With over 200 dedicated professionals, Beijing East IP has helped a full spectrum of clients – from startups to Fortune 500 corporations to domestic multinational companies – on their intellectual property issues in China.
On August 21st, 2016, the China Blockchain Industry Conference was co-hosted by Global Finance Shared 100 Forum and Modern Bankers in China National Convention Center in Beijing. Dr. Lulin Gao, Chairman of Beijing East IP and founding Commissioner of the State Intellectual Property Office, and Dr. Xiaodong Li, President of Beijing East IP, were invited to attend the conference. Additionally, global blockchain leading technology experts, famous scholars, industrial elites, and representatives of investment and financing institutes were invited to discuss underlying technology of blockchain, applications and innovations, industrialization process, capital trends, and other topics. They provided valuable advice for the developments of blockchain technology and formulation of industrial standards as well as industrial application.
Under the topic of “Sharing and Development” during the conference, Dr. Lulin Gao gave a speech on “the most important research area of blockchain is finance”. At the Culture-Intellectual Property Parallel Sub-forum, Dr. Xiaodong Li offered unique insights in the application of blockchain technology in copyright area and its relation with intellectual property as a moderator and a guest speaker.
Dr. Xiaodong Li moderating a sub-forum
The Link to Dr. Lulin Gao’s speech in Chinese: http://finance.sina.cn/bank/yhgd/2016-08-21/detail-ifxvcsrm2060854.d.html?from=wap#sthash.p3G5ipHn.dpuf
Article 20 Where process or treatment is made to a follow-up product, which was obtained by further processing or treating a product directly obtained by a patented process, the People’s Court shall determine the action does not belong to “using the product directly obtained by the patented process” prescribed in Article 11 of the Patent Law.
China Intellectual Property Society (CIPS) and the Gao Lulin Foundation (GLF) cohosted the High Level Executives Seminar on Exclusive Rights of Integrated Circuit Layout Design in Beijing. Secretary-General Yuncai ZHANG of the CIPS delivered the opening remarks. More than 50 intellectual property experts from different fields attended including experts from the intellectual property law field, integrated circuit association, Legal Affairs Department, Patent Reexamination Board (PRB), and Preliminary Examination and Docketing Department of SIPO, Beijing Guo Wei Intellectual Property Judicial Expertizing Center, and other high level executives. Deputy Secretary-General Xiushan MA of the CIPS moderated the Summit.
With reference to inventive step of compound claims, it is stipulated in the Guidelines for Patent Examination that for a compound NOT similar in structure to a known compound, it will be regarded as inventive when it has a certain use or effect where a compound that IS similar in structure to a known compound, it might be regarded as inventive only if it has an unexpected use or effect. As can be seen, it is important to judge whether a compound is structurally similar to a known compound. This case clarifies that in the determination of inventiveness of a crystalline compound, the wording “structurally similar compounds” specifically refers to compounds having the same central part or basic ring, and has nothing to do with comparison between microcrystalline structures. The microcrystalline structure difference shall be considered only if it brings unexpected technical effect.
The patentee, HU Xiaoquan, owns a patent for invention No. ZL 200410024515.1, titled “Process for the Preparation of an Injection of Adenosine Disodium Triphosphate and Magnesium Chloride,” wherein claim 2 recites the additional technical features, “a freeze-dried powder injection of adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride for injection, consisting of adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride at the ratio by weight of 100 mg to 32 mg.”
This case highlights the premise to admit the post-filing experimental data for determination of inventiveness, i.e. such data should direct to the technical effect described in the original application documents.
The patentee, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd. (hereinafter “Takeda”), owns a invention patent No. ZL96111063.5 titled as “Pharmaceutical Composition for Use in Treatment of Diabetes” (hereinafter “the patent concerned”). Claim 1 was “pharmaceutical composition useful for prophylaxis or treatment of diabetes, diabetic complications, glucose or lipid metabolism disorders, which comprises an insulin sensitivity enhancer selected from pioglitazone or a pharmacologically acceptable salt thereof, and Sulfonylurea as insulin sensitivity enhancers.”
Experimental data is vital to the patentability requirements of inventiveness, support, and enablement for chemical/medical application. During the substantive examination, the applicant may intend to supplement experimental data to support inventiveness after filing, which is called “post-filing experimental data”. It is controversial whether post-filing experimental data shall be admitted. This article discusses admission of post-filing experimental data, as well as the binding effect of examination result in other countries based on analysis on an actual case.
Examination Decision No. 19631, which is related to the validity of patent No. ZL95190642.9, titled “Shaving Apparatus”, is the first decision that involves the petitioner withdrew the invalidation request and the examination of the request for invalidation was not terminated. This is the PRB’s first application of the principle of conducting examinations ex officio under Rule 72.2.
A method patent is different from a product patent in that it protects a dynamic operation process. How to compare between the method used by the defendant and the patented process is a key point when the court tries an infringement case involving a process patent. In this case, by finding the technical feature difference of the products, the court held that the two processes are neither identical nor equivalent and thus the defendant does not infringe upon the plaintiff’s patent. This shows a new way for judging infringement upon a process patent.