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. […]
閱讀更多 >
AI is magical but NOT magic! Be specific in your AI patents!
2025年1月9日
What is the standard of sufficient disclosure for AI-related patents: A case study in China The rapid growth of AI patent applications present significant challenges to existing patent application and examination practices. One of them is satisfying the requirement for sufficient disclosure. The following case was featured in the 2023 CNIPA Compilation of Key Decisions […]
閱讀更多 >
BREAKING NEWS: New Pilot Program for Hong Kong Applicants to get Accelerated Patent Examination in the Chinese Patent Office Starting January 1, 2023
2023年1月4日
New year, new resolutions! The CNIPA has recently announced a pilot program that provides Hong Kong applicants the opportunity to expedite their patent applications filed in China. Starting 1 Jan 2023, Hong Kong permanent residents and entities legally registered in Hong Kong can request prioritized examination for their invention patent applications before the CNIPA. To […]
閱讀更多 >
China’s Newest Examination Guidelines: Post-Filing Supplemental Data for Compounds (Part I)
2021年4月28日
Post-filing data in China has been a constant issue for many patent practitioners around the world. Examiners seem to require it often, and yet the rules regarding when it is acceptable have seemed much stricter than other jurisdictions worldwide. In fact, we tried to summarize the latest state of the law in an earlier blog […]
閱讀更多 >
我們過去活動
Jennifer Che Once Again Named to the IAM Strategy 300
2026年8月21日
Yolanda Wang attended the 1st China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference
2026年7月22日
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
