How the Supreme People’s Court Established a New Benchmark for Unexpected Technical Effects in a Landmark Diabetic Nephropathy Case Proving inventive step for pharmaceutical compounds, especially a second medical use, remains one of the most challenging aspects of patent prosecution in China. When the prior art discloses a compound’s general therapeutic properties, how can an applicant demonstrate that a specific new use achieves “unexpected technical effects”? The Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) recent decision in the “Ligustrazine Nitrone Derivative” case offers an answer: If the therapeutic effect of an invention patent application’s technical solution for a certain disease is comparable to that of the world’s first drug approved for treating that disease…
- China, Court Cases, Courts, Inventions, Inventiveness, Patent, Patent Law, Patentability, Pharma, Post-Filing Data, Supreme People's Court
- China, China Patent Office, CNIPA, Court Cases, Courts, Invalidation, Inventiveness, Patent, Supreme People's Court, Top 10 IP Case
No More Hindsight Bias: China’s Supreme People’s Court Reins in Patent Inventiveness Assessments
For foreign applicants navigating patent litigation or invalidation in China, a common frustration is hindsight bias. Too often, CNIPA or lower courts strip down a patent into isolated technical features, find those features across disparate prior art references, and declare the invention to be “obvious”. To counter such hindsight reasoning, the core criterion has always been whether a person skilled in the art would readily conceive of such technical solution. In practice, that standard has not been applied consistently. Examiners and judges are often tempted to rely on their own intuitive standard, or worse-yet, directly use hindsight reasoning, undermining the consistency and predictability of the inventive-step analysis. A relatively recent…
- China, Courts, inventors, inventorship, Patent, patent application, Patent Law, Supreme People's Court
IP Update: China’s Supreme People’s Court Issues First Public Decision Defining China’s Inventorship Standard
In theory China’s inventorship standard is similar to others around the world. An inventor is anyone who “makes creative contributions to the substantive features” of an invention. But what does this mean, and how does one apply this standard? Up to this point, this issue hasn’t really been litigated much in China (at least according to publicly available records). We finally have an important case (from the top!) that clarifies this issue. We analyse a binding judgment by the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of China1. It clarifies China’s applicable inventorship standards and the potential legal consequences of omitting qualified inventors. For U.S. companies conducting R&D…


