中国Court CasesInvalidationInventionsPharma
2018年11月19日

Can Post Filing Data Overcome Inventive Step in China?

Since 2010, the 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.

Post Filing Data in China

Can post-filing data showing unexpected technical effect be used to overcome inventive step if the specification contains no data but asserts the unexpected technical effect?
In short, the answer is no, post-filing data cannot be used to overcome inventive step even if the idea was asserted if the original data was not in the application. Novartis’s Chinese patent (201110029600.7) claimed the combination of AT 1-antagonist valsartan and NEP inhibitor Sacubitril. The specification asserted that the combination of the two drugs had synergistic effect, yet provided no data at the time of filing. The PRB sided with petitioner Dai Jinliang and argued that one of skill in the art could not predict that the combination would be synergistic without experimental data. In other words, applicants had not solved the technical problem of providing a pharmaceutical combination with synergistic effects. At most, applicants had provided a pharmaceutical composition for treating hypertension. In January of 2018, the PRB declared that the Novartis patent was invalid. In our experience, if experimental data is in the application as filed but another piece of prior art is cited during prosecution, the applicant may submit post-filing data showing results of comparison studies with the newly discovered art, provided that the original data for applicant’s invention was already disclosed in the application as filed. About the Author
Jennifer Che, J.D. is a US Patent Attorney and Vice President and Partner at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau. [email protected] This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or a legal opinion on a specific set of facts.

其他文章

China Announcing More Proposed Amendments to the Examination Guidelines in 2022

2022年11月17日
It’s been a year and a half since the new Chinese Patent Law came into effect (1 June 2021). Although various versions of draft Examination Guidelines have been released, thus far no official finalized versions have been confirmed. On October 31, 2022, yet another new list of proposed amendments was published1, this time consolidating the […]

IP Strategies for the Newly Released Implementation Regulations of the 4th Amendment of the Chinese Patent Law: Part 3: The 15-Day Mailing Period is Mostly Going Away

2024年2月28日
A Closer Look at the New Presumed Receipt Date Calculation Background China has finally released the long-awaited Patent Law Implementation Regulations (“Regulations”) and associated "Patent Examination Guidelines" (“Guidelines”, similar to the United States' MPEP) which provide further clarity and details of the new Chinese patent law. Today’s article will focus on changes that impact how […]

CHINA DIVISIONAL PATENT STRATEGY: Recent Judgment Narrows What Constitutes “Different Inventions” for Divisionals

2021年12月6日
In China, patents applicants take advantage of a commonly-used divisional filing strategy to achieve a fine-tuned balance between protection scope and protection period (if used properly). Patent applicants (especially foreign applicants) widely welcome this well-established strategy, and up until now, have used it with much success. In fact, we recommend this strategy and have even […]

Twice the Trouble: Unraveling a Single Case of Dual Patent and Trademark Infringement

2024年1月9日
Can a rights holder sue the same infringer separately based on one single infringing act that infringes both trademark and patent rights? An interesting case this year from China’s Supreme People’s Court that addresses this specific issue ((2023)最高法知民终235号). Beijing Run De Hong Tu Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Run De Hong Tu”) sued an individual named […]

我们的过去活动

Top crossarrow-right