In this issue:
2025年世界知识产权日主题:知识产权和音乐：感受知识产权的节拍
Theme of World Intellectual Property Day 2025: IP and music: Feel the beat of IP
世界知识产权组织邀请所有成员国和利益攸关方共同庆祝2025年4月26日世界知识产权日。2025年世界知识产权日活动的主题是：知识产权和音乐：感受知识产权的节拍
The World Intellectual Property Organization invites all Member States and stakeholders to join in celebrating World Intellectual Property Day on April 26, 2025. The campaign theme of World Intellectual Property Day 2025 is IP and music: Feel the beat of IP
2025年世界知识产权日突出强调，在知识产权的支持下，创造和创新如何保持音乐界蓬勃发展，让世界各地的每个人都能从中受益。今年的“世界知识产权日”邀请我们探讨知识产权和创新政策如何为创作者、创新者和企业赋能，为音乐产业带来新创意，保护作词者、作曲者、表演者以及所有塑造感动我们的音乐的人的作品。
World Intellectual Property Day 2025 highlights how creativity and innovation, backed by IP rights, keep a thriving music scene that benefits everyone everywhere. This year's World IP Day invites us to explore how IP rights and innovation policies empower creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs to bring fresh ideas to the music industry, safeguarding the work of songwriters, composers, performers, and all those who shape the music that moves us.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
专利纠纷行政裁决和调解办法（局令第81号）
Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes (No. 81 Order of the CNIPA)
国家知识产权局令
第八十一号
No. 81
Order of the CNIPA
《专利纠纷行政裁决和调解办法》已经2024年12月13日第7次局务会议审议通过，现予公布，自2025年2月1日起施行。
The Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes have been deliberated and adopted at the 7th executive meeting on December 13, 2024, and are hereby promulgated and shall be effective from February 1, 2025, onwards.
局长 申长雨
2024年12月26日
Commissioner SHEN Changyu
December 26, 2024
其中，第十八条提到：
Among them, Article 18 provides:
十八条 请求人是外国人的，办案人员应当要求其提交所在国公证机关公证的有效身份证明，并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆予以认证，拒不提供的，不予受理。委托代理人的，提交的中华人民共和国外形成的授权委托书应当经所在国公证机关证明并经中华人民共和国驻该国使领馆认证。中华人民共和国缔结的有关条约中对证明手续另有规定的，从其规定。
Article 18 If the petitioner is a foreigner, the case adjudicator shall require them to submit a valid identity certificate notarized by the notary office of their country and authenticated by the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in that country. The application will not be accepted if they refuse to provide the documents. If they entrust an agent, the submitted power of attorney formed abroad shall be notarized by the notary office of the petitioner's country and authenticated by the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in that country. If there are specific provisions in relevant treaties regarding certification procedures between the People's Republic of China and the petitioner's country, the specific provisions should prevail.
在境内签署的授权委托书，在办案人员见证下签署或者经中华人民共和国公证机构公证签署的，应予认可。获得在中国永久居留资格的外国人，其所持外国人永久居留证件为有效身份证明。
The power of attorney signed in the People's Republic of China territory shall be recognized if it is signed in the presence of the case adjudicator or notarized by a notary organ of the People's Republic of China. For foreigners who have obtained permanent residence status in China, the foreigner's permanent residence document they hold is a valid identity document.
请求已经受理的，管理专利工作的部门可以要求请求人在指定期限内补充提供相关资料，期满无正当理由仍未提供的，可以依法撤销案件。
If the petition has been accepted, the department in charge of patent affairs may require the petitioner to provide relevant supplementary materials within a specified time limit. If the petitioner fails to provide the materials without any justified reasons after the expiration of the time limit, the case may be lawfully revoked.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
国家知识产权局行政复议规程（局令第82号）
CNIPA's Administrative Review Regulations (No. 82 Order of the CNIPA)
国家知识产权局令
第八十二号
No. 82
Order of the CNIPA
《国家知识产权局行政复议规程》已经2024年12月13日第7次局务会议审议通过，现予公布，自2025年2月1日起施行。
The CNIPA's Administrative Review Regulations have been deliberated and adopted at the 7th executive meeting on December 13, 2024, and are hereby promulgated and shall be effective from February 1, 2025 onwards.
