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 Proposes New Examination Guidelines for Utility Models
2022年11月24日
The Utility Model (UM) in China has always been a popular choice for patent filing due to its relatively low cost and speed of prosecution. The UM prosecution only includes a preliminary examination, which is essentially a mini (stripped down) version of an invention application’s substantive examination.1 With the simplified examination process, UMs are typically […]
阅读更多 >
A Stratification Too Far? How the CNIPA Draws the Line on Patient Subgroups in a Recent Precision Medicine Invalidation Case
2026年2月27日
Precision medicine is rapidly transforming the global healthcare landscape, providing more effective therapies and better patient outcomes through targeted solutions. As therapeutics move away from the traditional “one-size-fits-all” model, unique challenges are presented in the patent examination process. The 2024 Top 10 Patent Re-examination and Invalidation case highlighted below provides further insight into how the […]
阅读更多 >
Beijing Supreme People’s Court Upholds Novo Nordisk Semaglutide Patent in China based on Post-Filing Data
2026年1月23日
On December 31, 2025, The Supreme People's Court upheld the Beijing IP Court's decision, meaning that the semaglutide patent remains valid and will expire on March 20, 2026. Novo Nordisk announced this positive news via a press release on the day the case was decided. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce has also confirmed this decision […]
阅读更多 >
The Secret Prior Art Trap: A Case Study on Conflicting Applications in China
2025年11月13日
In patent prosecution, the concept of a "conflicting application" or “secret prior art” plays a critical role in determining the patentability of an invention. This article explores the framework for assessing conflicting applications under Chinese patent law, with a comparative perspective on the approaches adopted in the United States. Case Background: The Image Encoding Dispute […]
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
