中國Court CasesInvalidationInventionsPharma
2018年11月19日

Can Post Filing Data Overcome Inventive Step in China?

Since 2010, the 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.

Post Filing Data in China

Can post-filing data showing unexpected technical effect be used to overcome inventive step if the specification contains no data but asserts the unexpected technical effect?
In short, the answer is no, post-filing data cannot be used to overcome inventive step even if the idea was asserted if the original data was not in the application. Novartis’s Chinese patent (201110029600.7) claimed the combination of AT 1-antagonist valsartan and NEP inhibitor Sacubitril. The specification asserted that the combination of the two drugs had synergistic effect, yet provided no data at the time of filing. The PRB sided with petitioner Dai Jinliang and argued that one of skill in the art could not predict that the combination would be synergistic without experimental data. In other words, applicants had not solved the technical problem of providing a pharmaceutical combination with synergistic effects. At most, applicants had provided a pharmaceutical composition for treating hypertension. In January of 2018, the PRB declared that the Novartis patent was invalid. In our experience, if experimental data is in the application as filed but another piece of prior art is cited during prosecution, the applicant may submit post-filing data showing results of comparison studies with the newly discovered art, provided that the original data for applicant’s invention was already disclosed in the application as filed. About the Author
Jennifer Che, J.D. is a US Patent Attorney and Vice President and Partner at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau. [email protected] This article is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice or a legal opinion on a specific set of facts.

其他文章

Twice the Trouble: Unraveling a Single Case of Dual Patent and Trademark Infringement

2024年1月9日
Can a rights holder sue the same infringer separately based on one single infringing act that infringes both trademark and patent rights? An interesting case this year from China’s Supreme People’s Court that addresses this specific issue ((2023)最高法知民终235号). Beijing Run De Hong Tu Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Run De Hong Tu”) sued an individual named […]

Breaking News: China passes Fourth Amendment to the Chinese Patent Law

2020年10月19日
After 12 years, the Fourth Amendment to the Chinese Patent Law has passed and will be in effect on 1 Jun 2021. After years of multiple draft amendments that moved in various directions, we FINALLY have some clarity on what patent protection is going to look like in China in the coming future. Many of […]

IP Strategies for the Newly Released Implementation Regulations of the 4th Amendment of the Chinese Patent Law: Part 2: Grace Period without Loss of Novelty

2024年2月7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 […]

Compositions Limited by Use: A Cautionary Tale

2022年10月26日
Section 4.2.3, Part II Chapter 10 of the CNIPA’s Examination Guidelines (“Guidelines”) stipulates that if the specification only discloses one property or use of a composition, the composition claim shall be drafted as a “composition limited by the function or the use”. Furthermore, it specifically states that “most pharmaceutical claims shall be drafted as claims […]

我們過去活動

Top crossarrow-right