This case was selected as one of the Top 10 Patent Reexamination Invalidation Cases of China National Intellectual Property Administration in 2021.
Background of the Case:
The patents in question are 201310567987.0 and 201480073126.X, both titled "Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device", and of which, the patentee is Lifetech Scientific (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.. The left atrial appendage closure device is a medical device used in left atrial appendage closure for patients with atrial fibrillation, and left atrial appendage closure is also a method of preventing stroke.
The left atrial appendage closure device has a great market prospect. A report reveals that in 2022, the Chinese market size of the left atrial appendage closure device reached RMB 671 million, the global market size of the left atrial appendage closure device reached RMB 13.93 billion, which is expected to reach RMB 80.24 billion by 2028, with a compound annual growth rate of 33.89% estimated for the global market of the left atrial appendage closure device during the forecast period.
Our client intended to develop a similar product and the patents in question constituted an obstacle to the marketing of the client's new product. As a result, the client filed an invalidation request against the two patents. On November 03, 2021, China National Intellectual Property Administration issued No. 52508 and No. 52509 Invalidation Decisions, and declared both the two patents in question invalid. The patentee, Lifetech, was not convinced and filed an administrative lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Later on September 22, 2023 and July 26, 2023, Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the (2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 3349 and (2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 3353 Judgments, respectively, and rejected Lifetech’s litigation request. Lifetech Xianjian appealed against the first instance judgment to the Supreme People's Court. Currently, the second instance case is under trial, with the second instance case numbers (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 900 and (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1170.
Mr. Miao Wenjun, as the organizing lawyer, together with Mr. Li Hongtuan, the patent attorney, took full participation in the invalidation, first instance and second instance proceedings, and represented the client in the first instance and second instance proceedings of the above cases.
The invalidation and first instance judgments of the two patents in question initially cleared the way for the client's product launch.
Difficulties and Solutions
There are two difficulties in this case:
Firstly, the patentee filed a request for a "novelty grace period", argued that Evidence 1 had been disclosed without the patentee's consent, and requested that Evidence 1 be excluded as prior art.
Secondly, whether the information recorded in the accompanying drawings of Evidence 1 discloses the technical features of the claims.
In response to Difficulty 1, the lawyers found through a search that the patentee used Evidence 1 to apply for projects and awards, and therefore argued that the patentee had long been aware of the existence of Evidence 1, and that it was not leaked without the patentee's consent.
In response to Difficulty 2, the lawyers analyzed the information disclosed in the accompanying drawings from various aspects and perspectives, which led the judge of first instance to determine that the accompanying drawings disclosed the technical features of the claims.
Highlights and Significance:
This case invalidated all the patent rights in question, and its typical significance lies in the interpretation of the application of the "novelty grace period", whereby the patentee should fulfill the necessary declaration obligation in a timely manner when it knows that another party has disclosed its technical content without its consent, which will be useful for the trial of similar cases.
