The patent reexamination administrative litigation second-instance case of the patentee "Dongguan Simplewell Technology Co., Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "Simplewell"), represented by Unitalen Attorneys at Law, recently received the Supreme People's Court's judgment [(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 468]. The judgment revoked the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's [(2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 9357] administrative ruling and the China National Intellectual Property Administration's (CNIPA) Reexamination Decision No. 298040, securing patent protection for Simplewell's innovative technology and further strengthening its product's competitive advantage in the market.

Case Brief

The sued decision was issued by the CNIPA in response to a reexamination request concerning the patent application for an invention titled "An Electronic Cooling Anti-Condensation System and Its Anti-Condensation Method" with the application No. 201711290069.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the application involved"). The application involves real-time acquisition of the testing chamber's internal temperature and humidity via a temperature and humidity sensor, as well as real-time detection of electronic cooling plate temperatures via temperature sensors. The main controller calculates the dew point value of the air in the testing chamber based on the acquired temperature and humidity. When the dew point value exceeds a preset value, it controls the cooling plate control unit to reduce the number of working electronic cooling plates or their output power, thereby implementing anti-condensation measures for the cooling plates, redundant control, and fault-free downtime.

The sued decision holds that Claim 1 is distinguished over Evidence 1 in the following technical features: (1) this application relates to an electronic cooling anti-condensation system, wherein electronic cooling plates are used for cooling, and there is at least one group of the electronic cooling plates, each group of the electronic cooling plates is respectively mounted on a chamber wall of the testing chamber, and one end part of the electronic cooling plate dissipates heat outside the testing chamber while the other part thereof is fixed on the chamber wall or the interior of the testing chamber; and the specific method for controlling a cooling plate control unit; and (2) this application comprises temperature sensors connected to a main controller, used for detecting temperatures of the electronic cooling plates, wherein the temperature sensors are mounted on a part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of each group of the electronic cooling plates, or a common part, close to an inner side of the testing chamber, of all electronic cooling plates, or the chamber wall, or cooling fins, close to the interior of the testing chamber, of the electronic cooling plates. The technical problem actually solved by the distinguishing technical features is how to achieve temperature control of the cooling system. Regarding the distinction (1), Evidence 2 discloses a refrigeration system applicable to various circulation bodies, and discloses that the system can achieve independent control of multiple groups of semiconductor refrigerators under the control of controller 9, providing different refrigerating capacities, thus ensuring the accuracy and adjustability of temperature control. The above-disclosed features perform the same function in Evidence 2 as they do in this application, and can provide inspiration for achieving precise temperature control in Evidence 1. Regarding the distinction (2), based on the disclosure in Evidence 1, those skilled in the art can make selections as needed. Therefore, based on Evidence 1 in combination with Evidence 2 and common knowledge, Claim 1 lacks an inventive step. The first-instance court and the sued decision hold essentially the same view.

In the second instance, Unitalen provided a detailed explanation of the solutions of the patent involved and the reference documents regarding the essence of the technical solutions, and elaborated on the basis and facts for re-determining the technical problem. Based on the re-determination of the technical problem, Evidence 2 did not provide technical inspiration for solving the technical problem, and there was no motivation for improvement based on Evidence 1. The judges in the second-instance, having thoroughly understood the technical facts, supported Simplewell's claims and issued a judgment revoking the sued decision and the first-instance judgment.

Issue of the Case

The main focus of dispute between the two parties in this case is around the determination of inventiveness, including the technical problems actually solved by the distinguishing features, the motivation for improvement of the prior art, combination inspiration, and the like. However, it is worth noting that another issue also drew the attention of the panel: the technical solution of this application has corresponding family patents in other countries. During the first and second instance proceedings of this case, the family patents in Europe, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, Indonesia, and other countries have been granted one after another, while only the Chinese application was rejected. The first-instance court held that patents are territorial, and foreign grants do not necessarily entail authorization in China. In this regard, Simplewell submitted evidence in the appeal, pointing out that the reference documents cited in this case had also been used in examinations in some other countries. Moreover, the prior art cited in the granted Korean patent was identical to that in this case. Although the standards for assessing inventiveness vary across countries, the core issue remains the examination of obviousness. Additionally, some features was rejected based on common knowledge rather than disclosure in the prior art, leading Simplewell to question whether the inventiveness assessment in this case was conducted under an inappropriate standard. After the hearing, Simplewell further submitted an analysis of reference documents and examination opinions from Korea, Japan, and the U.S. that were similar to those used in this case, for the judges' reference. Although the second-instance judgment did not explicitly address these materials or the discrepancies in grant standards between China and other countries, it is believed that this situation influenced the judges' conviction.