Bridge expansion joint devices are similar to the "joints" that connect human bones and are used to connect bridge spans. Large bridges have gaps between each span to ensure that the spans do not squeeze each other when they deform due to thermal expansion and contraction or loading, thus maintaining bridge safety. However, the presence of gaps between spans means they are not connected, which is unsafe and impractical for vehicle traffic. Therefore, bridge expansion joint devices are used to connect the spans while ensuring a smooth bridge surface.
However, when the spans undergo significant deflection due to loading (deflection refers to deformation other than stretching or compressing, such as bending), the ends of the spans will lift up like a bent ruler, causing the expansion joint device to exceed its load limit and break or protrude, resulting in an uneven bridge surface. Vehicles passing over it will experience a noticeable jolt, and in severe cases, "jumping" may occur, endangering driving safety. Conventional expansion joint devices can only handle a few tens of millimeters of expansion, while "A Large Anti-Deflection Bridge Expansion Joint Device" is suitable for expansion exceeding 500mm and can ensure a smooth bridge surface. This effect is almost impossible to achieve with other devices on the market. For this reason, this patent has been widely applied to numerous super bridges such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hangzhou Bay Bridge, the Huangpu Bridge over the Pearl River in Guangzhou, and the Nanjing Second Yangtze River Bridge.
Earlier, the patentee of "A Super Large Anti-Deflection Bridge Expansion Joint Device" had the enterprise standard drafted based on this patent determined as an industry standard (The People's Republic of China's Transportation Industry Standard - JT/T 723-2008 Unit-type Multi-directional Displacement Comb Plate Bridge Expansion Device). This patent thus became a necessary patent for the bridge construction industry. As the saying goes, "Fame brings trouble," and this applies to patents as well. Because this patent is highly effective, ensuring driving safety and reducing the operational costs of large bridges, and being an industry benchmark, it has become a target for many. Not only has it been repeatedly infringed upon, but also multiple invalidation declarations have been initiated against it. Therefore, the patentee urgently needed a team to provide long-term effective protection for this patent. Later, they found TriSun IP.
Since accepting the commission, Sanju Sunlight has successfully "blocked" the invalidation requests of multiple invalid applicants. When Sanju Sunlight first took on the case, it established an expert group, which included patent agents with over ten years of experience in handling invalidation cases in the engineering field, patent lawyers, and former examiners with over ten years of experience in substantive patent examination. Before the invalidation case was heard, the expert group conducted detailed investigations and evidence collection, and continuously communicated with the patentee to thoroughly understand the core technical points of the patent. Based on this, they formed an invalidation defense opinion. In the subsequent trial, the invalidation applicant was unable to provide a strong rebuttal to Sanju Sunlight's claims.
Take the case involved in the invalidation review decision No. 37446 as an example. The invalidation applicant submitted two pieces of evidence and argued that it would be easy for a person skilled in the art to separate some features from one piece of evidence and combine them with the other to achieve the same technical effect as this patent. They claimed that this patent lacked inventiveness.
In this regard, Sanju Sunshine believes that the "Patent Examination Guidelines 2010" stipulates that when evaluating whether an invention has creativity, examiners should not only consider the technical solution of the invention itself, but also take into account the technical field to which the invention belongs, the technical problem it solves, and the technical effect it produces, viewing the invention as a whole. When considering whether the prior art documents as a whole provide a combination hint, the prior art documents should also be considered as a whole. The petitioner's claim does not view this invention and the evidence it submitted as a whole, but only argues from the technical features themselves, which will lead to a wrong judgment.
Furthermore, even if the technical feature of a certain function of the overall solution disclosed in the evidence submitted by the requester is the same as that of this patent, the working principle of this technical feature in the entire invention is significantly different from that of this patent, and the technical problem to be solved by this evidence is also different from that of this patent. This evidence (a certain other expansion joint device) is only applicable to bridges with a very small expansion amount, while "a large anti-deflection bridge expansion joint device" is applicable to large bridges with an expansion amount exceeding 500mm. Therefore, Sanju Sunshine believes that when determining the inventiveness of this patent, it cannot be concluded that a person skilled in the art would easily think of combining the technical means limited by this part of the technical feature to the closest prior art without considering the overall technical effect, merely because a certain technical feature in the evidence is the same as that of this patent and the technical feature itself has the same function.
To better illustrate this point, we can use a similar example. Take electric tricycles and large trucks for instance. Although both are used for transporting goods, their carrying capacities are quite different, and their application scenarios are completely distinct. Electric tricycles are suitable for short-distance and small-volume cargo transportation, while large trucks are the opposite. It is easy to imagine that when technicians in the large truck industry design and modify large trucks, they must start from the actual needs of long-distance freight transportation, considering how to ensure safety when carrying tens of tons of goods and how drivers can get adequate rest during long-distance driving; they would not buy an electric tricycle for reference before designing and modifying a large truck, even though both have cargo compartments and can transport goods.
Therefore, as mentioned earlier, the patent evidence submitted by the petitioner in this case is different from the patent usage scenario, and the working principles of similar technical features are also different. How could it support the conclusion that "a person skilled in the art could easily think of separating some features from one piece of evidence and combining them with another piece of evidence to achieve the same technical effect as this patent"? The collegial panel ultimately accepted the viewpoint of Sanju Sunshine and maintained the validity of all the patent rights of "A Special Large Anti-Deflection Bridge Expansion Joint Device".
In the latest invalidation case against this patent, although the petitioner submitted new evidence, they still failed to prove that the patent lacked inventiveness by piecing together multiple pieces of evidence to form technical features, just as mentioned above. Once again, Sanju Sunlight successfully maintained the validity of the "A Large Anti-Deflection Bridge Expansion Joint Device" patent. While demonstrating the technological innovation of the patent, it also reaffirmed the achievements of the Sanju Sunlight litigation team.
Sunlight Intellectual Property Group has over 30 full-time intellectual property lawyers and patent litigation agents. The success rate of litigation cases exceeds 90%, and it has handled more than 2,000 cases of patent invalidation, infringement litigation, administrative litigation of infringement, trademark litigation and other types of litigation cases. Besides this case, it also includes patent disputes of Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Group's Levamlodipine, patent invalidation cases of Gree Electric Appliances and Aoke, patent invalidation cases of Mobike, administrative litigation of Tencent's "Weishi" trademark, trademark infringement litigation of Zhongshan Yunteng, administrative litigation of Liebherr trademark, administrative litigation of Zhoukou's "Changshoushan" trademark, disputes over the inventorship of the patent related to the Olympic Big Footprint Launching Device, patent ownership disputes of Le'er, unfair competition litigation of Sanju Environmental Protection, and commercial secret litigation of the United States CBI, among many other cases with social influence. For each patent dispute litigation case, Sunlight Intellectual Property Group will establish an expert group consisting of legal experts, technical experts, senior patent agents and senior lawyers to conduct a comprehensive analysis and handling of the case. This is also the consistent professional service style of Sunlight Intellectual Property Group's litigation and invalidation team.
