中国Court CasesInvalidationPharma
2018年12月4日

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
Other Top 10 Cases summarized in this blog
Can Post Filing Data Overcome Inventive Step in China? How to craft allowable claim scope around sequences to comply with China’s strict written description requirements
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]

其他文章

China Top 50 Case of 2019: How a Functional Feature is Construed Greatly Impacts Protection Scope - Shimano KK v. SENSAH

2020年7月20日
Every year in the spring The Supreme People’s Court of PRC announces its “Top 10 Intellectual Property (IP) cases” and “50 typical IP cases in Chinese courts” of the year. Although not having precedential weight, these cases serve as a reference and guide people's courts at all levels regarding their intellectual property trials. It’s always […]

Miss the 12-month Filing Deadline? China Finally Allows Patent Applicants to Restore, Add, or Correct a Priority Claim

2024年4月15日
Three major 'remedial’ systems taken from the PCT Regulations have been introduced in the third revision of the Implementation Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law in 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the "Implementation Regulations"). We previously discussed one of these remedial systems, Incorporation by Reference based on Rule 45 of the Implementation Regulations, which allows […]

Foreign companies transferring IP out of China: things to know

2018年10月25日
Inventions made in China Most foreign companies with R&D sites in China are aware of the fact that inventors having inventions made in China have to obtain permission before they can file patent applications outside of China for these Chinese inventions. It doesn’t matter if the owner of the business is a foreign entity. Patent […]

SPC Upholds $2M RMB Award in China’s First Patent Case on a Biological Deposit

2022年7月4日
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 […]

我们的过去活动

Top crossarrow-right