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

New Policies to Promote Importation of Innovative Drugs

2018年11月8日
At the April 12, 2018 executive meeting of the State Council in China, Premier Mr. Li Keqiang indicated the government’s desire to increase China’s access to innovative drugs. To achieve this, the government would encourage importation of innovative drugs into China by streamlining the regulatory pathway, enhancing IP protection, and lowering the cost of medicine. […]

SPC Upholds $2M RMB Award in China’s First Patent Case on a Biological Deposit

2022年7月4日
On 28 Feb 2022, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its annual “Judgment Digests”, which includes a list of “48 typical cases” highlighting representative SPC decisions in 2021. The Judgment Digests help us understand more about the SPC’s judicial ideology, trial concepts, and adjudication methods in dealing with difficult and sophisticated legal issues as well […]

Burden Shift: CNIPA Requires Applicant to “Prove” that Post-Filing Data is not Fake Data

2025年4月1日
“Good Faith” is a challenging concept that brings with it the nuances of a particular jurisdiction’s ideas about honesty, moral values, and societal expectations. Most patent laws around the world include good faith requirements – especially in matters involving the legal and the medical profession – and China is no exception. So what’s the standard? […]

What is the difference between an Invention Patent and a Utility Model Patent?

2021年8月13日
There are two types of patent protection in China. Invention patents (similar to a US utility patent) have a term of 20 years from the date of filing and may be granted for both methods and products. Utility model patents (similar to a petty patent) may be granted in China for technical solutions that relate […]

我們過去活動

Top crossarrow-right