Legislation
The Patent Law is enacted to protect the legitimate rights of patentees, to encourage inventions-creations, to advance the exploitation of inventions-creations, to enhance innovation capability, and to promote the progress of science and technology and the development of economy and society.
Patent Law & Implementing Regulations
Patent Law: Adopted by the Standing Committee of National People's Congress on March 12, 1984 and entering into force on April 1, 1985, amended for the first time on September 4, 1992 and entering into force on January 1, 1993, amended for the second time on August 25, 2000 and entering into force on July 1, 2001, amended for the third time on December 27, 2008 and entering into force on October 1, 2009, amended for the fourth time on October 17, 2020 and entering into force on June 1, 2021.
Implementing Regulations: Promulgated by the State Council on January 19, 1985 and entering into force on April 1, 1985; revised on December 21, 1992 and entering into force on January 1, 1993; and repealed on July 1, 2001. Promulgated on June 15, 2001 and entering into force on July 1, 2001, revised for the first time on December 28, 2002 and entering into force on February 1, 2003, revised for the second time on January 9, 2010 and entering into force on February 1, 2010, and revised for the third time on December 11, 2023 and entering into force on January 20, 2024.
Administrative Procedure Law and Judicial Interpretations
Administrative Procedure Law: Adopted on April 4, 1989 and entering into force on October 1, 1990; amended for the first time on November 1, 2014; amended for the second time on June 27, 2017 and entering into force on July 1, 2017.
Judicial Interpretations: The “Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China” was adopted by the Supreme People's Court on November 13, 2017 and entered into force on February 8, 2018, and the “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Patent Granting and Validity Affirmation (I)" was adopted by the Supreme People's Court on August 24, 2020 and entered into force on September 12, 2020.
Obtaining a Patent
Inventions and creations or invention-creations in the China patent law include inventions, utility models, and designs. Accordingly, there are three types of patents in China, i.e. invention patents, utility model patents and design patents.
For obtaining a patent, the rights holder of invention-creations may directly submit a patent application to the CNIPA. After examinations, the CNIPA will grant a patent if the conditions for granting a patent are met.
For the details about obtaining a patent, such as filing requirements, required documents, and filing and examination procedures, please see Invention Patents, Utility Model Patents, Design Patents in China.
Patent Rights
After the grant of a patent for invention, except where otherwise provided for in the Patent Law, no entity or individual may, without the authorization of the patentee, exploit the patent, that is, make, use, offer to sell, sell or import the patented product, or use the patented process and use, offer to sell, sell or import the product directly obtained by the patented process, for production or business purposes.
After the grant of a patent for utility model, except where otherwise provided for in the Patent Law, no entity or individual may, without the authorization of the patentee, exploit the patent, that is, make, use, offer to sell, sell or import the patented product, for production or business purposes.
After the grant of a patent for design, no entity or individual may, without the authorization of the patentee, exploit the patent, that is, make, offer to sell, sell or import the product incorporating the patented design, for production or business purposes.
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions on Patent Granting and Validity Affirmation
The patent system establishes administrative litigation proceedings for judicial review of administrative decisions, enabling interested parties to file administrative lawsuits with the courts if they are dissatisfied with administrative decisions made by the CNIPA.
Administrative lawsuits for judicial review of administrative decisions on patent granting refer to cases in which patent applicants file lawsuits with the court due to their dissatisfactions with the decisions made by the CNIPA regarding requests for patent application reexamination.
Administrative lawsuits for judicial review of administrative decisions on patent validity affirmation refer to cases in which patentees or invalidation petitioners file lawsuits with the court due to their dissatisfactions with the decisions made by the CNIPA regarding patent invalidation requests.
Jurisdiction
Administrative cases filed for judicial review of the CNIPA’s decisions on patent granting and validity affirmation shall be under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court at first instance and the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court at second instance.
Statute of limitation
If a party is dissatisfied with a CNIPA's reexamination decision on a request for patent application reexamination, or its decision on a request for patent invalidation, it may file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months from the date of receipt of the decision.
