Winning the suit of the request for patent invalidation for Yu Tian and Wenyan Jiang (Patent attorneys: Qi Xue and Dongming Yang)
2013-04-18 14:58:09 Source： Hit：
Case information:
Application number: 200720069025.2
The title of utility model: A steering gear
Patentee: Yu Tian Wenyan Jiang
Petitioner: Shanghai Jiuying Electronic Technology Co. , Ltd
Agent: Qi Xue and Dongming Yang, the patent attorney of this office, served as the agent of patentee Yu Tian and Wenyan Jiang during the procedures for examination of the request for invalidation.
Cause of action:
On 1 September 2011, the petitioner filed the third request for invalidation to the Patent Re-examination Board and submitted five reference documents as evidence on grounds of the claim 3 of the patent possessing no inventiveness and not conforming to the provisions of Article 2.3 of the Patent Law
On 17 October 2011, the patentee submitted the observations for the invalidation and participated in the oral hearing on 24 November 2011.
On 12 March 2012, the Patent Re-examination Board made decision No. 18258 on invalidation, maintaining the patent valid.
The main reasons and evidence of the petitioner:
The petitioner considered “The introduction to the foreign miniature remote control model plane” (refers to the fourth issue of Model Airplane in 2005) as the closest existing technology, and combined it with one or more of two patent documents and two articles about evidence in common knowledge, in order to argue that the claim 3 involves no inventiveness.
The main reasons and evidence of the patentee:
For the technical feature “A brush is arranged at the underside of the slider, and a bar of carbon film and silver film are printed on the driver circuit board of said steering gear, while the brush at the underside of the slider is in contact with said carbon film and said silver film.” in claim 3, the patentee asserted that there is no technology enlightenment in either of the above cited reference documents. Thus, claim 3 of the patent involves inventiveness compared with the combination of the above cited reference documents. And claim 3 conformed to the provisions of Article 2.3 of the Patent Law.
Other information:
The petitioner had previously twice made the request for invalidation, using “The introduction to the foreign miniature remote control model plane” (refers to the fourth issue of Model Airplane in 2005) as the closest reference document and combining it with reference documents referring to potentiometer in the field of electricity. However, claim 3 of the utility model was maintained valid by the Patent Re-examination Board in those two examination of the request for invalidation. The two decisions on the request for invalidation are decisions No. 13717 and No. 15552 respectively. Wherein decision No. 13717 was sentenced to be maintained and valid in administrative judgment No. 2726 of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court (2009) and final administrative judgment No. 705 of Beijing Higher People's Court (2010).
Conclusion:
The Patent Re-examination Board agreed with the proposition of the patentee and maintained the validity of claim 3. The petitioner refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative suit in Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court. Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court made the administrative judgment No. 1693 (2012), which maintained decision No. 18258 on the request for invalidation. The petitioner has filed no appeal.
