【The parties concerned】
Patentee: Shanghai Xiangtao Machinery Co., LTD. (our client)
Request for invalidation: Shanghai Nakong Automation Technology Co., Ltd.
【Introduction of the case】
Shanghai Xiangtao Machinery Co., Ltd. is the patentee of the utility model patent (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved) named as "a multifunctional inertial friction welding machine". On September 30, 2019, Shanghai Nakong Automation Technology Co., Ltd. filed a request for invalidation to the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China for the patent involved, on the grounds that claim 1 of the patent involved does not meet the novelty requirement of the patent law, and claim 1-5 does not meet the creativity requirement of the patent law, and submitted relevant evidence.
After formal examination and oral hearing, the examination agency of the State Intellectual Property Office finally adopted the opinions of our agent and made a decision to maintain the patent right in full validity.
【Focus of the Case】
In this case, the following issues are involved :
1. If there are different technical features between the technical solution of the claim and the prior art, causing the technical solution of the claim to be substantially different from the prior art, the claim is novel.
2. If there are different technical features between the technical solution protected by the claims and the closest prior art, and there is currently no relevant evidence showing that the distinguishing technical features are conventional technical means in the field, the claim is inventive.
After accepting the commission, we actively organized agents with rich experience to conduct a detailed analysis of the patent involved, and further analyzed the core points of the case on the basis of full understanding of the patent involved, forming a clear and complete defense idea.
During the oral examination, our agent put forward the following reply:
First, evidence 1 is not the same as the technical field of the patent involved, the technical solution adopted, the technical problem to be solved, and the technical effect obtained, and it is novel.
Secondly, the inertial friction welding machine of the patent involved can effectively complete the inertial friction welding work and adjust the energy during the welding process, thus achieving beneficial technical effects. In the absence of evidence, it is inappropriate to identify the above technical characteristics as common knowledge in this field.
Therefore, On the basis of evidence 2, those skilled in the art cannot obtain the technical solution claimed by claim 1 obviously. The claim 1 has substantive features and progress, which complies with the provisions of the Patent Law on creativity.
Based on the reference relationship, the claimant's claim that claim 2-5 does not conform to the relevant creative provisions of the Patent Law is also invalid. Based on the above facts, the patent involved conforms to the relevant provisions of the patent Law.
Finally, the team made a decision to maintain the patent right, which successfully safeguarded the legal rights of our parties.