I. Case Summary

The patent owner, Nissin Foods, is a competitor of our client, Master Kong. Nissin's patent (referred to as the "target patent") posed significant adverse effects on our client's business. If the patentee enforced this patent, it could result in the removal of many of our client’s products from the market. Consequently, we identified multiple pieces of prior art and filed an invalidation request against the target patent anonymously.

During the invalidation procedure at the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), the target patent was declared entirely invalid.

The patentee, claiming that the distinguishing technical features were not part of common general knowledge, filed an administrative lawsuit against this invalidation decision at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Representing the invalidation requester, we actively argued that the distinguishing technical features were indeed common general knowledge. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld CNIPA's decision and dismissed the patent owner's lawsuit.

The patentee, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed on the grounds that the technical problem solved by the distinguishing features was incorrect. We continued to represent the clientin the second-instance procedure, where we thoroughly explained to the Supreme Court the technical problem addressed by the distinguishing features in the target patent's specification. The Supreme Court supported our arguments. In its administrative judgment No. (2022) Supreme Court Zhi Xing Zhong 440, the Supreme Court dismissed the patent owner's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.

Thus, the invalidation of the target patent was finalized, eliminating the significant threat posed by Nissin Foods to Master Kong’s instant noodle business. If the patent had not been invalidated, Master Kong could have faced substantial claims for damages. The final judgment in this administrative lawsuit ensured the normal operation and sales of Master Kong's products.

II. Case Commentary

This Supreme Court judgment provides an important insights for our patent practice.

In patent practice, common general knowledge is often used by CNIPA and the courts as a reason for evaluating inventiveness in patent invalidation procedures. However, common general knowledge does not necessarily require evidence. If the court or CNIPA believes that the distinguishing technical features are easily conceived by a person skilled in the art without creative effort and do not produce unexpected effects, they can be considered common general knowledge.

In this case, the target patent involved changing the straight side of existing technology to a tapered side to achieve better pressure cushioning. The technical effect of a tapered side in cushioning pressure is common knowledge for those skilled in the art. The effect sought by the tapered side in this patent was also to cushion pressure and did not produce unexpected effects.  With our comprehensive analysis,  it was recognized as common general knowledge by the Supreme Court.

(Authors: Michael Wu, Darren Leng)