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
Stealing Trade Secrets: How the Chinese Court Criminally Sentences Employees that Steal Trade Secrets - 2019 China’s Top 50 Representative IP Cases
2020年6月11日
The theft of trade secrets has always been a deep concern of foreign companies thinking of doing business in China, whether it be sharing protocols with a manufacturing partner, providing technology details to a potential investor, or sharing results from an R&D collaboration. How can businesses ensure that employees do not steal secrets and share […]
閱讀更多 >
A Detailed Dive into China’s New Patent Term Extension Provisions
2020年12月11日
This article is a part of a larger article that highlights the newest draft implementation rules of the new Chinese Patent Law. This particular article takes a detailed dive into the patent term extension/adjustment provisions. One of the biggest and most exciting provisions in the newly amended patent law is patent term extension for delay […]
閱讀更多 >
First Ever Successful Invalidation Challenge Due to Unauthorized Foreign Filing
2023年3月8日
What does an invention “completed” in China mean? China and the US are similar in that both countries highly value national security, and thus have rules regulating the exportation of technology and information from within their borders. This includes new inventions that arise from within their respective borders. As such, both governments require inventors who […]
閱讀更多 >
Foreigners Beware: China Proposes Requiring IP Made Using Exported Chinese Genetic Resources to be Co-Owned by Chinese Collaborators
2023年3月22日
Proposed Examination Guidelines for the New Chinese Patent Law – Topic 2: Genetic Resource Restriction How Will the Tightened Genetic Resource Restrictions Affect Your IP In 2019-2021, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOST”, or the Science Ministry) established several laws and regulations with respect to biosafety1 and human genetic resources management2 (collectively referred as […]
閱讀更多 >
我們過去活動
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
