China's national intellectual property administration (CNIPA) has released ten typical cases from 2025 involving patent reexamination and invalidation. These cases were selected because they are highly relevant, widely discussed, and provide useful guidance on how patent rules are applied in practice.
Case 1: "A Method for Preparing Heterologous Triploid Scallops" (Reexamination)
The patent office overturned an earlier rejection.
The decision clarifies how to assess technical effects in aquaculture patents and what counts as common general knowledge in the field. This is particularly important for protecting innovation in marine seed industry and supporting ocean related industries.
Case 2: "A Pharmaceutical Composition for Treating Cerebrovascular Diseases" (Invalidation)
The patent was maintained.
The decision explains how to evaluate the reliability of experimental data submitted by the patentee. It also examines whether a specific combination of drug ingredients at a particular ratio produces a synergistic effect beyond what each ingredient does alone. The case provides practical guidance for drafting high quality biopharmaceutical patents.
Case 3: "Nucleoside Phosphoramidate Prodrugs" (Invalidation)
The patent was maintained.
The decision clarifies that the claimed compounds include not just one specific chemical structure but multiple possible three dimensional spatial configurations. It also provides a detailed discussion on how to assess inventiveness for pharmaceutical compounds. This case shows how invalidation proceedings can support and strengthen the protection of high value pharmaceutical patents.
Case 4: "Polymorphs of C MET/HGFR Inhibitors" (Invalidation)
The patent was maintained.
Starting from the fundamental principle that patents are granted in exchange for full disclosure of the invention, the decision accepted additional experimental data submitted by the patentee after filing. It found the patent inventive. The case systematically explains the standards for accepting supplementary experimental data in the pharmaceutical and chemical fields, a common issue in drug patent disputes.
Case 5: "Bottle" (Design Patent Invalidation)
The patent was declared completely invalid.
When read together with a related case on a label design, this case illustrates how the same design feature may carry different weight when applied to different products. A certain design element might be highly distinctive on one product but not on another. The decision is a typical application of the "overall observation and comprehensive judgment" principle used when assessing design patents.
Case 6: "Offset Decoding Device, Offset Encoding Device, Image Filtering Device" (Invalidation)
The patent was partially invalidated.
The decision explains how to interpret the scope of protection of patent claims in validity proceedings. It also carefully identifies what the genuine innovative contribution of the patent is in the video coding field, distinguishing it from what was already known.
Case 7: "Method, Apparatus, Device, and Storage Medium for Generating Dynamic Images Based on Audio" (Invalidation)
The patent was maintained.
In applying the three step method for assessing inventiveness, the decision fully considered factors such as the specific application scenario and the method used to train the AI model. The case provides guidance on patent examination standards in the field of artificial intelligence and its various sub sectors.
Case 8: "Method and Device for Adjusting Wireless Network" (Invalidation)
This case is the first of its kind where an invalidation request was rejected for violating the principle of good faith.
The decision makes it clear that invalidation requests must have a genuine purpose, that is, to correct improperly granted patents. Requests made for other reasons, such as harassing a competitor or delaying litigation, are considered an abuse of the system and will be rejected. This case helps maintain fair market competition and prevents misuse of the invalidation process.
Case 9: "Optical Imaging System" (Invalidation)
The patent was declared completely invalid.
The case involves the use of software to reproduce prior art and calculate certain technical parameters. The decision examines the software from four angles: the source of the software, its type, its function, and whether it can be properly operated in the relevant context. It provides a clear framework for assessing whether computer generated calculations are reliable enough to be used as evidence in patent disputes. It also offers guidance on how parties should present such evidence.
Case 10: "A Metallographic Preparation Method for Tungsten Zirconium Alloy" (Reexamination)
The request for reexamination was rejected.
The decision explains that content generated by large language AI models, such as ChatGPT, is not reliable evidence for proving what was already known before a patent application was filed. This is because AI generated content is influenced by many factors, including the data used to train the model, the algorithm design, and how the user asks the question. Therefore, such content cannot accurately represent the knowledge level of a person skilled in the art at the time of filing.
Source: China National Intellectual Property Administration