局长 申长雨
2024年12月30日
Commissioner SHEN Changyu
December 30, 2024
其中，第四十二条提到：
Among them, Article 42 provides:
第四十二条 外国人、无国籍人、外国组织在中华人民共和国境内向国家知识产权局申请行政复议，适用本规程。
Article 42 If foreigners, stateless persons, or foreign organizations apply for administrative review to the CNIPA in the People's Republic of China territory, the Regulations shall be applied.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
中国国家市场监管总局 国家知识产权局印发《商标行政执法证据规定》
SAMR and CNIPA Jointly Publish the Trademark Administrative Enforcement Evidence Provisions
为了加强商标行政执法指导，规范证据的收集、审查和认定，制定本规定。
The Provisions are formulated to strengthen guidance on trademark administrative enforcement and standardize the collection, examination, and determination of evidence.
其中，第十五条提到：
Among them, Article 15 provides:
第十五条 域外证据主要是指在中华人民共和国领域外形成的公文书证，国外权利人的主体资格、授权文书、身份证明等身份关系的证据，以及其他与案件事实有关的证据，既包括当事人提供的域外证据也包括办案机关通过有关渠道从域外收集、获取的证据。
Article 15 Evidence formed abroad mainly means public documentary evidence formed beyond the territory of the People's Republic of China, evidence of identity relations such as the subjective qualification, authorization documents, and identity certificates of a foreign rights holder, and other evidence related to the facts of cases, including both evidence formed abroad provided by the party concerned and evidence collected and obtained from abroad by the case-handling organ through the relevant channels.
域外证据应当注明来源，并履行中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约中规定的证明手续；在中华人民共和国香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区和台湾地区形成的证据，应当按照有关规定履行证明手续。
Evidence formed abroad shall indicate its source and be subject to the certification procedures stipulated in international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China. For evidence formed in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region, and Taiwan Region of the People's Republic of China, the certification procedures shall be fulfilled as stipulated in relevant regulations.
域外证据涉及的外文书证或者外国语视听资料，应当附有由具有翻译资质的机构翻译的或者其他翻译准确的中文译本，由翻译机构盖章或者翻译人员签名。
Documentary evidence or audio-visual materials in a foreign language involved in evidence formed abroad shall be accompanied by a Chinese translation provided by an agency with translation qualifications or other Chinese translations that are accurate, and authenticated by the translation agency's seal or the translator's signature.
附全文：商标行政执法证据规定
Attachment of the full text: Trademark Administrative Enforcement Evidence Provisions
（来源：中国国家市场监督管理总局网站）
(Source: website of the SAMR)
中国国家知识产权局修订七张专利申请请求类表格
CNIPA Revises Seven Patent Application Request Forms
为推进专利授权确权行政程序中的受送达权延及诉讼程序，针对行政诉讼中涉外当事人送达难的问题，国家知识产权局对《发明专利请求书》《实用新型专利请求书》等七张请求类表格的填表注意事项进行修订，增加“除非有相反声明，当事人在中国境内负责接收专利业务法律文件的接收人及其地址延及于后续行政诉讼程序”的表述。
To advance the extension of the right to receipt and service of legal documents to litigation proceedings in the administrative procedures of grant and confirmation of patents, and to address difficulties in service of legal documents to a foreign party involved in administrative litigation, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has revised the filling instructions for seven request forms, including the Invention Patent Request Form and the Utility Model Patent Request Form, by adding the instruction "Unless any statement to the contrary, the recipient of legal documents for patent business in the territory of PRC and the address of such recipient shall extend to administrative litigation procedures in the future."
现将修订后的请求类表格予以公告（见附件）。以上修订自2025年1月10日起启用，对应的旧版表格同时停止使用。本次修订不涉及客户端和电子申请数据标准规范调整。
The revised request forms are hereby announced (see the attachment). The above amendment will take effect from January 10, 2025, and the corresponding former versions of the forms will be discontinued simultaneously. This amendment does not involve any adjustments to the client-side and electronic application data standard specifications.