Necessary Documents
The party (the plaintiff) shall submit the following documents for filing an administrative lawsuit with the court against the CNIPA’s decision:
an administrative complaint including the basic information of the plaintiff and the defendant (CNIPA), the information of the third party (if any), the cause of action, the request, the facts and grounds, the evidence and the source of the evidence;
the administrative decision being sued;
the plaintiff's identity certification documents;
the power of attorney and the attorney's identity certification documents (if an attorney is appointed);
the necessary evidence or relevant documents.
Where the plaintiff is a natural person, the identity certification can be an ID card or a passport. If the plaintiff is a legal person, the identity certification includes copies, stamped with the official seal, of the business license and a legal representative certificate. Where the plaintiff is a foreign legal person or a legal person in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan region, the identity certification includes its Certificate of Good Standing/Existence and the Certificate of Legal/Authorized Representative for the person who executes the power of attorney.
Where the plaintiff is a foreign legal person or natural person, the plaintiff's identity certifications and power of attorney must be notarized and apostilled in the plaintiff's residence country/region. These notarized and apostilled documents must also be submitted together with a Chinese translation translated by a translation agency designated by the Court.
Where the plaintiff is a legal person or natural person in Taiwan region, the plaintiff's identity certifications and power of attorney must be notarized by a notary agency in Taiwan, and a copy of the notarized documents shall be sent by the Straits Exchange Foundation, and a verification certificate of consistency between the original and the copy shall be issued by the Beijing Notary Association will issue.
Where the plaintiff is a legal person or natural person in Hong Kong special administrative region, the plaintiff's identity certifications and power of attorney must first be notarized by a Hong Kong lawyer designated by the Ministry of Justice of China, and then reviewed and stamped with a special transfer seal by China Legal Service (H.K.) LTD. established in Hong Kong.
Where the plaintiff is a legal person or natural person in Macau special administrative region, the plaintiff's identity certifications and power of attorney must be notarized by a Chinese notary public stationed in Macau by the Ministry of Justice of China, and must be stamped with a special transfer seal by China Legal Service (Macau) Limited.
Instituting a Lawsuit
Pre-registration
The statutory time limit for instituting a lawsuit is within three months from the date of receipt of the decision, within which it may be difficult for plaintiffs in foreign countries or Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan region to complete the notarization and apostillation or other certification procedures and preparation of the Chinese translations. Thus the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has established a special pre-registration mechanism.
According to the pre-registration mechanism, within the statutory time limit, the plaintiff could entrust its/his/her attorney to submit a complaint, a copy of the plaintiff's identity certifications and the executed power of attorney to the court for preliminary proof, and pre-register the lawsuit.
The court reviews the documents and sets a pre-registration time limit (usually three months). Then, if the applicant submits the notarized and apostilled or other certified identity certifications of the plaintiff and the power of attorney and the translation thereof to the court within the pre-registration time limit, it can be deemed that the filing does not exceed the statutory time limit.
Docketing
The court examines the complaint, the plaintiff’s identity certifications, evidence and other necessary documents submitted by the plaintiff. If the documents filed meet the requirements for docketing a case, the court will accept the case.
If the documents filed do not meet the requirements for docketing a case, the court will notify the plaintiff of rectification to be made and the time limit for doing so.
If the documents rectified meet the requirements for docketing a case within the time limit, the court will docket and accept the case. If the documents rectified still do not meet the requirements, the lawsuit will be deemed not to have been filed.
If the documents filed by the plaintiff do not meet the requirements for docketing a case and the issues thereof cannot be resolved by rectification, the court will make a ruling not to docket the case.
Court Trial
Res judicata
Where an administrative decision is reissued directly based on an effective judgment of the court and does not introduce new facts or reasons, if the parties file a lawsuit against this reissued administrative decision, the court shall rule not to accept the case in accordance with the law; if the case has already been accepted, the court shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.
Trial
After the court accepts the case, it notifies the defendant and organizes both parties to conduct cross-examination and debate.
For cases involving any other citizen, legal person or organization that has an interest in the administrative act being sued or in the outcome of the case, the court notifies the citizen, legal person or organization, such as the invalidation petitioner, invalidation respondent, etc., to participate in the litigation as a third party.
