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
Foreigners Beware: China Proposes Requiring IP Made Using Exported Chinese Genetic Resources to be Co-Owned by Chinese Collaborators
2023年3月22日
Proposed Examination Guidelines for the New Chinese Patent Law – Topic 2: Genetic Resource Restriction How Will the Tightened Genetic Resource Restrictions Affect Your IP In 2019-2021, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOST”, or the Science Ministry) established several laws and regulations with respect to biosafety1 and human genetic resources management2 (collectively referred as […]
阅读更多 >
Hong Kong Launches New Original Grant Patent System
2019年12月17日
Hong Kong will be launching a new patent system on December 19, 2019 that includes key changes, most notably the introduction of an original grant patent system. This new patent system includes both the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 and the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019. Currently, there are two types of patent applications available in […]
阅读更多 >
CHINA: How Prohibiting "Illegal" Inventions Runs into Food Safety Law
2021年10月22日
Chinese Patent Law has an interesting provision that specifically prohibits patent protection on “illegal” or “immoral” inventions. What does this mean, exactly? According to Article 5.1 of the Chinese Patent Law, “no patent shall be granted for an invention that contravenes any law or social moral or that is detrimental to public interests.” On its […]
阅读更多 >
How will Civil Cases Work under the Patent Linkage Provision in the New Chinese Patent Law?
2020年11月20日
The Supreme People’s Court has just issued draft regulations for comment regarding how new Article 76 will work in conjunction with civil procedure law. The period to submit comments ends December 14, 2020, and the final version will come into force June 1, 2021, together with the new Chinese Patent Law. The Backdrop: New Chinese […]
阅读更多 >
我们的过去活动
Pauli Wong gave a talk at Hong Kong Life Sciences Society (HKLSS)
2026年10月10日
BioHK2026 | Biotech IP in practice
2026年9月16日
Jennifer Che Once Again Named to the IAM Strategy 300
2026年8月21日
Yolanda Wang attended the 1st China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference
2026年7月22日
Pauli Wong as a Guest speaker for “Entrepreneurial Workshop” in Poly U
2026年6月16日
Eagle IP Recognized as Top Tier Firm (Tier 1) for Patent Prosecution in IP Stars 2026 Patent Firms Ranking List