当前启用的专利纸件申请请求类表格，当事人均可以即时通过登录国家知识产权局网站（http://www.cnipa.gov.cn）“政务服务”专栏下的“表格下载”栏目查阅下载。
The current paper-based request forms for patent applications in force can be accessed and downloaded immediately by the party by logging in to the website of the CNIPA (http://www.cnipa.gov.cn) and navigating to the "Form Download" subsection under the "Government Services" column.
附件：修订的七张请求类表格
Attachment: the revised seven request forms
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
中巴（西）专利审查高速路（PPH） 试点项目延长
China and Brazil Extend PPH Pilot Program
近日，中国国家知识产权局和巴西工业产权局（INPI）共同决定，自2025年1月1日起继续延长中巴PPH试点项目，在两局提交PPH请求的有关要求和流程不变。
Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) have jointly decided to extend the CNIPA-INPI Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program starting from January 1, 2025. The established Guideline of CNIPA-INPI PPH Request continues to control the pertinent requirements and procedures governing applicants' PPH requests at the two offices.
根据INPI发布的信息，其PPH项目模式于2025年1月1日进入新阶段，每年接收来自其PPH所有合作方的PPH申请总量将上调至3200件，每季度不超过800件，国际专利分类(IPC)同一部（Section）下每年接收PPH申请总量上调至1000件，并取消每个申请人每周只能提交1件申请的限制；2025年第一季度INPI将不接收来自IPC分类号H04的PPH申请，并将在每个季度重新评估以确定接收的技术领域。
According to information released by INPI, its PPH program will enter a new phase starting January 1, 2025. The total annual number of PPH applications accepted from all its PPH cooperation partners will increase to 3,200, with no more than 800 applications received per quarter. Additionally, the total annual number of PPH applications accepted under the same International Patent Classification (IPC) Section will increase to 1,000. The restriction previously allowed each applicant to submit only one application per week will be lifted. Since the first quarter of 2025, INPI will not accept PPH applications under IPC classification H04. The accepted technical fields will be reassessed quarterly.
(来源：中国国家知识产权局网站)
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
集佳助力世界知名汽车动力总成制造商专利侵权纠纷得到实质性解决，达成全球和解
Unitalen Assisted a World-Renowned Automotive Powertrain Manufacturer in Substantially Resolving Patent Infringement Disputes, Achieving a Global Settlement
基本案情
Case Brief
A公司是全球知名的汽车动力总成独立制造商，总部位于比利时，以比利时、荷兰和中国为主要研发和生产基地。A公司是两项涉及“双离合变速器（Dual Clutch Transmission，简称DCT）技术”的发明专利权的专利权人。
Company A is a globally renowned independent automotive powertrain manufacturer, with headquarters in Belgium and has main R&D and production centers in Belgium, Netherlands, and China. Company A is the patentee of two invention patents related to "Dual Clutch Transmission (referred to as DCT) Technology."
B公司是全球最大的私家车和商务车传动系统生产商之一，总部位于德国，为国际知名整车厂如奔驰、法拉利、奥迪、宝马、沃尔沃、福特、通用等提供汽车传动系统产品或技术。B公司是全球最大的汽车零部件制造商之一的加拿大公司M旗下的子公司之一。
Company B is one of the world's largest producers of transmission systems for private and commercial vehicles, with headquarters in Germany, and provides automotive transmission system products or technologies to internationally renowned Original Equipment Manufacturers such as Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari, Audi, BMW, Volvo, Ford, and General Motors. Company B is one of the subsidiaries of Canadian company M, which is one of the world's largest automotive component manufacturers.
C公司为国内某知名企业，是被控侵权产品在中国大陆的制造商、销售商，C公司的双离合变速器技术来源于B公司的授权。
Company C is a well-known enterprise in China, which is the manufacturer and seller of the alleged infringing products in the Chinese Mainland. Company C's dual-clutch transmission technology stems from Company B's license.
2022年8月起至2023年9月，A公司向C公司发送关于专利侵权纠纷的告知函，告知其制造、销售的两款双离合变速器产品涉嫌侵犯其享有的两项发明专利权，要求就产品的专利使用费问题进行协商。
From August 2022 to September 2023, Company A sent notification letters regarding the patent infringement dispute to Company C, pointing out that the two dual-clutch transmission products manufactured and sold by Company C were suspected of infringing Company A's two invention patents and requesting negotiations on patent royalties for the products.