The court tries the case based on facts and laws; if the simplified procedure is applied, the case is usually heard by a single judge and concluded within 45 days from the date of docketing; if the ordinary procedure is applied, it is usually concluded within six months from the date of docketing; however, the trial period may be longer, about 1 to 2 years, for foreign-related cases.
If the decision at issue falls under any of the following circumstances, the court may rule to partially revoke it in accordance with the law:
(1) The decision at issue errs in the determination of some claims, but the remaining claims are correctly determined;
(2) The decision at issue errs in the determination of some designs among multiple similar designs or multiple designs in sets in a design patent application, but the remaining designs are correctly determined;
(3) Other circumstances in which a partial revocation may be ordered.
Where the decision at issue has reviewed all grounds for invalidation and evidence asserted by the parties and declared the claims invalid, and the court finds that the grounds for invalidating the claims in the decision at issue are not established, it shall rule to revoke or partially revoke the decision and, depending on the circumstances, order the defendant to make a new decision on the claims.
Where the decision at issue is indeed improper in its ascertainment of facts or application of law, but its conclusion regarding patent granting and validity affirmation is correct, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit after correcting the relevant ascertainment of facts and application of law.
Judgment
After the Beijing Intellectual Property Court makes a judgment/ruling, it will serve the judgment/ruling to both parties.
Where a foreign party or a party with residence in Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan region is dissatisfied with this first-instance judgment, the party may appeal to the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court within thirty days from the date of delivery of the judgment; similarly the domestic parties may appeal to the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment.
If a party is dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling, he or she or it has the right to appeal to the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court within ten days from the date of delivery of the ruling.
Effectiveness
If no party appeals within the statutory time limit, the first-instance judgment/ruling will take effect.
Appeal
If dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, a party may appeal to the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court within the statutory time limit.
Appellate Court Review
After receiving the appeal, the second-instance court shall conduct a comprehensive review of the judgment or ruling of the first-instance court and the administrative act at issue, including whether the facts determined in the first-instance judgment are clear, whether the evidence is sufficient, whether the application of law is correct, etc.
The courts shall, in principle, hold a trial in court for appellate cases. In practice, however, after reviewing case files, conducting investigations, and inquiring of the parties, the collegial panel may and usually will conduct a trial in writing for cases where no new facts, evidence, or grounds have been presented.
Based on the review situation, the second-instance court may make a judgment to uphold the original judgment, modify the original judgment, revoke or reverse the original judgment and remand the case to the first-instance court.
The second-instance judgment is the final judgment, which takes effect immediately after being served on the parties and has legal effect. The parties may not bring a lawsuit against the same administrative act again.
Retrial
Although the second-instance judgment is the final judgment, the parties may apply for a retrial under the following circumstances, but the enforcement of the judgment or ruling shall not be suspended.
For a judgment or ruling that has already taken effect, if one of the following circumstances is met, the parties may apply to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial within six months after the judgment or ruling takes effect or within six months from the date on which they know or should have known the circumstances listed in items (2), (3), (7) and (8) below.
(1) The ruling not to accept a case or to dismiss a case was erroneous;
(2) There is new evidence that is sufficient to overturn the original judgment or ruling;
(3) The main evidence used in the original judgment or ruling to determine the facts is insufficient, has not been cross-examined, or is forged;
(4) The original judgment or ruling has indeed made errors in the application of law;
(5) The litigation procedures prescribed by law are violated, which may affect the fairness of the trial;
(6) The original judgment or ruling omits a litigation request;
(7) The legal documents on which the original judgment or ruling was based have been revoked or amended; or
(8) The judges committed acts of corruption, bribery, favoritism, fraud, or miscarriage of justice when hearing the case.
For applying for a retrial, a party shall submit the following documents to the Court:
(1) An application for retrial, which shall state: basic information of the applicant for retrial, the respondent and other parties in the original trial; the cause of action; the name of the original Court, the case number of the original judgment at issue; the statutory circumstances for applying for a retrial and the specific facts and grounds; and the specific request for retrial;
(2) Identity certifications of the applicant for retrial (including certificate of existence, certificate of the legal/authorized representative);
(3) Power of Attorney (if an agent is appointed);
(4) The original judgment at issue; and
(5) The main evidence and other materials reflecting the basic facts of the case.
