[Success Case]
Case No. 2010 Xing-Zhuan-Su-Zi 33, Intellectual Property Court
[Decision Digest]
According to the technical feature described in the claims of the plaintiff’s patent at issue, the patent at issue not only provides “full duplex communication” for both parties to speak and listen “synchronously” but also includes “simplex communication” for one party to speak and another party to listen at the same time. The claim construction is too broad, including the technical feature of prior art, as disclosed in exhibits 1 and 3. Claim 1 of the plaintiff’s patent at issue has obviously violated paragraph 2 of Article 98 of the Patent Act and should thus be invalidated.