Background

　　D company, an international leader in the High-voltage Switchgear industry, with its headquarter in Germany, filed a request to the Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office in Aug. 2013 for invalidation of the patent A, named “A new type of separation and purification equipment for the recovery and purification of sulfur hexafluoride gas”. The patentee of patent A-P Company, a well-known manufacturer of high-voltage switchgear in China, entrusted ZHENGZHOU RUIXIN with this case (A) to cope with this invalidation case.

　　Process

　　D company filed a request for invalidation to the Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office for the referred patent A in August 2013 claiming that the combination of common knowledge with the prior art applied in the equipment sold by Company D before the filing date of the patent A may affect the inventiveness of the patent A. The evidence D company provided was sales contact of the equipment and the product specification.

　　In the invalidation procedure, attorneys from RUIXIN conducted practical research on products of the patentee, carefully analyzed proof and invalidation reasons provided by the invalidation petitioner, made a comparison between the technical solution of the patent A and the equipment’s application and principle of D company, came up with detailed arguments against the invalidation reasons: a). substantial difference between the technical solution of the patent A and the equipment’s application and principle of D company; b). defects in the evidence.

　　Results

　　Finally company D withdrew the invalidation request.

　　Summary

　　The key to success in the invalidation case lies in the detailed analysis of patent in question and thoroughly review of the evidence.