One Case a Day | China: Qualification Review of Patent Invalidation Requesters - Invalidation Decision No. 589012 (2025)

Case Introduction 

The most noteworthy aspect of this case is the review of the qualifications of the invalidation requester as a "straw man." The essence of a straw man lies in their inherent intermediary and agent attributes. The focus in identifying a straw man should not be on whether they acted voluntarily or whether they are familiar with the industry, the solution, the invalidation evidence, or the grounds. An agent voluntarily acting on behalf of a principal cannot be said to be acting on their own behalf. This case was determined based on forged signatures, and more cases examining the nature of straw men will follow, which should be monitored closely.

Case Information

• Application Number: 201280033773.9
• Title of Invention: 2-(2,4,5-Substituted Anilino)pyrimidine Derivatives as EGFR Modulators for Treating Cancer
• Patentee: AstraZeneca AB (Sweden)
• Requester: Wang Tailing
• Request Date: January 13, 2025
• Case Number: 4W119452
• Decision Number: No. 589012
• Decision Date: November 15, 2025

Key Points of the Decision

1. Any entity or individual may request the invalidation of a patent, but the requester must possess the capacity for civil litigation and express genuine intent. That is, the invalidation request must be based on the requester's genuine belief that "the grant of the patent right does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law." If the invalidation request does not reflect the requester's genuine intent, the basis for initiating the invalidation procedure is absent, and the request should not be accepted. An invalidation request based on forged legal documents constitutes an invalid legal act and should be deemed to lack the requester's genuine intent, failing to comply with Article 45 of the Patent Law.

Important Stages of the Case

• February 26, 2025: The patentee raised doubts about the requester's identity, suggesting that Wang Tailing, a resident of Taiwan Province, China, born in 1949, had no connection to the pharmaceutical industry or patent matters. The multiple invalidation requests filed against pharmaceutical patents under this name raised the possibility of identity misuse.
• April 23, 2025: The collegial panel issued a notice to the requester to verify their true identity information and genuine intent in filing the invalidation request.
• April 28, 2025: The requester submitted a statement of opinion in response to the notice, along with a scanned copy of a "Declaration" signed by Wang Tailing and notarized by a notary public in Taiwan Province (hereinafter referred to as Evidence 5), claiming that Wang Tailing filed the invalidation request based on genuine personal intent without any false elements, and thus did not constitute a false request.
• June 23, 2025: The patentee submitted Attachment 23: the "Zhongtian Judicial Appraisal Center [2025] Document Appraisal No. 71" judicial appraisal opinion. This was the appraisal result after the patentee submitted the requester's signatures on the "Power of Attorney for Patent Invalidation Proceedings" and the "Declaration" for judicial appraisal. The patentee argued that the requester did not submit a genuine and valid power of attorney when filing the invalidation request.

Collegial Panel's Viewpoint 

Article 45 of the Patent Law stipulates: "Starting from the date of the announcement of the grant of the patent right by the patent administration department under the State Council, any entity or individual that believes that the grant of the said patent right does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law may request the patent administration department under the State Council to declare the patent right invalid." Section 2.3, Chapter 1, Part IV of the Patent Examination Guidelines states that invalidation proceedings shall be initiated based on the request of the parties. According to these provisions, any entity or individual may request the invalidation of a patent, but the requester must possess the capacity for civil litigation and express genuine intent. That is, the invalidation request must be based on the requester's genuine belief that "the grant of the patent right does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law." If the invalidation request does not reflect the requester's genuine intent, the basis for initiating the invalidation procedure is absent, and the request should not be accepted.

In this case, Attachment 23 submitted by the patentee stated: The Zhongtian Judicial Appraisal Center used three electronic copies of the "Power of Attorney for Patent Invalidation Proceedings" with "Wang Tailing" signatures for different patents (among which Sample Two, labeled "YB-25-71-2," was the power of attorney for the requester in this case) as sample materials. It compared them with two electronic copies of the "Declaration" with "Wang Tailing" signatures (among which Exhibit Two, labeled "JC-25-71-2," was Evidence 5 submitted by the requester in this case) as examination materials. After comparative examination, "significant differences were found between the two in terms of handwriting style, layout features, character structure features, writing level, and details such as connection methods and coordination relationships between strokes." Based on this, the appraisal opinion was given: "The possibility that the signature 'Wang Tailing' at the conclusion of Exhibit One 'Declaration (Document Serial No.: 2025041800527300)' and the signature 'Wang Tailing' at the conclusion of Exhibit Two 'Declaration (Document Serial No.: 2025041800549880)' (two signatures in total) are not from the same person as the sample signatures is relatively high."

The collegial panel held: First, notarized legal acts should serve as the basis for determining facts. Therefore, the requester's signature on the "Declaration" witnessed by the notary public can be presumed to be the requester's genuine signature. Consequently, it is highly probable that the requester's signature on the "Power of Attorney for Patent Invalidation Proceedings" in this case was forged. The invalidation request based on this forged legal document also constitutes an invalid legal act, lacking the requester's genuine intent and failing to comply with Article 45 of the Patent Law, and thus should not be accepted. Although the requester subsequently submitted a personal declaration stating that filing the invalidation request was their genuine intent, the act of representing another in filing an invalidation request involves not only civil agency but also the requester's obligation to file the request with the patent administration department under the State Council in a manner adhering to the principle of good faith. Therefore, even if the requester subsequently acknowledges the act, it only affects the civil legal relationship between the requester and the agent. It cannot change the illegality of the act in this case—submitting forged legal documents with false signatures to file an invalidation request. This act violates the principle of good faith, deceives the patent administration department under the State Council, and disrupts normal patent management order.

The patent invalidation system is a post-grant error correction mechanism. It declares patents invalid that do not meet the patentability requirements of the Patent Law to ensure a balance between protecting innovation incentives and safeguarding public interests, thereby ensuring the stability of patent rights, preventing abuse of rights, and ultimately promoting a virtuous cycle of technological innovation and economic development. To maintain the seriousness of the patent invalidation procedure and truly realize its value of distinguishing truth from falsehood and balancing interests, patentees, invalidation requesters, and patent agents should all adhere to the principle of good faith and exercise their legitimate rights properly without harming the lawful interests of others or social public order. In this case, forging signatures when filing the invalidation request and submitting forged legal documents to the patent administration department under the State Council constitutes an illegal act violating the principle of good faith and an improper abuse of the patent invalidation procedure. It not only damages the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee but also negatively impacts patent management order and the market competition environment, harming public interest, and should be regulated.

In summary, the invalidation request in this case does not meet the acceptance criteria. Additionally, in this case, the requester's agent admitted that the requester Wang Tailing and Hou Qingchen are indeed mother and son. Based on the series of evidence submitted by the patentee, this case is indeed closely related to market entities such as Hou Qingchen and "Nanjing Huaxun." However, since the conclusion that this case does not meet the acceptance criteria has already been reached based on the requester's above actions, the collegial panel will not further comment on whether the invalidation request in this case was actually filed maliciously by market entities such as "Nanjing Huaxun."

According to Section 7.6, Chapter 1, Part IV of the Patent Examination Guidelines, this case should be dismissed. However, considering that oral proceedings have already been held in this case and the collegial panel has fully examined the invalidation grounds and related evidence, to ensure the stability of the patent right and in accordance with the principles of fair law enforcement and administrative efficiency, the examination procedure in this case will not be terminated. The collegial panel will proceed to review the substantive merits of the invalidation grounds and evidence.