|
| |
|
  
[Success Case]
Case No. 2014 Xing-Zhuan-Geng-(1)-Zi 2, Intellectual Property Court
[Decision Digest]
The combination of exhibit 6 and any one of exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 in this case can prove that claims 1 and 2 of the patent at issue lack non-obviousness. Instead of the new evidence presented during the proceeding of this Court, such evidence is presented by the plaintiff in the application for patent invalidation. In addition, as the participant has applied for a reissue and the application is approved during the examination of the defendant due to the application for patent invalidation, the protection of the benefits of reissue should not be considered. In addition, this Court has asserted that no claim of the patent at issue is patentable, and as there is no uncertainty pending for the defendant’s examination, this Court should thus order the defendant to cancel the patent at issue in this application for patent invalidation.
(Collected by Intellectual Property Court as an representativ
In the Notice of Examination Opinion dated March 21, 2014 and the original disposition, the original disposing authority did not specify concrete reasons regarding how claims 5 to 8 do not comply with paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Patent Act. The original disposing authority also did not explain how exhibits should be combined. Referring to paragraph 2 of Article 45 of the Patent Act and the intent of the examination criteria, the original disposing authority has failed to explain item by item why the case is not patentable, thus constituting the failure to examine the application item by item and violation of the principle of clarity and definiteness of law.
(Collected by TIPO as a representative case in Compilation of Patent Administrative Proceeding Cases 2014-2015)
|
 |
|
|