The Court shall review the application for retrial within six months from the date of receipt of the case, and the trial period may be longer for foreign-related cases.
Review of Evidence
Where a patent applicant or patentee provides new evidence in a lawsuit for judicial review of administrative decisions on patent granting and validity affirmation to prove that the patent application should not be rejected or that the patent should remain valid, the court should generally review it.
Where a petitioner for invalidation provides new evidence in a lawsuit for judicial review of an administrative decision on patent validity affirmation, the court will generally not review it, except for the following evidence:
(1) Evidence proving common knowledge or customary design already asserted in the patent invalidation examination procedure;
(2) Evidence proving the knowledge level and cognitive ability of persons skilled in the art or general consumers;
(3) Evidence proving the design space of the design patent product or the overall situation of existing designs;
(4) Evidence that strengthens the probative force of evidence already accepted in the patent invalidation examination procedure;
(5) Evidence that refutes evidence provided by other parties in the litigation.
The court may require the parties to provide the new evidence mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs.
Where the evidence provided by the parties to the court is required by law to be provided in the patent application reexamination or patent invalidation examination procedure but was not provided without justifiable reasons, the court shall generally not admit it.
Review of Procedural Issues
Violation of Statutory Procedures
Where a party asserts that the following circumstances in the patent application reexamination or patent invalidation examination procedure constitute violations of statutory procedures, the court shall support it:
(1) Omitting the grounds and evidence presented by the party, which has a substantial impact on the rights of the party;
(2) Failing to notify the patent applicant, patentee, invalidation petitioner, etc. who should participate in the examination procedure in accordance with the law, which has a substantial impact on their rights;
(3) Failing to inform the party of the members of the collegial panel, and a collegial panel member has statutory grounds for recusation but fails to recuse himself/herself;
(4) Failing to give the party to whom the decision at issue is unfavorable an opportunity to express his/her/its opinion on the grounds, evidence and determined facts on which the decision at issue is based;
(5) Actively introducing common knowledge or customary design that the party has not claimed, without hearing the party's opinions, which has a substantial impact on the party's rights;
(6) Other violations of statutory procedures that may have a substantial impact on the rights of the party.
Review of Substantive Issues – Invention/Utility Model
Claim Terms
The court shall define claim terms based on the ordinary meaning understood by persons skilled in the art after reading the claims, the description, and the drawings. Claim terms that are clearly defined or illustrated in the description and drawings shall be defined accordingly.
Where the claim terms cannot be defined via the approach in the preceding paragraph, the definition may be made in combination with technical dictionaries, technical manuals, reference books, textbooks, national or industry technical standards, and other sources commonly used by persons skilled in the art.
When defining claim terms in lawsuits for judicial review of administrative decisions for patent validity affirmation, the court may refer to the patentee’s relevant statements that have been adopted in effective judgments in civil cases involving patent infringement.
Obvious Errors
Where there are obvious errors or ambiguities in the grammar, words, numbers, punctuation, graphics, symbols, etc. in the claims, description, and drawings, but a person skilled in the art can reach a unique understanding by reading the claims, description, and drawings, the court shall make a determination based on that unique understanding.
Fabricating or forging Technical Content
Where a party has evidence proving that a patent applicant or patentee violated the principle of good faith by fabricating or forging specific embodiments, technical effects, data, tables, figures, and other relevant technical content in the description and drawings, and based on this, asserts that the relevant claims do not comply with relevant provisions of the Patent Law, the court shall support the assertion.
Sufficient Disclosure
The description shall set forth the invention or utility model in a manner sufficiently clear and complete so as to enable a person skilled in the art to carry it out (Article 26(3)).
If the description does not fully disclose the specific technical content, resulting in any of the following circumstances on the filing date of a patent application, the court shall determine that the description and the claims related to the specific technical content do not comply with the provisions of Article 26, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law:
(1) The technical solution defined in the claims cannot be implemented;
(2) The implementation of the technical solution defined in the claims cannot solve the technical problem to be solved by the invention or utility model;
(3) Excessive labor is required to confirm that the technical solution defined in the claims can solve the technical problem to be solved by the invention or utility model.
