Defense Strategies of Third Parties in Patent Invalidation Administrative Disputes

Case Summary:

Within the legal framework, technological innovation and intellectual property protection require a deeper level of institutional development. As professionals in the field of intellectual property, we should always adhere to legal principles and understand technical issues from the perspective of someone skilled in the art.

Document Number:

(2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu 10740 Civil Ruling;

Decision on Invalidation Request Examination No. 54568

Parties:

Plaintiff/Invalidation Petitioner in Administrative Litigation: Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Defendant in Administrative Litigation: State Intellectual Property Office

Third Party/Patentee in Civil Litigation: Beijing Xuanguitang Technology Co., Ltd.

Basic Facts:

The invention patent with patent number ZL200510055346.2 and patent title “A Multi-Character Continuous Input Method for Chinese Pinyin and Zhuyin with Numerical Encoding on a Keyboard” has undergone eight invalidation challenges. Beijing Xuanyan Law Firm has represented the patentee in invalidation request proceedings multiple times, successfully maintaining the patent’s validity each time. This case involves the last invalidation decision. The invalidation petitioner, dissatisfied with the invalidation decision, filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

In this administrative lawsuit, the plaintiff argues that “abbreviated pinyin” should cover the spelling of the first letter of phrases. The challenged decision argued that Evidence 1 failed to disclose at least the following distinguishing technical features of claim 1: (c) based on the mapping relationship between Pinyin letters or Zhuyin symbols and number keys, and according to the full and abbreviated Pinyin input rules for word groups, each word group in the dictionary is converted into a corresponding “numerical encoding string,” and word groups with different pronunciations may be converted into the same “numerical encoding string”; (d) after receiving a “user keystroke sequence” representing multiple target Chinese characters, if the user does not select any Pinyin letter string or Zhuyin symbol string corresponding to any part of the keystroke sequence, the processor searches for the numerical encoding string corresponding to each word group, regardless of whether the word groups have the same pronunciation, and uses it as a matched “word group candidate,” mixing them together and displaying them in a paginated candidate box. This identification of the distinguishing technical features is incorrect. The evidence submitted in the invalidation proceedings all prove that claim 1 of the patent in question lacks inventiveness.

Attorney Yu Chunbo, as the agent of the third party, Beijing Xuanguitang Technology Co., Ltd., submitted written opinions, refuting the above arguments one by one.Ultimately, the court ruled to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit.

Lawyer’s Insights:

Within the legal framework, technological innovation and intellectual property protection require a deeper level of institutional construction. Extensive legal knowledge and case-handling experience are fundamental to handling litigation. Simultaneously, it’s necessary to thoroughly study the specific technical solutions, identifying key technical points and characteristics, given the complexity and particularity of the patents involved. Understanding technical issues from the perspective of a person skilled in the art is crucial to ensuring sufficient facts and correct application of the law in arguing one’s points. As professionals in the field of intellectual property, we must always adhere to legal principles and understand technical issues from the perspective of a person skilled in the art to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of innovators.