there were 546,600 trademark applications, 474,600 trademark registrations, and 1,922,000 valid trademark registrations.

(Source: Beijing Intellectual Property Office)

Drafts and plans related to the protection of intellectual property rights recently issued by the Supreme People Court, the State Intellectual Property Office, and other state agencies

(Source: China court network, etc.)

Domestic universities accelerate PCT patent layout

University patents have recently become a hot topic, and the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration have also put forward new requirements for university IP work. The guiding direction of the policy began to be adjusted to emphasize the transformation and application of technological achievements, effective technology, and international influence.

PCT is undoubtedly an effective way for university technology to deploy overseas. The distribution of PCT patents by domestic universities has seen rapid growth in recent years. The average growth rate during 2013-2018 was close to 26%, and the growth rate in 2017 was as high as 41%.

In the PCT application for colleges and universities, in addition to the traditional top universities in China, such as Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University, and Peking University, many “rising stars” become avid participants. The first echelon of universities in PCT overseas application are: Tsinghua University, Shenzhen University, South China University of Technology, China University of Mining and Technology, Peking University, Zhejiang University, Southeast University, Dalian University of Technology, Jiangnan University, Hong Kong University.

These universities attach importance to scientific research as much as to the transformation and application of technology. For example, Jiangnan University has certain advantages in industrial applications in the fields of biochemistry and textiles.

(Source: Patent Tea House)

The number of domestic invention allowances in the first quarter in 2019 decreased by 31% compared with the same period

In the first quarter of 2019, the number of domestic inventions allowed was 96,438. In the first quarter of 2020, the number of inventions allowed was 66,501, a decrease of 31% over the same period, and the average decline of provinces and cities was 26%.

According to regional statistics, the decline in Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shanghai in the Yangtze River Delta region has exceeded the national average decline.

(Source: Patent Tea House)

Dragon Special Report and Agency Practice

The Application of the Invention Concept in the Inventiveness Argument of Combination Invention

I. Introduction

The technical features in combination invention are often technical means known in the prior art, or even conventional technical means. If the examiner does not examine the application from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, he is easily subjectively influenced and underestimates inventiveness. For example, with regard to each technical feature in the combination, the examiner sometimes randomly combines the corresponding technical features existed in one or more reference documents, observes that the inventiveness of the present application is negated. If the technical problem to be solved in an application is different from the technical problem to be solved in the reference document, the examiner often thinks that on the basis of solving the technical problem in the reference document, the technical problem in the application must be solved objectively. How we can understand the essence of the inventive concept through the veil of seemingly obvious combinations is crucial for arguing for the inventiveness of combination inventions. Below, the author discusses this issue based on a reexamination case, combined with the revised Guidelines for Patent Examination implemented on November 1, 2019.

II. Idea elaboration

The identification of technical problems actually solved by the invention is the basis for determining whether an invention is obvious, and it guides the direction of the efforts of those skilled in the art. After comparing the technical solutions claimed in the application with the reference documents, if the technical problems to be solved and the key technical measures adopted by the two are different, the two inventions are determined as having different inventive concepts. On this basis, those skilled in the art have no reason to ignore the above conceptual differences and focus on specific combinations of specific non-essential components of the reference document. That is, the technical solution claimed in the application cannot be obviously obtained with this combination as a starting point.

III. Interpretation with a case

Claim 1 of the present application relates to a circuit connection material that electrically connects opposing circuit electrodes to each other, comprising: (a) epoxy resin, (b) cationic polymerization type latent curing agent containing aromatic sulfonium salt, (c) film-forming material and (d) thermoplastic polymer containing vinyl carboxylate as monomer unit, wherein the blending amount of the thermoplastic polymer is 0.5 to 5 parts by mass with respect to the total of 100 parts by mass of the epoxy resin and the film-forming material, and (d) the melting point of the component is 30 ° C or higher and lower than 80 ° C. The differences between the application and D1 are: (1) The cationic polymerization type latent curing agent containing aromatic sulfonium salt is defined in claim 1, whereas D1 discloses that the curing agent of epoxy resin can be selected from latent curing agents such as sulfonium salt that can undergo cationic polymerization; (2) Claim 1 defines a thermoplastic polymer containing vinyl carboxylate as a monomer unit and a melting point of 30 ° C or more and less than 80 ° C, whereas D1 only discloses that the thermoplastic resin can be selected from ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers; (3) Claim 1 also defines the amount of thermoplastic polymer.

The substantive examination department believed that: (1) This application improves the temporary crimpability of circuit connection materials by adopting the component (d) that can be softened at the temporary crimping heating temperature to show adhesion. The petitioner’s claim “temporary crimpability at low temperature and short time” is incorrect. (2) D1 can objectively solve the technical problem of improving the temporary crimping performance claimed in this application. (3) Both D1 and D2 belong to epoxy-based adhesives, and D2 gives the technical teaching of selecting aromatic sulfur salts as curing agents for epoxy resins to achieve bonding of circuit connection materials at low temperatures and in a short time. Therefore, based on D1, those skilled in the art have an incentive to combine D1 with D2.

The collegial panel provides the following opinion.

Based on the background technology, technical problems, and results verified by the examples and comparative examples in this specification, it can be confirmed that the technical problem actually to be solved by this application is how to provide a circuit connection material that is sufficiently excellent in temporary crimpability of a connection member at a low temperature and in a short time. The key technical means used are the combination of necessary epoxy resins, cationic polymerized latent curing agents containing aromatic sulfonium salts, film-forming materials, and a specific olefin-vinyl carboxylate copolymer blended at a specific blending amount and having a melting point over 30 ° C and below 80 ° C.

