As AI models become versatile and adaptable across multiple contexts and industries, questions about inventive step sit at the heart of patent examination in China. The 2023 Patent Examination Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’) included several sessions dedicated to explaining how inventive step should be examined for AI-related inventions, featuring examples related to AI algorithms, big data, and user experience1. In the re-examination of Beijing ByteDance Network Technology Co. Ltd.’s application entitled “Method and apparatus for processing an image” (Application No. 201810734681.2)2, which was recognized as one of the Top 10 Re-examination Cases of 2025 by the CNIPA, the CNIPA focused on the following issue: when an existing…
- AI, China, China Patent Office, CNIPA, Inventions, Inventiveness, Patent, Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Department, Patent Re-examination Board, Top 10 IP Case
-
When Standards Evolve: How China Judges Inventiveness in Next-Gen Tech Patents
Starting in 2023, Datang Mobile, one of the key players in China’s telecom standardization efforts, initiated infringement proceedings against Samsung in China, Germany, and the US. Samsung responded by filing multiple invalidation petitions in several jurisdictions, including China, the United States, and Europe. The case discussed below is one of above-mentioned invalidation cases in China, and was selected as one of the Top Ten Reexamination and Invalidation Cases of 2024 by CNIPA as “a typical patent case in the field of communications involving standards evolution in that its assessment of inventiveness provides guidance for this type of case.”1 Legal & Technical Focus The patent involved is titled “Carrier Aggregation Feedback…
- China, China Patent Office, CNIPA, Design, Inventiveness, Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Department
Obviousness: can features from different categories of products be combined to invalidate a design patent?
Introduction “I have a tank, I have a gun—boom! Tank gun?” Each year the CNIPA releases a list of Top Ten Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Cases. These cases are meant to be guiding cases, showcasing exemplary real-world decisions that clarify certain aspects of the law. Over the next several months we will be highlighting many of these cases. Today’s article relates to design patents and the standard of what is “distinctly different”. Particularly, this case asks whether two prior art design elements can be combined to invalidate the novelty of a design if the two prior art features come from different categories of products. The Chinese patent law states: “A…



