SPC Clarifies Rules on Patent Inventiveness and Procedural Prudence in Invalidation Proceedings – Case (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 959
Summary:
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) overturned the first-instance judgment and the China National Intellectual Property Administration’s (CNIPA) decision that had invalidated the “Magnetic Repulsion Type Suspension Device” patent, establishing crucial principles on patent inventiveness and the weight of prior decisions.
I. Key Facts
Patent Involved: Invention titled “Magnetic Repulsion Type Suspension Device” (No. 200610065336.1).
Procedural History: The patent withstood 10 invalidation challenges since 2015, with CNIPA issuing 9 prior decisions all upholding its validity. The 10th challenge led to full invalidation, which was reversed by the SPC on appeal.
Technical Dispute: The patent uses a “base-mounted ring permanent magnet + upper suspended body” structure for static repulsive balance, whereas the cited prior art relied on a “magnetic attraction + electromagnetic control” scheme for dynamic suspension. The SPC found this to be a substantive difference in implementation, rejecting the notion that “same principle” equates to obviousness.
II. Legal Principles Established
Non-obviousness Assessment: A patent cannot be deemed "obvious" merely because it shares the same underlying scientific principle with prior art. A detailed analysis of differences in technical problems, means, and effects is required.
Procedural Prudence: While each invalidation proceeding is independent, subsequent examinations must treat prior decisions with prudence. Deviating from established review standards requires compelling justification.