Further, based on the background technology, technical problems, and results verified by the examples and comparative examples in this specification, it can be confirmed that this application solves a different problem from D1, they adopt different key technical means, and the inventive concepts of the two are completely different.

The adhesive composition of D1 to solve the technical problem is a radical polymerization adhesive composition, and its essential components are a radically polymerizable compound and a radical polymerization initiator. Although D1 also has recitations of epoxy resins, curing agents and thermoplastic resins, they are all optional components; there are at least 7 types and 14 types of epoxy curing agents and thermoplastic resins respectively, and the purpose of adding polymer compounds is at least three types (that is, to impart film formation, adhesion, and stress relaxation during curing). Furthermore, although D1 discloses epoxy resins, sulfonium salts, polymer compounds for film formation, and ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, the above-mentioned substances are not necessary components to solve the technical problems of D1, but only components that can be selectively added. There is no recitation that they must comprise any of these four substances; D1 does not disclose the combination of these four substances either.

On this basis, those skilled in the art have no reason to ignore the difference between the two ideas and focus on the specific combinations of specific non-essential components of D1. There is less reason to use this specific combination as the basis for further improvement, and analyze their impact on the low temperature and short-term temporary crimpability. Naturally, it cannot be concluded from the content disclosed in the existing evidence including D1 that the combination of the above four components can solve the technical problem to be solved by the present application. That is, the technical solution claimed in this application cannot be obviously obtained with the combination in D1 as a starting point. The substantive examination department believed that D1 could objectively solve the technical problem of improving the temporary crimping performance claimed in this application, but this is a conclusion based on the facts of this application. It is not a conclusion that a person skilled in the art can draw based on D1 or prior art, which belongs to an un-objective interpretation of D1.

In addition, although D2 discloses “when the epoxy resin is cured by irradiation of energy rays, aromatic sulfonium salts are preferred”, based on the above analysis on D1, those skilled in the art have no incentive to introduce the epoxy resin curing agent (aromatic sulfonium salt) of D2 into the conductive adhesive based on free radical compounds and free radical initiators of D1 (the curing mechanism of the two is different), so as to achieve the bonding of circuit connecting materials at low temperature and in a short time.

In the end, it was determined that all the claims in this application were inventive, and the decision of rejection was revoked.

IV. Further discussion

When using the “three-step” determination method, the examiner may inaccurately or summarily determine the technical problem actually solved by the invention. The connection between technical features may be neglected, and the three-step method may be mechanically applied. Precisely to solve these problems and to determine the technical problems actually solved by the invention more objectively, chapter 3.2.1.1 (2) in Chapter 4 of Part II of the revised Guidelines for Patent Examination implemented on November 1, 2019 specifies that the technical problems actually solved by the invention shall be determined according to the technical effects that the distinguishing features can achieve in the invention seeking for protection; for the technical features which are mutually supported and have interaction relationship in function, the technical effect achieved by the technical features and their relationship in the invention seeking for protection shall be considered as a whole.

In this case, when the substantive examination department determined the technical problem actually solved by the invention, it is based on the general function of the distinguishing feature (the inherent function or function of the technical feature itself) or the function in the reference document, rather than the technical effect it can achieve in the application. Further, as the collegial panel said, the original examination department believed that D1 could objectively solve the technical problem of improving the temporary crimping performance claimed in this application, but this is a conclusion based on the facts of this application. It is not a conclusion that a person skilled in the art can draw based on D1 or prior art. In addition, the original examination department did not investigate the interaction between the technical features of the application, but focused on the specific combination of the specific unnecessary components of D1. Therefore, the identification of the original examination department has a clear tendency of hindsight.

In addition, in order to regulate examiners’ random identification of invention point without providing evidence, Section 4.10.2.2 (4) of Chapter 8 of Part II of the revised Guidelines for Patent Examination regulates the use of common sense in inventiveness comments. When the examiner asserts the “invention point” (the technical feature in the claim that contributes to the solution of the technical problem) as common knowledge, evidence shall generally be provided.

In this case, it can be confirmed that the above distinguishing technical features (for example, the distinguishing technical feature (2) verified by the embodiments and comparative examples) are obviously the invention points of the application by studying the contents recited in the description of the application. The original examination department simply identified it as common sense, but did not provide any evidence to prove it, which is obviously contrary to the above provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination.

V. Conclusion

When responding to OA, it is recommended to analyze and compare the technical problems to be solved by the application and the closest prior art in combination with the above provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination based on the recitation of the application and the specification of the closest prior art (especially the embodiments and comparative examples). It is necessary to conduct in-depth analysis and comparison of the technical problems to be solved by the application and the closest existing technology, as well as the key technical means adopted to solve the respective technical problems. On this basis, it is possible to determine whether there are great differences in their invention concepts. If it exists, technical means beside the framework of the invention are unnecessary technical means. It can be argued that those skilled in the art have no motivation to focus on these unnecessary technical means. Therefore, there is no motivation to obviously obtain the technical solution claimed in the application from this starting point.

(Author: Weidong WANG, patent attorney and attorney at law)

Please feel free to contact us for any question:

Tel: 0086-10-82252547

Fax: 0086-10-82250563

Email: marketing@dragonip.com