Biotech中國prosecution
2020年1月9日

Diagnostic Claims in China

The Chinese Patent Law excludes patenting methods of diagnosing or treating a disease. More specifically, this refers to processes of identifying, determining, or eliminating the cause or focus of diseases which are practiced directly on living human or animal bodies.

Please keep in mind that instruments used for implementing these methods are still patentable.

So what constitutes a diagnostic method that would be excluded from patent protection? It must meet the following two criteria:

  • It is practiced on a living human or animal body
  • Its immediate purpose is to obtain the diagnostic result of a disease or health condition

Living Human or Animal Body

This first requirement means that, for example, methods of pathological anatomy that are practiced on cadavers would be patent eligible. As long as the method is not used to obtain information from a living human or animal, the invention can be patented in China.

Immediate Purpose

This second requirement involves more complex analysis. The language states that a method cannot be patented if its immediate purpose is to obtain a diagnostic result of a disease or health condition. But what does “immediate” mean?

In general, methods of obtaining information that directly diagnoses a patient’s disease or a health condition would fall under this criteria. Examples such as methods of measuring blood pressure, taking a pulse, using X-ray to diagnose a disease, predicting the therapeutic efficacy of a disease, or identifying a disease using gene screening, would all fall under this category.

Intermediate Result

On the other hand, if the result that is obtained from a living body is only an intermediate result, and still needs to be further processed or combined with other information before a diagnostic or health result can be achieved, then it may not fall under the umbrella of patent-ineligible subject matter.

For example, a method of measuring the alcohol level in saliva could be patent-eligible. Why? Having high alcohol levels in saliva is not per se a disease. In this case, in order to reach a medical diagnosis, an additional step of determining blood alcohol level using the saliva alcohol level is required. As a result, the saliva alcohol level is considered an intermediate result.

On the contrary, a method of directly measuring blood alcohol level is not patent eligible because the high blood alcohol is itself a medical diagnosis of a recognized health condition or disease, thus making that particular method patent-ineligible.

Examples of methods that the Re-examination Board has confirmed as being patent-eligible during a re-examination decision include, for example, a method of measuring vitamin B6 in body fluid (CN101730744B); a method of measuring the resonant frequency of a blood sample (CN101713775B); and a method of measuring nucleic acid concentration (CN101089196B).

In all of the above examples, the result obtained by the claimed method only provides an intermediate result that still needs to undergo at least another step in order to provide a final medical diagnosis. As long as the final result is not directly indicative of a disease per se, there is a reasonable argument that the claim is patent eligible.

Conclusion

Evidently, there is a large grey area when it comes to determining what is (or is not) considered a disease, what is considered “another step” (would a mental step count?), and what is a considered “direct result” versus an “intermediate result”. The safest approach is to craft multiple types of claims, including both method claims as well as Swiss-style claims (which are much more acceptable in China), as backup positions.

A robust and complete patent strategy takes all of these factors into account and weighs the various risk factors to identify the best overall approach.

Jennifer Che, J.D. is Vice President and Principal at Eagle IP, a Boutique Patent Firm with offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Macau.
[email protected]

This blog post 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

How Far Can an Employer Reach to Own Employee-made “Service Inventions”?

2020年7月30日
2019 China’s Top 50 Representative IP Cases Shenzhen Weibang Technology Co. Ltd v. Li Jianyi & Shenzhen Yuancheng Intelligence Equipment Co. Ltd (2019最高法民申6342号) Each year in China there are hundreds of disputes over patent ownership.  A significant part of them are related to “Service Inventions”, which are defined in Article 6 of the Chinese Patent […]

A More Detailed Overview of China’s Patent Term Extension (PTE) System

2024年6月17日
Although PTE has been in the Chinese Patent Law since the 4th Amendment of the law came into effect June 1, 2021, we didn’t really know the exact details of how it operated until the Implementation Regulations and Examination Guidelines (“Implementation Regulations”) were finally released in December 2023. New Rules 77-84 in the Implementation Regulations […]

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? […]

How a Secondhand Ground Brush Wiped Away a Chinese Patent

2024年12月4日
A Chinese robot vacuum company digs up “hidden evidence” to successfully invalidate a patent owned by its biggest competitor.  Highlights Background  With the growth of online shopping, it is easier than ever to provide evidence of a sale when the product is still being sold on the market. But what if the product is no […]

我們過去活動

Top crossarrow-right