Lawyer’s Insights: Article 34 of the Administrative Litigation Law (2017 Amendment) stipulates that the defendant bears the burden of proof for the administrative act it has made and shall provide evidence of the administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based. Failure to provide evidence or providing evidence after the deadline without justifiable reason shall be deemed as lack of corresponding evidence. However, this does not apply if the administrative act in question involves the legitimate rights and interests of a third party, and the third party provides evidence. Article 37 stipulates that the plaintiff may provide evidence to prove the illegality of the administrative act. The plaintiff’s failure to provide valid evidence does not exempt the defendant from the burden of proof.
Based on the above legal provisions, the burden of proof in administrative litigation rests with the defendant, while the plaintiff may provide evidence to prove the illegality of the administrative act.
Although the plaintiff is not required to bear the burden of proving the illegality of the administrative act, in patent invalidation administrative litigation, the court needs to re-examine the grounds for invalidation. As the administrative counterpart, the plaintiff’s interests are directly related to the invalidation review decision, and therefore, we need to make every effort to state or prove the illegality of the administrative act in order to strive for the revocation of the invalidation review decision.
Article 29 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases of Patent Grant and Confirmation (I) Fa Shi [2020] No. 8” stipulates that: If a patent applicant or patentee provides new evidence in an administrative case of patent grant and confirmation to prove that the patent application should not have been rejected or that the patent right should have been maintained, the people’s court should generally review it.
The above legal provisions do not restrict the types of evidence that patentees can present, but limit the purpose of proof to “proving that the patent application should not have been rejected or that the patent right should have been maintained.” In practice, judges generally carefully consider the content of supplementary evidence of common knowledge (textbooks, reference books, technical manuals).
Therefore, the retrieval and supplementation of evidence of common knowledge is often crucial in patent invalidation administrative litigation. This case is a typical example of an administrative litigation appeal being overturned after the submission of evidence of common knowledge.
Parties:
Plaintiff in Administrative Litigation: Huangshan Tuoda Technology Co., Ltd.
Defendant in Administrative Litigation: State Intellectual Property Office
Third Party in Administrative Litigation: A company in Hunan Province
Basic Facts: Huangshan Tuoda Technology Co., Ltd. was subject to administrative investigation for patent infringement. Huangshan Tuoda filed two invalidation requests against the patent in question, both of which were upheld by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). Huangshan Tuoda lost the first instance of its administrative lawsuit. Under extremely unfavorable circumstances, Attorney Yu Chunbo, in the third invalidation request, retrieved crucial evidence of common general knowledge.
Analysis revealed that this evidence was helpful in the administrative litigation case. Huangshan Tuoda retained Attorney Yu to appear in the second instance of the administrative litigation, achieving a reversal victory, overturning the invalidation decision and the first instance judgment, and fully supporting Huangshan Tuoda’s claims in the second instance judgment.
Subsequently, the SIPO issued a new invalidation decision, invalidating all the patents in question and completely resolving Huangshan Tuoda’s issues.
The third party in the administrative litigation filed for retrial, and Attorney Yu again represented Huangshan Tuoda and won.
Document Numbers:
(2022) Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Administrative Final Judgment No. 324
(2023) Supreme People’s Court Administrative Application No. 430