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
Do Invention and UM Patents Filed on the Same Day Rise and Fall Together?
19 August 2021
Snippets of Court Cases, Provisions, and Key Observations about China’s IP Landscape Seminal Cases by the SPC Recently, the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) issued a list of seminal (精品) cases. Although China is not a case law country, such seminal cases issued by the SPC have high guiding impact for […]
Read more >
A More Detailed Overview of China’s Patent Term Extension (PTE) System
17 June 2024
Although PTE has been in the Chinese Patent Law since the 4th Amendment of the law came into effect June 1, 2021, we didn’t really know the exact details of how it operated until the Implementation Regulations and Examination Guidelines (“Implementation Regulations”) were finally released in December 2023. New Rules 77-84 in the Implementation Regulations […]
Read more >
China Releases Draft Examination Guidelines for the new Patent Law
4 December 2020
The Chinese Patent Office (CNIPA) is moving forward at breakneck speeds aiming to get all the necessary pieces in place for the June 1, 2021 date when the new 4th Amendment of the Patent Law will come into effect. Most recently, this means a flurry of drafts coming out from CNIPA, including, but not limited […]
Read more >
IP Update: China’s Supreme People’s Court Issues First Public Decision Defining China’s Inventorship Standard
1 June 2026
In theory China's inventorship standard is similar to others around the world. An inventor is anyone who "makes creative contributions to the substantive features" of an invention. But what does this mean, and how does one apply this standard? Up to this point, this issue hasn't really been litigated much in China (at least according […]
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