Supported by the description, clear and concise
The claims shall be supported by the description and shall define the claimed scope of the patent protection in a clear and concise manner (Article 26(4)).
Where a party asserts solely on the basis of specific technical content that is not fully disclosed as mentioned in the second paragraph of the preceding section "Sufficient Disclosure" that the claims related to that specific technical content comply with the requirement that "the claims shall be supported by the description" in Article 26(4) of the Patent Law, the court will not support it.
Where a person skilled in the art cannot, after reading the description and drawings, derive or reasonably summarize the technical solution defined in the claims as of the filing date, the court shall determine that the claims do not comply with the requirement that "the claims shall be supported by the description" in Article 26(4) of the Patent Law.
Where a person skilled in the art believes, based on the description and drawings, that a claim falls under any of the following circumstances, the court shall determine that the claim does not comply with the provisions of Article 26(4) of the Patent Law regarding clearly defining the scope of patent protection:
(1) The type of the subject matter of an invention is not clearly defined;
(2) The meaning of a technical feature in a claim cannot be reasonably determined;
(3) There is obvious contradiction between the technical features that cannot be reasonably explained.
Functional and Effect Definitions
Technical features defined by function or effect refer to technical features that are defined solely by the function or effect they provide in the invention-creation for structures, components, steps, conditions or other technical features, or the relationships between technical features, except where a person skilled in the art can directly and clearly determine the specific embodiments for achieving the function or effect by reading the claims.
Where, for technical features defined by function or effect as provided in the preceding paragraph, the claims, description, and drawings do not disclose any specific embodiments enabling the achievement of the function or effect, the court shall determine that the description and claims containing such technical features do not comply with the provisions of Article 26(3) of the Patent Law.
Experimental Data
Where a patent applicant for pharmaceuticals submits supplemental experimental data after the filing date and asserts that the data proves that the patent application meets the Patent Law's provisions regarding inventive step and sufficient disclosure, the court shall review it.
Where the parties dispute the authenticity of the experimental data, the party submitting the experimental data shall provide evidence to prove the source and formation process of the experimental data. The court may notify the person in charge of the experimental work to appear in court to explain the experimental materials, procedures, conditions, environment, or parameters, as well as the personnel and institutions that conducted the experiment.
Technical Field
When determining the technical field of a technical solution defined in a claim, the court shall comprehensively consider the entire content of the claim, including the subject matter, the indication of the technical field and background art, and the functions and uses achieved by the technical solution in the description.
Technical Problem
Where the description and drawings do not clearly indicate the technical effect that a distinguishing technical feature can achieve in the technical solution defined in the claim, the court may, based on the common knowledge in the relevant technical field, the relationship between the distinguishing technical feature and other technical features in the claim, and the role of the distinguishing technical feature in the technical solution defined in the claim, determine the technical problem actually solved by the claim as determined by a person skilled in the art.
If the decision at issue fails to identify the technical problem actually solved by the claim or identifies it incorrectly, it will not affect the court's determination of the inventiveness of the claim in accordance with the law.
Common Knowledge
Where a party asserts that the relevant technical content is common knowledge, the court may require the party to provide evidence or make an explanation.
Review of Substantive Issues – Design
Design Space
When determining the knowledge and cognitive abilities of the general consumers of a design patent product, the court shall consider the design space of the design patent product as of the filing date. If the design space is large, the court may determine that the general consumers are generally less likely to notice minor differences between designs. If the design space is small, the court may determine that the general consumers are generally more likely to notice minor differences between designs.
In determining the design space referred to in the preceding paragraph, the court may comprehensively consider the following factors:
(1) the function and use of the product;
(2) the overall status of existing designs;
(3) customary design;
(4) mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations;
(5) national and industry technical standards;
(6) other factors that need to be considered.
Customary Design
Where a party asserts that a design feature is a customary design, the court may require the party to provide evidence or make an explanation.
Clear Display
The relevant drawings or photographs submitted by a patent applicant shall clearly indicate the design of the product for which patent protection is sought (Article 27(2)).