2023年3月、10月及12月，集佳律师团队接受B公司及C公司的委托，就两款被控侵权产品进行审慎分析，向A公司出具了详细的不侵权分析意见。
In March, October, and December 2023, Unitalen's attorney team, under the commission by Company B and Company C, conducted a prudent analysis of the two alleged infringing products and issued a detailed non-infringement analysis report to Company A.
2023年11月，A公司依据分案专利、针对C公司及关联公司制造、销售的两款产品、向南京市中级人民法院提起两件专利侵权诉讼案件，索赔额分别为人民币2400万元和9500万元，连同维权开支费用，合计人民币1.2亿元。
In November 2023, on the basis of the patents of divisional applications, Company A filed two lawsuits of patent infringement with the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court against two products manufactured and sold by Company C and its affiliated companies. Company A claimed 120,000,000 yuan, including the damages of 24,000,000 yuan and 95,000,000 yuan, respectively, plus the costs for safeguarding its rights.
与此同时，A公司针对B公司就“双离合变速器（DCT）技术”在欧洲多地也提起了专利侵权纠纷案件。
Concurrently, Company A also filed multiple cases of patent infringement disputes against Company B regarding the "Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT) Technology" in Europe.
集佳律师团队在接受委托后，立即处理南京中院的两件民事侵权案件的应诉事宜、以及针对涉案发明专利权及关联发明专利权的无效宣告请求事宜。
After accepting the commission, Unitalen's attorney team immediately handled the matters pertaining to the defense of the two civil infringement cases in the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court and the matters of request for invalidation of the involved invention patents and associated invention patents.
2024年1月，集佳代理被诉主体C公司针对涉案专利权向国家知识产权局提出了无效宣告请求；2024年6月，集佳代理B公司针对涉案专利向国家知识产权局提出第二次无效宣告请求；2024年8月，集佳代理B公司针对涉案专利的母案专利权向国家知识产权局提出无效宣告请求。
In January 2024, Unitalen represented the defendant Company C in filing the request for invalidation of the involved patents with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). In June 2024, Unitalen represented Company B in filing the second request for invalidation of the involved patents with the CNIPA. In August 2024, Unitalen represented Company B in filing the request for invalidation of the parent patent of the involved patents with the CNIPA.
国家知识产权局复审和无效审理部于2024年6月、8月和10月分别针对上述专利无效案件组织口头审理。
The Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the CNIPA organized oral hearings for the above patent invalidation cases in June, August, and October 2024, respectively.
案件亮点
Highlights of the Case
1.集佳律师团队通过仔细调查涉案专利的全球同族专利信息，在针对涉案专利的第二次无效宣告请求案件中的证据6，其国际申请日为2011年4月20日，最早优先权日为2010年4月20日。集佳律师团队认为，其国际申请日和最早优先权日均早于涉案专利的最早优先权日2011年10月18日。涉案专利所要求的最早优先权并非专利法意义上的“首次申请”，故其相关权利要求不能享有优先权，从而使得证据6可作为现有技术用于评价涉案专利相关权利要求的新颖性和创造性。
1. Unitalen's attorney team has conducted a thorough investigation into the information of the global family patents of the involved patents. As found in the case of the second request for invalidation of the involved patents, Evidence 6 has an international filing date of April 20, 2011, and the earliest priority date of April 20, 2010. The Unitalen's attorney team asserts that both the international filing date and the earliest priority date of Evidence 6 are earlier than the earliest priority date of the involved patents, October 18, 2011. The earliest priority claimed by the involved patents is not a "first application" in the sense of the Chinese Patent Law. Therefore, the relevant claims of the involved patents are not entitled to priority. As a result, Evidence 6 can serve as the prior art for evaluating the novelty and inventive step of the relevant patents' relevant claims.
2.本案中，专利权人为了增加专利权被维持有效的可能性，多次修改和限缩权利要求的保护范围。专利权人针对无效宣告请求的多次修改，也凸显了集佳团队所提出的无效请求及证据对涉案专利权的重大威胁。
2. In the present case, in an effort to increase the likelihood of maintaining the patents valid, the patentee has made multiple amendments and limitations to the scope of protection of the claims. The patentee's multiple amendments in response to the request for invalidation also prominently manifest the significant threat to the involved patents posed by the request for invalidation and evidence, as presented by Unitalen's team.
