亚洲中文字幕日产无码2020,国产精品186在线观看在线播放,久久婷婷五月综合色99啪ak,国产精品麻豆aⅴ人妻

Unitalen Helped FAMALINADA Won the Patent Invalidation Administrative Litigation of Second Instance – A Typical Case of Determining Inventiveness with Absence of Technical Inspiration

June 15, 2020

Backgrounds

The patentee FAMALINADA applied for an invention patent for "Chair Massager" (hereinafter referred to as “the patent involved”) on July 14, 2008, and was granted on February 25, 2015.

A third party, Shanghai Rongtai, filed the request for invalidation of the patent involved for the reasons such as unclear patent claims, lack of novelty and inventiveness, citing 9 pieces of evidence for evaluation of novelty and inventiveness. In response, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) held that all claims were not inventive and declared invalidation of the patent involved.

In refusal, FAMALINADA initiated an administrative lawsuit in the Beijing IP Court of the first instance. The Beijing IP Court upheld the invalidation decision made by the SIPO and ruled to dismiss the claims made by FAMALINADA.

FAMALINADA then appealed to the Supreme People's Court against the judgement of the first instance.

Court Decision

Recently, the Supreme People's Court ruled that: Famei Li's appeal request for the patent in question was established, and the State Intellectual Property Office Review Committee and Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the invalidation decision on the ground that the patent in question was invalid and should be invalid. The first-instance judgment is wrong in applying the law and should be revoked. At this point, with the unremitting efforts of Famei and Jijia, Jijia's agent issued the Meili case and won the case!

Comments

In the litigation concerning patent right determination, the patent inventiveness is the most controversial issue and the key to determine this is on how to determine whether there is a technical inspiration in the technical prior art. This case is controversial on this too.

In the Supreme Court’s judgement, it’s held that technical inspiration refers to the existence of specific guidance in the prior art, prompting ordinary technical staff in the field to refer to that guidance so as improve the closest prior art when they are in face of an objective technical issue, and thus obtain the invention and realize the technical solution of the invention. The underlying definition of the inspiration that can be learnt by the ordinary technical staff in the filed from the prior art shall be those specific and clear technical means, rather than abstract ideas or general research directions.

In addition, in this judgment, the Supreme Court expressed a negative attitude toward the “judgement in hindsight" that is commonly found in the process of determining patent right. In other words, when judging the inventiveness, after reading the technical solution of this patent, one should not assume that the difference between this patent and the prior art is an improvement that can be easily imagined, instead, it shall be judged with respect to the existence of clear and specific inspiration.

 

Keywords

主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产欧美日韩视频一区二区三区| 日韩性爱视频| 国产超碰女人任你爽| 丰满人妻无码∧v区视频| 久久人人爽人人人人片| 97人妻免费公开在线视频| 国产超爽人人爽人人做人人爽| 特级西西人体444www高清大胆| 99久久精品费精品国产一区二区| 欧美综合自拍亚洲图久青草| 国产在线精品一区二区三区| 婷婷综合另类小说色区| 午夜无码片在线观看影视| 成熟丰满熟妇高潮xxxxx | 无码刺激a片一区二区三区| 欧美另类高清zo欧美| 最新中文字幕av无码专区| 胸大美女又黄的网站| 97色伦97色伦国产| 中文字幕日韩欧美一区二区三区| 欧美日韩无线码在线观看| 2020狠狠狠狠久久免费观看| 小??伸进???网站| 色婷婷狠狠97成为人免费| 久久频这里精品99香蕉| 又黄又爽又色视频免费| 亚洲成a∨人片在线观看不卡 | 国产无遮挡18禁无码网站免费| 日韩国产综合精选| 亚洲国产精品无码java| 色偷偷av老熟女| 国产一区二区三区内射高清| 青草久久人人97超碰| 国产精品亚洲a∨天堂| 久久精品99无色码中文字幕| 亚洲乱码中文字幕手机在线| 亚洲色精品vr一区二区| 无码综合天天久久综合网| 无码一卡二卡三卡四卡| 久久天天躁夜夜躁狠狠 ds005.com| 激情内射亚州一区二区三区爱妻|