Markush claims in China - what can be arbitrarily deleted during invalidation?
Since 2010, the China 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.
This case (Beijing Winsunny Harmony Science & Technology Co., Ltd. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd) describes an invalidation request of Daiichi Sankyo’s Chinese invention patent 97126347.7 related to processes of preparing pharmaceutical compositions for treating or preventing hypertension. The patent covered the marketed hypertension drug Olmesartan medoxomil.
During the invalidation, the patentee made select amendments to multiple Markush groups, deleting particular individual components from several different R groups of a molecule. The issue at hand is whether these amendments are allowable during an invalidation proceeding, which typically has very strict rules regarding amendments.
Courts Differ on Markush Claims in China
In short, it boils down to how the courts interpret a Markush claim. Does it refers to a general technical solution or parallel embodiments of several technical solutions? If it is one general solution, should you really be able to pick and carve away at its scope? Does doing so create a new scope that has a different technical effect than the original invention? If so, is that allowable?
The Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) and the Beijing High People’s Court (BHPC) disagreed on how to interpret Markush claims in China. The PRB felt that arbitrary amendments should not be allowed because a Markush claim is directed towards a general technical solution. Arbitrarily deleting elements during invalidation would thus create new scopes of protection that could have different technical solutions.
The BHPC thought that Markush groups represented alternate parallel technical solutions, and thus deleting one or more options just narrowed the scope of the claim. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ruled that the amendments were allowable. Additionally, the SPC indicated that such types of amendments may be allowed during invalidation as long as the amendments did not generate a scope that possessed a new function or technical effect.
Markush Claims in China Drafting Tips
Applicants should be aware that amendments which carve out a new scope with improved technical effect (as compared to the original scope) may not be allowable. During an invalidation proceeding, it will be difficult to amend claims to a narrower scope with improved technical results to overcome inventive step. Instead, at the time of drafting, applicants should draft several dependent claims directed towards alternate scopes with varying qualities of efficacy, including very narrow claims covering the best, most efficacious compounds. It is risky to rely on being able to carve out scope from broader claims during an invalidation challenge.
A side note on inventive step . . .
Interestingly, this case also briefly discussed inventive step. The petitioners argued that the patent lacked inventive step because a specific embodiment in the patent had equivalent technical effect as a prior art compound. The PRB disagreed and emphasized that inventiveness is actually a three-step determination, and it is inappropriate to directly apply just the “unexpected technical effect” test to see if claims are inventive or not.
Sources: Lexology, Sanyou IP Group
Beijing Supreme People’s Court Upholds Novo Nordisk Semaglutide Patent in China based on Post-Filing Data
23 January 2026
On December 31, 2025, The Supreme People's Court upheld the Beijing IP Court's decision, meaning that the semaglutide patent remains valid and will expire on March 20, 2026. Novo Nordisk announced this positive news via a press release on the day the case was decided. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has also confirmed this decision […]
Read more >
Hong Kong Launches New Original Grant Patent System
17 December 2019
Hong Kong will be launching a new patent system on December 19, 2019 that includes key changes, most notably the introduction of an original grant patent system. This new patent system includes both the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 and the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019. Currently, there are two types of patent applications available in […]
Read more >
Is “Comparable” the New “Unexpected”? China’s SPC Relaxes Inventive Step Standard for Breakthrough Therapeutics
14 July 2026
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 […]
Read more >
SPC Upholds $2M RMB Award in China’s First Patent Case on a Biological Deposit
4 July 2022
On 28 Feb 2022, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its annual “Judgment Digests”, which includes a list of “48 typical cases” highlighting representative SPC decisions in 2021. The Judgment Digests help us understand more about the SPC’s judicial ideology, trial concepts, and adjudication methods in dealing with difficult and sophisticated legal issues as well […]
Read more >
Our Past Events
BioHK2026 | Biotech IP in practice
16 September 2026
Jennifer Che Once Again Named to the IAM Strategy 300
21 August 2026
Yolanda Wang attended the 1st China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference
22 July 2026
Pauli Wong as a Guest speaker for “Entrepreneurial Workshop” in Poly U
16 June 2026
Eagle IP Recognized as Top Tier Firm (Tier 1) for Patent Prosecution in IP Stars 2026 Patent Firms Ranking List
5 June 2026
Eagle IP Achieves Top Ranking in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
