Brief introduction to the case:

In March 2019, Beijing Unitalen Law Office accepted the entrustment of Beijing Zulin Formwork & Scaffolding Co., Ltd. and filed a request for invalidation of the patent for invention entitled "Gate slot construction method and device for gate" of the patent ZL201310018684.3. In the invalidation procedure, with sufficient favorable evidence and invalidation reasons, Unitalen explained in detail that the patent involved did not meet the authorization conditions to the CNIPA. The CNIPA issued No. 41305 Decision for Invalidation on July 31, 2019, declaring all the patent rights involved invalid. The specific reasons are as follows:

The technical solutions claimed in Claims 1-13 are unclear and do not comply with the provision of Article 26, Para.4 of the Chinese Patent Law. Accordingly, the Description does not give a clear and complete explanation to the technical solutions claimed in Claims 1-13, which does not comply with the provision of Article 26, Para.3 of the Chinese Patent Law.

The patentee Chengdu Alang Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept the Decision for Invalidation and filed an administrative litigation to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim on July 28, 2020.

Recently, Unitalen Law Office received the final judgment of the Supreme People's Court on the second instance of the case, which upheld the above Decision for Invalidation, and determined all claims of the patent involved invalid for not complying with Article 26, Para.3 and Article 26, Para.4 of the Chinese Patent Law.

Comments made by the attorney:

This case is an exemplary case in which the formal reasons in Article 26, Para.3 and Article 26, Para.4 of the Chinese Patent Law are applied to successfully invalidate the patent right for invention. From the invalidation stage to the first and second instance of the administrative litigation, Unitalen always insists that the subject of judging whether the claim is clear and whether the Description is clear and complete should be those skilled in the art with corresponding knowledge and ability, instead of the patentee himself, helping the customer win the final victory of this case.