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
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 […]
阅读更多 >
New Remedy in China for Fixing "Errors" in a Patent Application: Incorporation by Reference
2024年3月21日
Background As mentioned in our earlier article, the Implementation Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law (“Regulations”, similar to the CFR in the US) were approved in November, and the CNIPA finally made public the full text of the Regulations just before the arrival of the New Year. At the same time, the CNIPA also released the new […]
阅读更多 >
US vs CN: Foreign Filing License Requirements
2022年11月9日
In China, foreign filing requirements are generally very similar to the US — a foreign filing license is required if a foreign application is to be filed first for an invention made in the country. The Chinese equivalent to the US foreign filing license is called a confidentiality examination for foreign filing. According to Chinese […]
阅读更多 >
From Faces to Football Fields: How Applying AI Models to Different Application Fields Can Prove Inventive in China
2025年10月21日
As AI models become versatile and adaptable across multiple contexts and industries, questions about inventive step sit at the heart of patent examination in China. The 2023 Patent Examination Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as 'the Guidelines') included several sessions dedicated to explaining how inventive step should be examined for AI-related inventions, featuring examples related to […]
阅读更多 >
我们的过去活动
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
2026年6月5日
Eagle IP Achieves Top Ranking in 2026 IAM Patent 1000
2026年6月2日
Eagle IP to Participate in AIPLA 2026 Spring Meeting in San Francisco
2026年5月8日
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
2026年5月8日
Eagle IP to Attend INTA 2026 Annual Meeting in London
