Patent invalidations of "Optical Flat Structure" and "Flat Lens" Sanyou’s Client: Asukanet Co.,Ltd.
Heard by: CNIPA
Outcome of Trial: the patents are declared invalid in total
Case Facts
Asukanet Co., Ltd. is an international leader in holographic imaging technology. A company in Anhui Province, a domestic startup, applied for two utility model patents involved in the case. Asukanet made the first invalidation request against these two patents, but it failed and the patents remained valid. After researching the evidence, Asukanet commissioned Sanyou to file the second invalidation request. After the trial, both patents were declared invalid.
The CNIPA held that
If there is clear evidence that the technical contents recorded in different parts of a reference document are the same technical solution, then the contents of different parts of the reference document can be used to evaluate the novelty of a claim. If a claim has a different technical feature compared to one of the embodiments of a reference document, but the distinguishing technical feature is disclosed in another embodiment of the same reference document, and the role of the above-mentioned feature in the other embodiment is the same as that in this patent. That is, it gives the technical enlightenment to combine the two embodiments. Thus, the claim does not have an inventive step over the combination of the two embodiments in the reference document.
Typical Significance
There is no limit to the number of filings for invalidation procedures. If the result of the first invalidation request is unsatisfactory, a petitioner may provide stronger evidence and initiate the invalid procedure again. If the previous invalidation decision confirms the technical features of the patent, especially through the effective decision, the subsequent invalidation examination will generally follow such decisions. When the application document is written and after one embodiment is completely described, in the subsequent improvements of embodiments, only the improved parts are described, and the duplicated contents will not be repeated, to make the description concise. Therefore, when evaluating novelty in the same reference document, features recorded in different parts should be analyzed in detail to determine whether they are the same technical solution or not. That is to say, such features shall not be regarded as two different technical solutions just because they are separately recorded. In this case, based on this consideration, the collegiate panel determined that the technical solutions recorded in different paragraphs in the reference document shall be regarded as a single technical solution.
支付宝 扫一扫
Part of the public information from our website is from the internet. Reposting of such is intended to spread more information and promote network sharing. They do not represent the opinions or any other suggestions of our website and we are not responsible for their authenticity. Part of the works of our website, which we just edit and upload, are from voluntary contributors. Our website only serves as a communicational platform for such works and therefore bears no responsibility for any copyright issues involved. In case you find any works violating your intellectual property rights, please contact us, so that we may change or remove them in time.
All information provided is for reference only. We do not guarantee the accuracy, validity, timeliness and integrity of the information. Our website and our employees are not directly or indirectly responsible to the users or any other people in any way, for any faults, inaccuracy or errors in delivering any information. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, our website claims that we do not assume liability for any direct, indirect, collateral, consequential, special, punitive or exemplary damages of any user or any other person, incurred by using or failing to use any information or links provided by this website.
- Sanyou won the final trial of the case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition of ‘龙角散’ [2022-03-23 10:18]
- China‘s accession into the WIPO Hague System and the Marrakesh Treaty [2022-03-01 10:07]
- The CNIPA issued Administrative Adjudication Measures for Major Patent Infringement Disputes (Draft for Comments) [2021-03-23 16:59]
- In 2020, the proportion of online trademark applications in China reached 98.05 [2021-03-12 13:16]
- World Intellectual Property Indicators report: China s number of patent applications ranked first in the world in 2019 [2021-01-27 14:49]
其次，大众点评仍是饿了么的股东之一，只不过多轮融资后，大众点评股份占比已变小，且与美团合并之后，大众点评将放弃在饿了么的董事席位及投票权。需要特别强调的是，大众点评与我们饿了么原有的合作仍继续进行。 最后，竞争是市场经济不变的法则，我们与美团外卖以及其他所有外卖，仍将维持激烈的竞争关系不变。相互砥砺的结果，就是共同为用户和商户提供极致服务。 作为互联网外卖行业的领导者，饿了么有幸依靠自身的实干，依靠为用户、商户提供独特价值，赢得了资本信任，收获了用户口碑和行业地位。
其次，大众点评仍是饿了么的股东之一，只不过多轮融资后，大众点评股份占比已变小，且与美团合并之后，大众点评将放弃在饿了么的董事席位及投票权。需要特别强调的是，大众点评与我们饿了么原有的合作仍继续进行。 最后，竞争是市场经济不变的法则，我们与美团外卖以及其他所有外卖，仍将维持激烈的竞争关系不变。相互砥砺的结果，就是共同为用户和商户提供极致服务。 作为互联网外卖行业的领导者，饿了么有幸依靠自身的实干，依靠为用户、商户提供独特价值，赢得了资本信任，收获了用户口碑和行业地位。