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
First ever Invalidation decision on an RNAi Invention patent in China
2023年12月4日
Decision on Examination of Request for Invalidation (No. 58530) In one of China’s Top 10 Patent Re-examination / Invalidation cases of 2022, an invalidation decision on a patent claiming Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) RNAi compositions (No. 58530) by the Patent Re-examination Board (the “Board”) sheds light on the standard for post filing data for rejections […]
閱讀更多 >
Hong Kong Launches New Original Grant Patent System
2019年12月17日
Hong Kong will be launching a new patent system on December 19, 2019 that includes key changes, most notably the introduction of an original grant patent system. This new patent system includes both the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 and the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019. Currently, there are two types of patent applications available in […]
閱讀更多 >
Finally a unified “Court of Appeal” for technology IP in China
2019年1月22日
On October 26, 2018, China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) received approval to establish a specialized intellectual property court within the SPC to handle appeal cases involving technology-related IP for both civil (e.g., patent infringement) and administrative (e.g., patent invalidity) judgments. Technology-related IP includes invention patents, utility models, new plant species, IC design, trade secret, software, […]
閱讀更多 >
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 […]
閱讀更多 >
我們過去活動
Jennifer Che has been Recognized in IAM Strategy 300 Global Leaders 2026
2025年11月26日
Jennifer Che has been Recognized as IAM Global Leaders 2026
2025年11月4日
Eagle IP is Coming to San Francisco and Washington DC!
2025年10月15日
Jennifer Che has been listed on the IAM Strategy 300
2025年8月15日
Eagle IP Recognized as Top Tier Firm (Tier 1) for Patent Prosecution in IP Stars 2025 Patent Firms Ranking List
2025年7月3日
Dr. Jacqueline Lui, Ms. Pauli Wong, and Mr. Eddie Ho Named Patent Stars by ManagingIP
