▍Jiaquan represented a leading home-furnishings company throughout the invalidation and judicial review proceedings in a dispute over a utility model for a connection structure.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) declared all claims of the patent invalid for lack of inventive step. The patent owner challenged the decision in administrative litigation, but the first-instance court dismissed the action, and the final appellate court upheld the full invalidation.

The judgment offers practical guidance on two issues that frequently arise in Chinese patent invalidation cases: when CNIPA may rely on common general knowledge without exceeding the scope of the petitioner’s case, and how courts assess technical motivation when combining prior-art references.

Background

Claim 1 required, among other elements, guide rails and a limiting component formed by bending different edges of the same base plate toward the same side. A locking projection on the limiting component engaged with a corresponding hole in an insertion member.

The invalidation petitioner relied principally on two earlier US patent publications.

The first reference disclosed a detachable chair-back connection mechanism with components corresponding to the claimed base plate, guide rails, limiting element, insertion member and locking arrangement.

The second reference disclosed guide structures integrally formed by folding the edges of a central body to create open channels.

CNIPA found that the first reference disclosed most of claim 1. The principal difference was that the claimed guide rails and limiting element were integrally formed by bending the edges of the base plate, whereas the corresponding components in the first reference were attached to the plate.

CNIPA held that the second reference provided the technical teaching for forming the guide rails by integral bending, and that extending the same manufacturing approach to the limiting element was a routine choice based on common general knowledge. Accordingly, claims 1–8 were invalidated in full.

Issues on Judicial Review

The patent owner challenged the invalidation decision on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Procedurally, it argued that CNIPA had relied on a prior-art combination and common general knowledge theory that the petitioner had not properly advanced. It is alleged that CNIPA had exceeded the scope of the invalidation request and deprived the patent owner of a proper opportunity to respond.

Substantively, the patent owner argued that:

• the secondary reference disclosed only integrally bent guide rails, not the claimed limiting structure;
  
• the two prior-art mechanisms were structurally different;
  
• the skilled person would have had no reason to combine the references; and
  
• the claimed arrangement achieved coordinated improvements in connection strength, installation, removal and manufacturability.
  

The Final Appellate Decision

The final appellate court rejected both sets of arguments.

The Oral-Hearing Record Preserved the Invalidation Case

The court first examined the oral-hearing record before CNIPA.

The record showed that the petitioner had expressly relied on the combination of the two prior-art references and had argued that any remaining differences were readily conceivable and amounted to conventional structural arrangements.

The patent owner had responded to those arguments by disputing the compatibility of the references and the existence of a technical motivation to combine them.

In these circumstances, CNIPA’s reliance on common general knowledge did not introduce an entirely new invalidation theory. The relevant prior-art combination, together with the contention that any residual differences were routine, had already been placed on the record. The patent owner had also been given an adequate opportunity to comment.

The court therefore found no violation of the principle that the scope of an invalidation proceeding is defined by the parties’ requests, or of the patent owner’s right to be heard.

The Secondary Reference Provided the Required Technical Teaching

On inventive step, the court agreed that the secondary reference provided a relevant technical teaching.

It disclosed guide structures formed integrally by bending the sides of a base plate. The court considered integral bending to be a conventional structural measure capable of increasing support strength and facilitating manufacture.

Those effects were familiar and predictable. The overall structural differences between the two prior-art devices therefore did not prevent the skilled person from applying the integral-bending technique disclosed in the secondary reference to the primary reference.

The secondary reference did not expressly disclose a limiting element formed by bending the top edge of the same base plate. However, once the skilled person knew that the side edges of a plate could be bent to form guide rails, selecting another edge and bending it in the required direction was a routine adaptation based on practical design needs.

Because the guide rails and limiting component in the primary reference were already mounted on the same plate, forming both elements integrally from that plate did not require inventive effort. Nor did the claimed arrangement produce an unexpected technical effect.

Claim 1 therefore lacked inventive step over the combination of the two prior-art references and common general knowledge.

The patent owner did not establish an independent inventive contribution for claims 2–8. The court accordingly upheld the invalidation of the dependent claims, dismissed the appeal and maintained the full invalidation.

Practical Takeaways

1. Build the Invalidation Case for Judicial Review from the Outset

A successful CNIPA proceeding may later be tested in administrative litigation.

The written invalidation request, oral-hearing submissions and supporting technical evidence should therefore present a consistent theory covering:

• the closest prior art;
  
• the distinguishing technical features;
  
• the objective technical problem;
  
• the motivation to combine;
  
• the role of common general knowledge; and
  
• the predictability of the resulting technical effects.
  

A persuasive technical conclusion may still face procedural risk when the reasoning supporting it has not been clearly placed on the record.

2. Treat the Oral-Hearing Record as Part of the Litigation Record

This case shows that oral submissions can be decisive when a patent owner later argues that CNIPA exceeded the scope of the petitioner’s case. Counsel should expressly state any fallback positions, including whether a residual difference is conventional, routine, or part of the common general knowledge. The record should also show that the opposing party was given a meaningful opportunity to respond. Clear oral-hearing submissions can help preserve an invalidation theory during subsequent judicial review.

3. Focus on the Transferred Technical Teaching

Prior-art references do not need to disclose identical overall products or mechanisms.

The relevant inquiry is whether the secondary reference teaches a technical measure that:

• performs the same or a related function;
  
• addresses the relevant technical problem;
  
• could reasonably be applied to the closest prior art; and
  
• would produce predictable technical effects.
  

Differences between the overall structures of two references will not necessarily defeat a combination where the relevant technical teaching remains transferable.

4. Commercial Advantages Do Not Necessarily Establish Inventive Step

Integral formation, folding, bending, and component consolidation may improve strength, reduce part count, or simplify manufacturing. These benefits may be commercially valuable, but they can still be regarded as predictable consequences of routine engineering choices. To support inventive step, a patent owner should identify a technical difficulty overcome, an unexpected result, or an effect that could not reasonably have been predicted from the prior art.

5. Defend Dependent Claims Independently

A dependent claim should not be defended solely on the assumption that the independent claim will survive. For each commercially important dependent claim, the patent owner should identify its additional distinguishing features, the separate technical problem it addresses, and any independent technical effect. The same claim-by-claim discipline should be applied when preparing an invalidation challenge.

* This case note is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Certain identifying details have been omitted or generalized.