In August 2015, the Beijing Higher People’s Court issued its final judgment in the patent invalidation administrative lawsuit filed by Bobst (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Bobst”) against the State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”) and Tianjin Changrong Printing Equipment Co., Ltd (“Changrong”). The final judgment voided both the trial court judgment and the patent invalidation decision issued by the Patent Reexamination Board (“PRB”), thereby remanding the case to the PRB for a new decision. W&B succesffully represented Bobst in this case.

The invention patent at issue is owned by Changrong and is entitled “a device for quick locking an upper stripping board and a spacing adjustment, and the working method therefor”. Bobst petitioned the PRB to invalidate the patent in 2013 ; however, the PRB ruled that the patent remained fully valid. Bobst filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, which subsequently upheld the PRB’s decision. Bobst then filed an appeal with the Beijing Higher People’s Court.

In the appeal, W&B attorneys summarized the connection between related distinctive technical features and common knowledge in the field by carefully analyzing both the technical solutions provided by the disputed patent and the technical knowledge disclosed in documents used for patent comparison. Based on the foregoing, W&B’s attorneys explained to the court why the disputed patent does not possess the quality of “inventiveness”. W&B also pointed out errors in the trial judgement and the PRB’s patent invalidation decision. The Beijing Higher People’s Court accepted W&B’s reasoning, ruling that in view of relevant documentation and common knowledge in the field, Claim 1 of the disputed patent does not possess the inventiveness required by the Patent Law.