-
-
Services
-
-
24
2026-03
One Case a Day | China: Coordinated Proof of Time and Technical Solution for Public Use - Invalidation Decision No. 568173 (2024)
Case Introduction
In invalidation proceedings, evidence of public use is rarely relied upon in practice due to its particularity, as it is difficult to find evidence after the fact that simultaneously satisfies the conditions of the public date being earlier than the filing date and the technical content being sufficiently recorded. Sales contracts, promotional posters, etc., may record time information but often lack technical details; screenshots of sales websites, physical objects, etc., contain technical content but usually do not include sales time information. Based on the above reasons, public use is seldom relied upon in practice.
This case provides a direction for efforts in similar situations. It uses a contract to lock in the public date, and then uses multiple different sources of other technical materials (regardless of their public nature) that include the corresponding product model mentioned in the contract and can corroborate each other to substantiate the structural features of the specific product mentioned in the contract. This approach ultimately gained the support of the Reexamination Board.
Case Information
- Application Number: 202021355479.8
- Invention Name: A Positioning Platform for Hydraulic Supports in Underground Working Faces
- Filing Date: July 12, 2020
- Invalidation Decision Number: No. 568173
- Case Number: 5W135632
- Request Date: January 30, 2024
- Decision Date: May 6, 2024
Key Points of the Decision
If the existing evidence is sufficient to prove that a product of a certain model produced by a certain manufacturer was publicly sold before the filing date of this patent application, then the structure of the said product was in a state where the public could have known it if they wished at the time of its public sale before the filing date of this patent application.
If a piece of evidence records the structure of a product of the same model produced by the same manufacturer, even if the evidence itself does not belong to publicly available technical content, it does not affect its use in proving the structure possessed by the publicly sold product mentioned above.
Case Summary
The requester cited multiple pieces of prior art to challenge the inventiveness of the involved patent, with the main evidence being prior public use evidence. Among them:
- Evidence 9 included an industrial product sales contract signed between the requester and Xinwen Mining Group Materials Supply and Marketing Co., Ltd. on May 27, 2019 (involving "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" and "TYH300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device"), and copies of invoices. The value-added tax special invoices in Evidence 9 matched the seller and buyer recorded in the aforementioned contract, and the product name, model, and amount also matched the contract. The invoicing date was November 5, 2019, which was earlier than the filing date of this patent, proving that the requester's "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" had been publicly sold before the filing date of this patent application.
- Evidence 3 displayed the requester's company name in the advertisement area on the cover page and showed a photo of the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device," with a publication date earlier than the filing date of the involved patent application.
- Evidence 7 (Inspection Report) involved an "Inspection Report" issued by the National Work Safety Beijing Mine Lifting and Transport Equipment Inspection and Testing Center, with the production unit being the requester, product name being "Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device," model specification being "TYA300," and issuance date being February 3, 2016. It included appearance photos of the involved product and descriptions of its typical features.
- Evidence 8 contained design drawings of the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" and "Hydraulic System Schematic Diagram," showing the structure of the involved product. They were stamped with the requester company's seal and the "Technical Document Review Special Seal" of the "National Work Safety Beijing Mine Lifting and Transport Equipment Inspection and Testing Center," and the time marked within the seal was March 16, 2016.
The requester argued that Evidence 2-9 (hereinafter referred to as the public use evidence) corroborated each other, proving that the requester had publicly sold the relevant products before the filing date of this patent application.
The patentee argued that Evidence 7-8 themselves did not belong to publicly available technical content.
The collegial panel held that the products involved in Evidence 3 and Evidence 7-8 were produced by the same manufacturer and were of the same model, all being the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" produced by the requester company. Moreover, the structures shown in the photos and drawings in the above evidence did not show obvious inconsistencies. These pieces of evidence could corroborate each other, proving that the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" product publicly sold by the requester before the filing date of this patent application possessed the structure shown in Evidence 3 and Evidence 7-8.
The public nature and public time of the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device" were proven by the aforementioned Evidence 9. Its structure was already in a state where the public could have known it if they wished at the time of its public sale. As long as the products involved in Evidence 7-8 are consistent with the product publicly sold in Evidence 9, they can be used to prove the specific structure of the "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device." Whether Evidence 7-8 themselves belong to publicly available technical content does not affect their use in proving the structure possessed by the publicly sold "TYA300 Hydraulic Support Adjustment Device."
undefined
Contact Us
No. 93, Ganjiang West Rd., Suzhou, 215002, P.R.C.
Business Area
Follow Us
