Bi-Weekly Newsletter (June 16-28, 2025)

Over the past two weeks, China’s Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Board released 170+ decisions. We analyzed them to uncover what’s working, and what’s not when it comes to surviving invalidation in China’s evolving IP environment. CNIPA continues to offer visibility into invalidation reasoning, giving practitioners more precise guidance for patent strategy.

Trends from Patent Challenge Data:

1) High Invalidation Rates Across Patent Types:

Utility Model Patents face the highest invalidation rate, with 85.39% of challenges resulting in either fully or partial invalidation. Design Patents also show a substantial invalidation rate of 65.45%. Invention Patents have a lower, but still considerable, invalidation rate of 47.62%.

This highlights the importance of thorough patent drafting and strong evidence to withstand challenges.

2) Specific Considerations for PCT Applications Entering China:

PCT Invention Patents entering China have a 66.67% invalidation rate, with 2 out of 3 challenged patents being partially invalidated.These high rates for PCT applications suggest that foreign patent holders should particularly prepare their applications and defense strategies when entering the Chinese national phase.

3) Breakdown of Invalidation Outcomes:

While total invalidation is a risk, partial invalidation is also a common outcome, allowing some claims to remain valid. For Invention Patents, a higher proportion of challenged patents are maintained valid (52.38%) compared to being fully (33.33%) or partially (14.29%) invalidated. In contrast, Utility Model Patents see a much higher percentage of total invalidation (65.17%) and partial invalidation (20.22%) compared to being maintained valid (14.61%).Design Patents have a significant portion maintained valid (34.55%) despite a high total invalidation rate (65.45%).

Challenged Case from Robert Bosch’s PCT

Invalidation Decision No. 586637 (June 26, 2025)

Re: Interpretation of Patent Claims Containing Both Approximate and Precise Numeric Limitations

Background

In a recent decision by the CNIPA, the validity of a patent was challenged on the basis that its claims simultaneously recited approximate numeric language (e.g., “multiple”) and precise numeric limitations (e.g., “four”) for the same technical feature. The petitioner argued that such drafting created ambiguity, contravening the clarity requirements set forth in Article 26(4) of the Chinese Patent Law.

The patent owner defended the drafting practice, asserting that no inconsistency existed, and that the claims were adequately supported by the specification.

Holding & Key Principle

The CNIPA’s adjudicating panel rejected the petitioner’s arguments and held that:

Where a patent claim contains both approximate (generic) and precise numeric limitations for the same technical feature, and no contradiction exists between these limitations, the scope of protection shall be determined by the precise numeric limitation.

Such coexistence does not result in an unclear technical solution under Article 26(4).

This principle reaffirms that internal consistency, rather than mere presence of multiple numerical expressions, determines compliance with statutory clarity standards.

Practical Implications for Drafting & Prosecution

Given the clarity requirements apply in different jurisdiction, this decision highlights best practices for global patent drafting:

1. Structured Claim Sets: Use approximate language (e.g., “multiple,” “several,” or ranges) in independent claims to secure broader initial protection. Add precise numeric limitations in dependent claims to hedge against future challenges.
   
2. Explicit Preferred Embodiments: Clearly describe which numeric values are most preferred to facilitate prosecution amendments or enforcement arguments.
   
3. Flexibility in National Phase: A well-crafted PCT or priority application with layered numeric disclosures allows for strategic narrowing or adaptation to local practices without sacrificing overall protection.
   

Why It Matters

This approach minimizes the risk of invalidation attacks based on alleged indefiniteness or lack of clarity, while preserving the applicant’s ability to adjust claims in response to local examination practices or competitor threats.

Recommendations

For patent portfolios involving mechanical, electrical, or chemical inventions where numeric limitations are frequent:

1. Review current claim sets for unnecessary overlaps of generic and precise numeric language.

2. Ensure that specifications include multiple supported embodiments and clearly state preferred numeric ranges or values.

3. Plan for tailored claim amendments in each jurisdiction’s national phase to address local clarity and sufficiency requirements.

Closing Note

Thank you for reading this bi-weekly update. We hope the data driven insights into recent patent invalidation cases help you stay informed about emerging trends in IP enforcement and legal reasoning in China. If you have any suggestions or would like to discuss a specific case in more detail, feel free to reach out, we’re always happy to connect.

*This newsletter represents the author's independent data analysis and does not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated law firm.