3.为了防止专利权人在侵权诉讼和专利无效程序中两头得利、争取最有利的无效审查结果，在专利权人在侵权主张中对权利要求进行扩张性解释的情况下，基于诚实信用原则，无效请求人可以主张反向禁止反悔的适用。
3. To prevent the patentee from gaining an advantage in both infringement litigation and patent invalidation proceedings, and to strive for the most favorable invalidation examination output, under the circumstance that the patentee expansively interprets the claims in infringement allegations, the petitioner for invalidation, in the principle of good faith, can assert the application of the reverse doctrine of estoppel.
全球和解
Global Settlement
2024年10月南京中院组织侵权诉讼庭审当日，比利时A公司与德国B公司达成和解协议，专利权人A公司当庭即提交了针对中国企业C公司及关联公司的撤诉申请。随后集佳团队代理B公司和C公司陆续向国家知识产权局提交了撤回无效宣告请求的申请。
On the day of the infringement litigation hearing organized by the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in October 2024, Company A in Belgium and Company B in Germany reached a settlement agreement. The patentee, Company A, immediately submitted in court the application for withdrawal of the lawsuit against the Chinese Company C and its affiliate companies. Thereafter, Unitalen's team, representing Company B and Company C, successively submitted applications to withdraw the request for invalidation to the CNIPA.
至此，世界知名汽车动力总成制造商间的专利纠纷落下帷幕，包括中国大陆的2件民事侵权纠纷、3件专利无效案件及欧洲范围内提起的多项诉讼、无效案件得到一揽子解决，集佳律师团队成功助力客户在跨国专利纠纷中取得理想结果。
The patent disputes between world-renowned automotive powertrain manufacturers have thus ended, with a sound resolution of two civil infringement disputes in the Chinese Mainland, three patent invalidation cases, and multiple litigation and invalidation cases filed in the European region. Unitalen's attorney team successfully assisted the clients in achieving the desired outcomes in the patent disputes.
集佳助力香港小黄鸭“B.Duck”等商标同类认驰，适用具有惩罚性因素的法定赔偿判赔484万
Unitalen Assisted Hong Kong "B.Duck" 小黄鸭 and Other Equivalent Trademarks in Winning Determination of Famous Trademarks, with Damages of 4,840,000 yuan Awarded under the Application of the Punitive Legal Compensation
近日，集佳代理的森科产品有限公司等（以下简称“香港小黄鸭”）与温州某公司等侵害商标权纠纷一案，重庆市第一中级人民法院作出一审判决，认定香港小黄鸭第8814480号“
”商标在2019年9月11日前、第8814488号“
”商标在2020年9月9日前构成驰名商标。温州某公司在服装、鞋等商品上使用的“G.DUCK”“
”“G.DUCKKIDS”“
”“
”标识构成商标侵权，判令停止侵权，赔偿484万元，并在《温州日报》刊登声明，消除影响。
Recently, the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court issued a judgment of first instance in the case of dispute over infringement of trademark right between SEMK PRODUCTS LIMITED and others (hereinafter referred to as "Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭," represented by Unitalen) and certain companies in Wenzhou. The court determined that the No. 8814480 trademark "
", and the No. 8814488 trademark "
" owned by Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭 had constituted the famous trademarks before September 11, 2019, and September 9, 2020, respectively. Use of the marks "G.DUCK", "
", "G.DUCKKIDS", "
", and "
" by the certain company in Wenzhou on clothing, shoes, and other goods had constituted trademark infringement. The company was ordered to stop the infringement, pay compensation of 4,840,000 yuan, and publish a statement in the Wenzhou Daily to eliminate the effects.
