Since 2010, the Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) has published the top 10 patent invalidation cases of the year in April of each year. The selection criteria are high social concern, significant impact on the related industry, or involve difficult legal issues and important examination criteria. Below is one of the top 10 cases that discusses post filing data in China patents.
Post Filing Data in China
Can post-filing data showing unexpected technical effect be used to overcome inventive step if the specification contains no data but asserts the unexpected technical effect?
In short, the answer is no, post-filing data cannot be used to overcome inventive step even if the idea was asserted if the original data was not in the application.
Novartis’s Chinese patent (201110029600.7) claimed the combination of AT 1-antagonist valsartan and NEP inhibitor Sacubitril. The specification asserted that the combination of the two drugs had synergistic effect, yet provided no data at the time of filing.
The PRB sided with petitioner Dai Jinliang and argued that one of skill in the art could not predict that the combination would be synergistic without experimental data. In other words, applicants had not solved the technical problem of providing a pharmaceutical combination with synergistic effects. At most, applicants had provided a pharmaceutical composition for treating hypertension. In January of 2018, the PRB declared that the Novartis patent was invalid.
In our experience, if experimental data is in the application as filed but another piece of prior art is cited during prosecution, the applicant may submit post-filing data showing results of comparison studies with the newly discovered art, provided that the original data for applicant’s invention was already disclosed in the application as filed.
About the Author
Jennifer Che, J.D. is a US Patent Attorney and Vice President and Partner at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau.
This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or a legal opinion on a specific set of facts.