Recently, Mr. Su Wen of King&Capital Law Firm successfully represented a patent invalidation case and achieved results beyond the client's expectation.

The client was the patent owner of a patent, and the invalidation petitioner requested to invalidate all the claims of the patent.

After receiving the above commission, Mr. Su analyzed the invalidation reasons of the claimant and the comparative documents in detail, and found that compared with the comparative documents, the distinguishing technical feature of claim 1 of the patent was only a plate. The client thought that claim 1 was more likely to be invalid, and just hoped to maintain the other claims.

Although the client didn't hope for it, Su Wen still wanted to maintain the client's interests to the greatest extent, therefore, he communicated with the technical team of the patentee on the technical problems related to the different manufacturing process, scope of application, advantages and disadvantages of the distinguishing technical features, and checked the relevant technical documents, and finally submitted two important defense opinions for claim 1: 1. The comparative document disclosed that it was manufactured, and the technical characteristics decided that it couldn't be made up by itself. Its own technical characteristics determine that it can not be formed by material; 2, although the background technology of the comparative document discloses the plate, but its invention content is clearly recorded as an invention to overcome the deficiencies of the background technology, so the background technology will not give the combination of the use of the plate revelation.

After the oral hearing of the State Intellectual Property Office, the State Intellectual Property Office adopted Suwen's defense, and finally made a decision to maintain the validity of all patent rights. Mr. Su's accurate understanding of the technology and patent examination standards and professional ability were highly evaluated and recognized by the client.