基本事实
Basic Fact
香港小黄鸭的历史最早可追溯至2001年，创办人许夏林先生于2005年创作了B.Duck主题角色并开展以B.Duck为特色的消费商品零售业务。2020年，B.Duck成为中国第一大自主IP品牌（以营收计算）。B.Duck品牌还荣获LIMA亚洲授权业卓越奖、玉猴奖等行业极具影响力的奖项，还被纳入广东省重点商标保护名录，具有极高的知名度。
The history of Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭 can be traced back to 2001. The founder, Mr. Hui Ha Lam, created the signature character B.Duck and commenced the retail business for B.Duck featured consumer merchandise in 2005. In 2020, B.Duck became China's No. 1 proprietary IP brand (in terms of revenue). B.Duck has also won the LIMA Asian Licensing Award, Jade Monkey Award, and other influential industry awards and has been included in the Guangdong Key Trademark Protection List, enjoying a high reputation.
被告温州某公司在“服装、鞋”等商品上使用“G.DUCK”“
”“G.DUCKKIDS”“
”“
”标识，并通过线下门店、电商平台、自媒体平台等多种方式进行宣传、推广及销售。针对被告上述商标侵权行为，香港小黄鸭于2023年3月向重庆市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The defendant, the certain company in Wenzhou, used the marks "G.DUCK", "
", "G.DUCKKIDS", "
", and "
" on "clothing, shoes" and other goods, and publicized, promoted, and sold them through offline stores, e-commerce platforms, self-media platforms and other ways. In response to the defendant's act of trademark infringement, Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭 filed a lawsuit with the Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court in March 2023.
裁判观点
Judgement Viewpoint
一、原告“
”“
”商标在被诉标识的注册申请日前已构成驰名商标；
I. The plaintiff's trademarks "
" and "
" have constituted famous trademarks prior to the date of the application for registration of the sued marks.
二、被告温州某公司在服装、鞋等商品上使用的“G.DUCK”“
”“G.DUCKKIDS”“
”“
”标识容易导致相关公众混淆误认，也会导致商标淡化，侵犯原告驰名商标专用权；
II. The use of the marks "G.DUCK", "
", "G.DUCKKIDS", "
", and "
" by the defendant, the certain company in Wenzhou, on clothing, shoes, and other goods is likely to lead to confusion and misrecognition of the relevant public, and also leads to trademark dilution, which infringes the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the famous trademarks.
三、适用具有惩罚性因素的法定赔偿确定损害赔偿额。
III. The punitive legal compensation is applicable to determine the amount of damages.
案件意义
Case Significance
集佳此前已经助力香港小黄鸭实现“
”“
”商标的首次司法认驰；此次是在侵权方有同类注册商标的情况下，助力香港小黄鸭“
”“
”商标在第25类上实现同类认驰。
Unitalen previously assisted Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭 in realizing the first judicial determination of "
" and "
" as the famous trademarks. This time, when the infringer had registered trademarks in the same class, Unitalen assisted Hong Kong B.Duck 小黄鸭 in realizing the equivalent determination of the trademarks "
" and "
" as the famous trademarks in Class 25.
集佳助力四川华光在专利确权案中取得胜利
Unitalen Client Sichuan Huaguang Won Patent Confirmation Case
北京市集佳律师事务所代理四川华光公司专利确权案中，宣告涉案专利无效，该案经过一审和二审，近期收到最高人民法院（2024）最高法知行终366号判决书，判决驳回上诉人的上诉请求，本案最终获得最高人民法院支持，维护了客户的利益。
In the patent confirmation case handled by Beijing Unitalen Law Firm representing Sichuan Huaguang Company (the "Client"), the involved patent was declared invalid. After the first and second instances, it was recently received the (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 366 Judgment issued by the Supreme People's Court, which rejected the appellant's appeal request. The case was ultimately supported by the Supreme People's Court, safeguarding the interests of the client.
