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
The Secret Prior Art Trap: A Case Study on Conflicting Applications in China
13 November 2025
In patent prosecution, the concept of a "conflicting application" or “secret prior art” plays a critical role in determining the patentability of an invention. This article explores the framework for assessing conflicting applications under Chinese patent law, with a comparative perspective on the approaches adopted in the United States. Case Background: The Image Encoding Dispute […]
Read more >
Breaking News: Newest Draft Amendment to the Chinese Patent Law Available for Public Comment
10 July 2020
Finally, after more than a year since the last draft amendment came out in 2019, a new draft has been submitted to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee for deliberation on June 28, 2020. The newest version is now published for public comments until August 16, 2020. As a whole, these proposed changes address a […]
Read more >
China Proposes New Examination Guidelines for Utility Models
24 November 2022
The Utility Model (UM) in China has always been a popular choice for patent filing due to its relatively low cost and speed of prosecution. The UM prosecution only includes a preliminary examination, which is essentially a mini (stripped down) version of an invention application’s substantive examination.1 With the simplified examination process, UMs are typically […]
Read more >
First ever Invalidation decision on an RNAi Invention patent in China
4 December 2023
Decision on Examination of Request for Invalidation (No. 58530) In one of China’s Top 10 Patent Re-examination / Invalidation cases of 2022, an invalidation decision on a patent claiming Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) RNAi compositions (No. 58530) by the Patent Re-examination Board (the “Board”) sheds light on the standard for post filing data for rejections […]
Read more >
Our Past Events
Jennifer Che has been Recognized in IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders 2026
26 November 2025
Jennifer Che has been Recognized as IAM Global Leaders 2026
4 November 2025
Eagle IP is Coming to San Francisco and Washington DC!
15 October 2025
Jennifer Che has been listed on the IAM Strategy 300
15 August 2025
Eagle IP Recognized as Top Tier Firm (Tier 1) for Patent Prosecution in IP Stars 2025 Patent Firms Ranking List
3 July 2025
Dr. Jacqueline Lui, Ms. Pauli Wong, and Mr. Eddie Ho Named Patent Stars by ManagingIP
