Ticagrelor Medicine Patent Invalidation Dispute
Administrative Case
Invention Patent
–Determination of the Inventiveness of Similarly Structured Patents
[Headnotes]
According to Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law of China, inventiveness refers to that, as compared with the technology existing before the date of filing, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents a notable progress. In comparing the technical solution plan with the problems relative to comparison design, attention should be paid to distinguish the function of technical features in the patent's technical solution. The interpretation of technical features should be made in the overall technical solution, with a focus on the role technical features played in the solution and its relationship with other features. The interpretation should not be separated from the technical solution as a whole.
[Synopsis]
First instance: (2018) Jing 73 XingChu No. 753
Second instance: (2018) JingXingZhong No. 6345
Appellant (plaintiff in original instance): AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (AstraZeneca)
Appellant (defendant in original instance): The Patent Reexamination Board of CNIPA (The Patent Reexamination Board)
Appellee (third party in original instance): Shenzhen Salubris Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Salubris)
On October 17, 2017, the Patent Reexamination Board declared the patent to be invalid for Salubris's patent invalidation request of the compound patent (No. 99815626.3) owned by AstraZeneca, on the ground of lacking inventiveness.
On January 16, 2018, AstraZeneca officially filed a lawsuit at Beijing IP Court, requesting to revocate the invalidation decision made by the Patent Reexamination Board and reexamine the case.
On July 30, 2018, Beijing IP Court held that, compared with evidence 1 and public common knowledge, the patent claim 1 was not inventive for it did not have prominent substantive features or represent a notable progress. The court therefore dismissed AstraZeneca's litigation request.
On August 30, 2018, AstraZeneca appealed with Beijing Higher People's Court. The court made a second instance judgment, arguing that the first instance judgment and the sued decision were incorrect interpretations of closest prior art, and its distinction about technical features between the patent claim 1 and the closest prior art was wrong. The original judgment and the sued decision were unclear in parts, and wrongly applied law, which should be revoked according to law. The Patent Reexamination Board should make a reexamination on the invalidation of the patent.
[Typical Significance]
The interpretation of technical features should be made in the overall technical solution, with a focus on the role technical features played in the solution and its relationship with other features. The interpretation should not be separated from the technical solution as a whole, which means a technical feature cannot be considered separately from the overall technical solution.
Considering the fact that the first instance judgment and the sued decision misinterpreted the closest prior art and its distinction about technical features between the patent claim 1 and the closest prior art was also wrong, the Beijing High People's Court dismissed the first instance judgment and the sued decision, supporting the corresponding appeal grounds and claims made by AstraZeneca.
