Recently, Supreme People's Court made a retrial decision concerning the patent dispute between Guangxi YULIN Pharmaceutical Group Ltd (hereinafter as Guangxi YULIN) against the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) Patent Reexamination Board, and "Third Party" Guangzhou KNOCKIM Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd (hereinafter as Guangzhou KNOCKIM) for patent "Shiduqing Capsule" product and its preparation method ((hereinafter referred to as the "Patent"). The SPC revoked the Board's examination decision, and required the Board to render a new examination decision concerning the patent. This means that the patentee Guangxi YULIN had finally prevailed in the patent administrative case.
Guangxi YULIN self-developed a drug “Shiduqing” Capsule and patented for the invention in 2004. Later, Guangxi YULIN found that Guangzhou KNOCKIM produced "Shiduqing" tablet that basically the same as its patented technology. Then Guangxi YULIN filed a lawsuit against Guangzhou KNOCKIM before Guangxi Nanning Intermediate People's Court over patent infringement in 2008. After that, the defendant challenged the disputed patent and proposed request for invalidation of the patent right before the Board for four times.
In the fourth invalidation request, Guangzhou KNOCKIM cited a copy of a book named “Modern Chinese Patent Medicines Compilation” and used it for a reference document. This file was notarized by a community library in Dongguan of Guangdong Province. The copy recorded the same formula and content identical with in the patent specification. Based on this,,the SIPO determined all the claims of patent invalid.
Dissatisfied with the decision of patent invalidation, the plaintiff Guangxi YULIN entrusted NTD lawyers on behalf of itself and filed the case upon the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as "No. 1 Court"). After gathering and collecting a lot of evidence, our layers alleged that the information published in the book can not be confirmed, and thereof it can not be used as the reference document of the patent technology. However, the No. 1 Court upheld the ruling of the SIPO’s decision of patent invalidation.
Not satisfied with the first-instance decision, the plaintiff appealed against the decision before the Beijing High People’s Court. Unfortunately, Guangxi YULIN failed the second-instance either.
Our client refused to accept the judgment, and appealed the lawsuit before Supreme People's Court for retrial. After reexamination, SPC finally accepted our lawyers’ opinions for the reason that the date of publication of the book can not be determined, and thereof the prescription and preparation method recorded in the book is unavailable used as reference document of this patent technology. Therefore, SPC revoked the decision of first and second instances, and ordered the Board to render a new examination decision concerning the patent.
