-
Determination of Commonsense Evidence —(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Administrative Judgment No. 35
2025-05-05【The main takeaway of the trial】Commonsense evidence usually refers to references that record basictechnical knowledge in the field such as technical dictionaries, technical manuals and textbooks; it needs to specifically determine whether references other than technical dictionaries, technical manu -
The consideration of "raising of questions" for the judgment of inventive step —(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Administrative Judgment No. 183
2025-05-05【The main takeaway of the trial】The inventive step of a patent technical solution can derive from "solution to problems" or "raising ofquestions"; when the technical progress have difficulty in finding problems, if not consider whether the"raising of questions " is obvious or not for those of ordina -
13,800 cases of administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes were filed in the first half year in China
2025-05-05In the first half of the year, all intellectual property management departments in China steadily promoted the administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes, focusing on key areas online and offline, and obtained good achievement and efficiency. Cases of administrative adjudication of -
The main statistics of the first half year of 2021 issued by CNIPA
2025-05-05In the first half of the year,339, 000 cases of invention patent were authorized in China. As of the end of June 2021, there were 3, 324,000 cases of valid invention patent, a year-on-year increase of 23.0%, and 33, 300 cases of accepted PCT international patent application, a year-on-year increase -
Protection of utility model patent rights applied in terms of the same technical solution on the same day after the rejection of an invention patent application
2025-05-05—(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No. 699If the party applied for invention patents and utility model patents of the same technical solution on the same day, theinvention patent application was not authorized due to the lack of novelty or being determined not to involve inventive s