基本案情
Case Brief
涉案专利涉及一种膨胀螺栓套件，系用于家具木板之间连接的连接部件。涉案专利授权公告时的权利要求书共有10项权利要求。本案用于请求宣告涉案专利无效的最接近对比文件系专利权人的另一件发明专利申请，该对比文件与涉案专利优先权文件申请日是同一天。因此该案双方的争辩焦点集中于涉案专利是否享有优先权以及以此为基础的创造性评价。国知局认定，因涉案专利独立权利要求中限定的“锁扣结构”以及从属权利要求中进一步限定的具体的锁扣结构，如“卡扣”“插接孔和相配合的嵌齿”以及“嵌齿的凸条”等特征，在优先权文件中均没有记载，甚至笼统或者含糊的阐述也未涉及，从优先权文件的附图也无法直接地、毫无疑义的确定这些内容，因此涉案专利与优先权文件不具有相同主题，涉案专利不能享有优先权。在此基础上，认定该对比文件结合其他证据、公知常识，涉案专利的全部权利要求均不具有创造性，宣告涉案专利无效。
The involved patent relates to an expansion bolt set, which is a connecting component used for connecting furniture boards. As granted and announced, the involved patent comprises ten claims. The closest reference document cited in this case to request the invalidation of the involved patent is another patent application for invention of the Client (the “Reference Document”), which shares the same filing date with the priority document of the involved patent. Therefore, the debate between the two parties in this case focuses on whether the involved patent enjoys the priority right and the inventive evaluation based on this. The China National Intellectual Property Administration determined that the "locking structure" defined in the independent claims of the involved patent and the specific locking structure further defined in the dependent claims, such as the features "buckle," "insertion hole and matching interlocking teeth," and "convex strip of interlocking teeth," are not disclosed in the priority document, and are not even mentioned in a general or vague manner. It is also impossible to directly and unambiguously determine these contents from the drawings of the priority document. Therefore, the involved patent and the priority document do not have the same subject matter, and the involved patent cannot enjoy the priority. On this basis, it is determined that, through the combination of the Reference Document with other evidence and common knowledge, all claims of the involved patent do not involve an inventive step, and the involved patent is declared invalid.
专利权人不服提起行政诉讼，一审、二审法院均判决维持案涉无效决定。
With dissatisfaction, the patentee filed an administrative lawsuit. Both the courts of first instance and second instance ruled to uphold the invalidation decision concerning the involved patent.
律师评析
Attorney's Analysis
本案争议焦点之一就是涉案专利技术方案是否应当享有在先申请的优先权，尤其是在在先申请文件仅公开了下位概念技术特征的情况下，在后申请能否基于在先申请的下位概念，享有上位概括的优先权。
One of the disputes, in this case, is whether the technical solution of the involved patent should enjoy the priority of the prior application. In particular, in the case where the prior application documents only disclose the technical features of the specific term, whether the later application can enjoy the priority of the generic summary based on the specific term of the prior application.
根据专利法第二十九条第二款及《专利审查指南》第二部分相关规定，对于要求优先权在后申请与在先申请是否具有“相同主题”的判断提供了法律依据。但是，在实践中对于“相同主题”仍然可能会存在不同的理解。比如在本案中专利权人就提出，优先权判断与新创性判断应采用相同的标准，对在先文件公开内容的认定应当遵循完全一致的标准。
Based on the relevant provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 29 of the Chinese Patent Law and Part II of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, a legal basis is provided for determining whether the later application claiming priority and the prior application have the "same subject matter". However, in practice, there may still be different understandings of the "same subject matter." For example, in this case, the patentee asserted that the standards for the determination of priority and the determination of the novelty and inventive step should be the same, and the recognition of the contents disclosed in the prior document should follow a completely consistent standard.
二审判决否定了专利权人的观点，强调优先权判定中“相同主题”的判断还要审查技术特征的外延是否相同：若在后申请是在在先申请所对应的下位概念基础上进行的上位概况，所述概括使其涵盖了在先申请中并未包括的其他技术方案，使二者的技术方案不同，则在后申请与在先申请也不属于相同主题。二审判决实际上也确认了有关优先权“相同主题”的判断与有关新颖性“同样的发明创造”判断二者的区别。即“相同主题”的判断要求更为严格，优先权文件与在后申请的内容对应性要求更高；而“同样的发明创造”判断要求则相对宽松。从理论上分析，也支持同样的结论。
The judgment of the second instance negated the patentee's view, emphasizing that the determination of the "same subject matter" in the priority judgment also requires an examination of whether the extension of technical features is the same: if the later application provides a generic summary based on a specific summary corresponding to the prior application, and the summary makes it cover other technical solutions not included in the prior application, resulting in different technical solutions of the prior application and the later application, then the later application and the prior application do not share the same subject matter. The judgment of the second instance also confirmed the difference between the determination of the "same subject matter" for priority and the determination of the "identical invention-creation" for novelty. That is, the determination of the "same subject matter" requires a stricter standard, and the priority document needs higher correspondence to the contents of the later application. However, the determination of the "identical invention-creation" has a relatively loose standard. Theoretical analysis also supports the same conclusion.
