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
China Hands Down First Batch of Patent Linkage “Paragraph IV” Litigation Results
2022年6月30日
China has been implementing a plethora of new laws and measures that are particularly favorable to drug companies, such as patent term extension and patent linkage. Details of the new implementation measures for patent linkage (technically “early dispute resolution mechanisms for drug patents”) came into effect on July 4, 2021. At around the same time, […]
阅读更多 >
Is it Sufficient to Claim an Antibody only by Describing its Antigen?
2018年11月12日
Things may be brewing with respect to antibody inventions. Just how much description is sufficient? After losing in the Federal Circuit, Amgen has decided to ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in on a standard that could vastly influence the pharmaceutical and biotech industry. The story relates to Repatha™, an LDL-lowering drug from Amgen […]
阅读更多 >
Stay Ahead: Getting a Chinese Patent in Three Months?
2024年4月23日
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced a significant development in the realm of patent prosecution: the initiation of the "PPH Improvement Initiative" in collaboration with key patent offices from the United States, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. This initiative aims to elevate the user experience of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) by […]
阅读更多 >
What Kind of Damage Awards Can You Get in China?
2022年6月16日
Is it worth filing for a patent in China? What kind of damage awards can you get? Pharma companies care more about injunction than damage awards, since it’s quite unlikely that any damage award can compensate for the large amounts of money that may be lost for patent infringement. Chinese courts often issue injunctions in […]
阅读更多 >
我们的过去活动
Dr. Jacqueline Lui, Ms. Pauli Wong, and Mr. Eddie Ho Named Patent Stars by ManagingIP
2025年6月13日
Eagle IP Ranked Among Top Tier Firms in IAM Patent 1000
2025年6月12日
Jennifer Che from Eagle IP to Attend BIO 2025 in Boston!
2025年6月11日
Insights from HKSTP Market Discovery - BIO Connect
2025年5月28日
HKMHDIA Medical Fair Forum
2025年5月27日
Celebrating Innovation at the Asia Summit for Global Health
