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
What Microsoft’s Recent Patent Invalidation Case in China Teaches Us About User Interface Patents
2026年1月29日
Each year the CNIPA publishes its Top Ten Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Cases for the previous year. These cases are meant to be guiding cases, showcasing exemplary real-world decisions that clarify certain aspects of the law. Today we’ll be sharing about one of the Top 10 Invalidation Cases in 2024 involving Microsoft (China) Co., Ltd. […]
阅读更多 >
Can I transfer priority rights in China without the consent of other applicants? Insights from the Broad Institute’s CRISPR patent
2025年2月4日
The high-profile disputes surrounding an important CRISPR patent belonging to The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard (hereinafter “the proprietors”) has attracted a lot of attention in recent years, particularly regarding the validity of priority rights that were challenged worldwide. In Europe, the patent was famously revoked by the European Patent Office (hereinafter “EPO”) due to […]
阅读更多 >
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 […]
阅读更多 >
Please “Mind the Traps”: Four Common Misconceptions About Hong Kong Patents
2026年4月13日
For many foreign companies interested in the broader Asian market, Hong Kong is a strategically important jurisdiction. However, because of its unique legal framework, domestic and foreign companies alike are confused by how IP protection works in Hong Kong. Missteps in such understanding can lead to critical, costly "gaps" in IP protection. To safeguard innovations […]
阅读更多 >
我们的过去活动
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
2026年5月2日
Eagle IP’s Jennifer Che to Attend LSPN North America Spring 2026 in Boston
2026年4月29日
Pauli Wong to Share IP Strategy Insights at HKLSS Entrepreneurship Series 2026
2026年4月25日
Eagle IP and HKSTP Host AIPLA Women in IP Global Networking Event