二审判决以案例的方式，对优先权“相同主题”的判断提供了一种新的裁判规则，为后续相关案件的审理提供了参考案例。
The second instance judgment provides a new adjudicative rule for determining the "same subject matter" for priority in the form of a case, serving as a reference case for subsequent related cases.
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
集佳5位合伙人蝉联Asia IP“2024中国知识产权专家”百强榜单
Five Unitalen Partners Continued to Stand on the List of Top 100 "IP Experts in China 2024" Released by Asia IP
近日，国际权威知识产权媒体Asia IP公布了“2024年度中国知识产权专家”百强榜单，集佳于泽辉、李德山、黄莺、赵雷、潘炜等5位合伙人凭借在知识产权领域的卓越能力及全球客户的支持与认可，再次荣登百强榜！
Recently, Asia IP, an authoritative international IP media, released the list of Top 100 "IP Experts in China 2024", and five Unitalen partners, YU Zehui, LI Deshan, HUANG Ying, ZHAO Lei, and PAN Wei, stood honorably once again on the list of Top 100 for their outstanding achievements in the field of intellectual property rights and the support and recognition from the clients around the world!
集佳商标入选《北京重点商标保护名录》 集佳获颁“商标工作特别贡献奖”
Unitalen's Trademark Was Included in the Key Trademark Protection List of Beijing, and Unitalen Received the "Award for Special Contributions to Trademarks"
2025年1月10日下午，由北京商标协会主办的北京商标保护论坛暨首批《北京重点商标保护名录》发布会隆重举行。会上重磅发布了首批《北京重点商标保护名录》，集佳 “
”商标被纳入2024年度《北京重点商标保护名录》。
On the afternoon of January 10, 2025, the Beijing Trademark Protection Forum and the release ceremony of the first Key Trademark Protection List of Beijing were grandly held, hosted by the Beijing Trademark Association. At the release ceremony, the first Key Trademark Protection List of Beijing was released with great attention, and Unitalen's trademark "
" was included in the Key Trademark Protection List of Beijing 2024.
同时，在发布会上，北京商标协会授予集佳“商标工作特别贡献奖”，对集佳在协会工作中给予的大力支持表示感谢与肯定。
Meanwhile, at the release ceremony, the Beijing Trademark Association granted Unitalen the "Award for Special Contributions to Trademarks", expressing gratitude and recognition for Unitalen's strong support to the association's operation and management.
集佳上海分所获评上海市“优秀商标代理机构”“上海市优秀商标代理案例”及“上海市优秀商标代理案例提名”等多项荣誉
Unitalen Shanghai Office Received Multiple Honors Including "Outstanding Trademark Agency" in Shanghai, "Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai", and "Nomination for Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai"
2025年1月7日，上海市商标品牌协会召开第六届会员代表大会，会上集佳上海分所被评为2023年度“上海市优秀商标代理机构”。同时，大会表彰了被评为2023-2024年度“上海市优秀商标代理案例”及“上海市优秀商标代理案例提名”的案例，集佳上海分所代理的“涉网络吴良材商标侵权纠纷案”被评为上海市优秀商标代理案例；“金陵吴良才商标异议案”被评为上海市优秀商标代理案例提名。
On January 7, 2025, the Shanghai Trademark Association held its Sixth Members' Representative Conference, where Unitalen Shanghai Office was honored as the "Outstanding Trademark Agency in Shanghai" in 2023. Meanwhile, the conference commended cases that were selected as the "Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai" and "Nomination for Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai" for 2023-2024. The case "Online 吴良材(WU LIANG CAI) Trademark Infringement Dispute" represented by Unitalen Shanghai Office was awarded as an Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai, and the case "金陵吴良才(JINLING WU LIANG CAI) Trademark Objection" was awarded as a Nomination for Outstanding Trademark Agency Case in Shanghai.
.jpg)