Where the drawings or photographs of the design are inconsistent, missing, or blurred, making it impossible for general consumers to identify the design to be protected based on the images, photographs, and brief description, the court shall determine that they do not comply with the requirement of "clearly indicating the design of the product for which patent protection is sought" in Article 27(2) of the Patent Law.
Requirements for Patent Granting
Requirements for Granting a Design Patent
A design for which a patent may be granted shall not be an existing design (i.e. a prior design that was known to the public domestically or internationally before the date of filing); nor has any entity or individual filed before the date of filing with the CNIPA a patent application relating to the identical design, which is then disclosed in patent documents announced after the date of filing (conflict application).
A design for which a patent may be granted shall be significantly different from existing designs or combinations of existing design features.
A design for which a patent may be granted must not conflict with the legitimate right obtained before the date of filing by any other person (prior rights).
Overall Visual Effect
When determining whether a design complies with the above-mentioned requirements for granting a patent, the court shall comprehensively assess the design's overall visual effect.
Design features that are essential or limited in selection to achieve a specific technical function do not significantly affect the overall observation and comprehensive assessment of the visual effect of the design patent.
Existing Design
Where a design has, compared with an existing design for the same or similar product category, the same overall visual effect or is substantially identical with only minor differences, the court shall determine that it constitutes an "existing design."
Identical or Similar Product Categories
The court shall determine whether products are identical or similar based on the intended use of the design product. To determine the use of a product, consideration could be given to factors such as a brief specification of the design, the design product classification table, the product's functions, and the product's sales and actual use.
Identical Designs
Where a design patent and another design patent filed on the same day for the same category of products have the same overall visual effect or are substantially identical with only minor differences, the court shall determine that they do not comply with the Patent Law's provision that "only one patent may be granted for the same invention-creation."
Conflicting Applications
Where a design has the same overall visual effect or is substantially identical to, with only minor differences, another design filed before the filing date and published after the filing date, and both are for the same or similar product category, the court shall determine that the design constitutes "the identical design" as provided for in the Patent Law regarding conflicting applications.
Significant Differences
Except in cases where the design is an existing design, if the difference between the design and an existing design for the same or similar products does not significantly affect the overall visual effect, the court shall determine that the design does not meet the requirement of being "significantly different" for granting a design patent.
Where, based on the design motivation provided by existing designs as a whole, a design that has the same overall visual effect or is substantially identical, with only minor differences, to the design patent is obtained by transferring, combining, or replacing design features that are easily perceived by general consumers, and the design does not possess a unique visual effect, the court shall determine that the design patent, when compared to the combination of features of existing designs, does not meet the requirement of being "significantly different" for granting a design patent.
Design Motivation
Under any of the following circumstances, the court may determine that the aforementioned design motivation exists:
(1) design features of different parts of products of the same category are combined or replaced;
(2) an existing design discloses the transfer of design features of products of a specific category to the design patent product;
(3) an existing design discloses the combination of design features of products of different specific categories;
(4) a pattern in an existing design is used directly or with only minor changes in the design patent product;
(5) features of a single natural object are transferred to the design patent product;
(6) a design is obtained by simply using basic geometric shapes or making only minor changes thereto;
(7) a whole or part of the design of a building, work, sign, etc. that is generally known to consumers is used.
Unique Visual Effect
When determining the aforementioned “unique visual effect,” the court may comprehensively consider the following factors:
(1) the design space of the design patent product;
(2) the relevance of the product categories;
(3) the number and difficulty of design features that are transferred, combined, or replaced; and
(4) other factors that need to be considered.
Prior Rights
A patented design must not conflict with any legitimate rights acquired by others prior to the date of filing. These "legitimate rights" include legitimate rights or interests in works, trademarks, geographical indications, names, enterprise names, portraits, and product names, packaging, and decorations with certain fame.
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.For patent-related matters, please send email to info@afdip.com or call +86 010-82730790. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send email to info@bhtdlaw.com or call +86 010-82737958.
patent validity, patent invalidation, invalidation, jurisdiction, filing an administrative lawsuit, appeal, retrial, prior rights, litigation
