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
How Far Can an Employer Reach to Own Employee-made “Service Inventions”?
30 July 2020
2019 China’s Top 50 Representative IP Cases Shenzhen Weibang Technology Co. Ltd v. Li Jianyi & Shenzhen Yuancheng Intelligence Equipment Co. Ltd (2019最高法民申6342号) Each year in China there are hundreds of disputes over patent ownership. A significant part of them are related to “Service Inventions”, which are defined in Article 6 of the Chinese Patent […]
Read more >
Breaking: China Released New Implementation Measures for the New Patent Linkage System
14 July 2021
On July 4, 2021, China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released details on the new implementation measures for early dispute resolution mechanisms for drug patents (“Patent Linkage”), effective July 4, 2021. Below is a summary highlighting key provisions and changes from the draft measures. Creation of an […]
Read more >
How a Secondhand Ground Brush Wiped Away a Chinese Patent
4 December 2024
A Chinese robot vacuum company digs up “hidden evidence” to successfully invalidate a patent owned by its biggest competitor. Highlights Background With the growth of online shopping, it is easier than ever to provide evidence of a sale when the product is still being sold on the market. But what if the product is no […]
Read more >
China Patent Office (CNIPA) Releases More Details About Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in the Draft Examination Guidelines
19 October 2021
The new 4th Amendment of the Chinese Patent Law came into effect on June 1, 2021. Right before that date, the Chinese Patent Office (“CNIPA”) released some “Interim Measures” to give us a taste of what was to come, though they have yet to released the actual Implementation Rules. Two months later, CNIPA finally released […]
Read more >
Our Past Events
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
2 June 2026
Eagle IP to Participate in AIPLA 2026 Spring Meeting in San Francisco
8 May 2026
Eagle IP has been named as the Winner of the LSPN Cross-Border Collaboration Partner of the Year Award at the LSPN Awards USA 2026
8 May 2026
Eagle IP to Attend INTA 2026 Annual Meeting in London
