Beijing Intellectual Property Court hears Siemens patent invalidation case online

How to make mobile phones faster and accommodate more users? A patent case involving communication technology revealed the mystery. Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court opened an online court hearing the plaintiff Xiaomi Communication Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Corporation) v. the defendant State Intellectual Property Office and the third party Siemens Inc., an administrative dispute concerning the invalidation of an invention patent involving the control channel data method.

　　Siemens is the patentee of the invention patent (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved) named "Method and device for transmitting user-specific control channel data in a radio system" (Patent No.: 02812385.9). The purpose of the patent involved in the case is to realize flexible control between base stations and mobile phones by transmitting user-specific control channel data, thereby achieving faster mobile phone speeds and accommodating more mobile phone users.

Xiaomi Company reported to the State Intellectual Property Rights that the involved patent violated Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, Article 26 Paragraph 4, and Article 33 of the Patent Law, as well as its lack of novelty and creativity The Bureau filed a request for invalidation, and Siemens submitted the amended claims on May 24, 2019.

The State Intellectual Property Office determined after examination that the amended claims 1-16 and the specification amendment did not exceed the scope, the protection scope of claims 1-16 is clear, and claims 1-16 are novel and inventive, and the patent part involved is declared invalid , On the basis of claims 1-16 filed by Siemens on May 24, 2019, continue to maintain the validity of the patent involved.

　　 Xiaomi Company refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. It alleged that the accused decision had an error in the interpretation of the claims, and the amended claims 1 and 15 only retained the technical solution for changing the arrangement of the subcarriers. This modification was beyond the scope of the original application. The amended independent claims 1 and 15 do not possess novelty and creativity. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-14 and 16 do not possess novelty and creativity.

The State Intellectual Property Office believes that for the scope of protection of the claims, if the original specification and claims record several parallel technical solutions, and the aforementioned parallel technical solutions have covered all possible situations, the patentee shall delete some of them and parallelize them. After the technical scheme is modified, the protection scope of the remaining technical scheme should be understood as the narrowly defined scope of the technical scheme in the original parallel technical scheme, and should not be interpreted in a broader sense. Therefore, the patent involved in the case complies with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law and the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law. The defendant's decision to determine the facts is clear, the application of the law is correct, and the procedures are legal, and request the court to reject the plaintiff's litigation request.

　　 Currently, the case is under further trial.