A Case Study of the “Electronic Blackboard” Case, (2025) SPC Zhi Xing Zhong No. 286 I. Introduction In assessing inventive step for invention patents, determining whether a technical solution would have been “readily conceivable” to a person skilled in the art has long been one of the most disputed and uncertain aspects of the analysis. In practice, Examiners far too often have a flawed tendency to deem a technical means a “conventional choice” in the art simply because the prior art discloses a similar function or means. This leads to Examiners directly concluding that the claim lacks inventive step as a whole. This approach suffers from two major defects: This…
- China, Common Knowledge, Court Cases, Courts, Inventiveness, Patent, Supreme People's Court, Top 10 IP Case
-
Connecting the Dots: China’s Evolving Standard for Numerical Sub-Range Amendments
Managing global pharmaceutical or chemical portfolios requires navigating China’s notoriously rigid standards on the “same subject matter” requirement for priority and claim amendments. A recent invalidation decision (No. 588094) issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) concerning a pharmaceutical patent provides clarity on how numerical ranges and later added experimental data are evaluated in priority claims. More specifically, how much literal support is needed for a claim directed towards a “new” numerical sub-range supported by later added working examples? The Core Dispute: Priority Over specific Ratios and “Added” Data The patent at issue protected a pharmaceutical composition comprising Edaravone (3-methyl-1-phenyl-2-pyrazolin-5-one) and natural borneol (for treating cerebrovascular diseases), specifically…
- 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…


