涉“3D 交易卡”实用新型专利权无效行政纠纷案

Giesecke & Devrient v. CNIPA

涉“3D 交易卡”实用新型专利权无效行政纠纷案

Docket number of the case in the first instance: 4185, first instance (初), administrative case (行), (2018) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)

Docket number of the case in the second instance: 491, second instance (终), administrative case (行), (2020) IP Court of the Supreme People’s Court (最高法知)

一审案号：（2018）京73行初4185号

二审案号：（2020）最高法知行终491号

The Guideline for Patent Examination provides for open and closed forms of claim expression, as it is not suitable to divide independent claims into the preface and features due to the nature of some inventions in the technical area, especially the composition invention in the chemical area. However, in the machinery area, by adding or reducing structural technical features, it usually will not lead to substantial changes in other technical features of the original technical plan in terms of characters, functions, features, etc., thus destroying the purpose of invention in the original technical plan. Therefore, although the Guideline for Patent Examination provides in Section 3.3/Chapter 2/Part II that "Closed claims shall be expressed in the form of “consisting of” ... It is generally construed to contain no structural components or methods and steps other than those described in such Claims”. However, it doesn’t mean that the claims using the above expression form are necessarily closed claims; to determine whether the claim excludes structural components or methods and steps other than those described therein, it’s necessary to consider from the perspective of the technician in this area and review the context of claims and the contents recorded in the patent specification and its attached drawings.

《专利审查指南》之所以规定开放式和封闭式的权利要求表达方式，是由于部分技术领域发明的性质不适合将独立权利要求撰写成前序和特征两部分，特别是化学领域的组合物发明。而在机械领域，增加或减少结构上的技术特征通常并不会导致原技术方案中的其他技术特征在性状、功能、特点等方面发生实质性改变，从而破坏原技术方案的发明目的。因此，《专利审查指南》虽然在第二部分第二章第3.3节规定了“封闭式权利要求宜采用‘由……组成’的表达方式，其一般解释为不含有该权利要求所述以外的结构组成部分或方法步骤，”但并不表明采用上述表达方式的权利要求必然为封闭式权利要求；应当站位本领域技术人员的视角，通过审查权利要求的上下文以及专利的说明书及附图记载内容，以确定权利要求是否排除了其所述以外的结构组成部分或方法步骤。

Appellant (Plaintiff in the case in the first instance): Giesecke & Devrient (China) Information Technologies Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Giesecke & Devrient)

Appellee (Defendant in the case in the first instance): China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

Third party in the case in the first instance: Shanghai Gemalto IC Card Technologies Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Gemalto) and Hou XX

上诉人（原审原告）：捷德（中国）科技有限公司（简称捷德公司）

被上诉人（原审被告）：国家知识产权局

原审第三人：上海金雅拓智能卡技术有限公司（简称金雅拓公司）、侯某某

The patent involved is a utility model patent named “A Financial Trading Card with 3D Printed Graphic Surface” (Patent No.: 201520879638.7). The application date is November 6, 2015, and the authorization announcement date is April 6, 2016. Giesecke & Devrient is the patentee. Regarding the patent involved, Gemalto and Hou filed a request for invalidation to the former Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on August 14, 2017 and September 27, 2017, respectively on the ground that Claims 1-6 for the patent involved don’t comply with the provisions of Paragraph 3/Article 22 of the Patent Law, requesting to declare all the claims for the patent involved invalid. On February 1, 2018, the Patent Reexamination Board made a decision, holding that: Claims 1-6 for the patent involved don’t have creativity as stipulated in Paragraph 3/Article 22 of the Patent Law. So it declared all the patents involved invalid.

涉案专利系专利号为201520879638.7、名称为“一种具有3D打印图文表面的金融交易卡”的实用新型专利，申请日为2015年11月6日，授权公告日为2016年4月6日，专利权人为捷德公司。针对涉案专利，金雅拓公司、侯某某分别于2017年8月14日、2017年9月27日向原国家知识产权局专利复审委员会提出了无效宣告请求，其理由是涉案专利权利要求1-6不符合《专利法》第二十二条第三款的规定，请求宣告涉案专利权利要求全部无效。2018年2月1日，专利复审委员会作出被诉决定，认定：涉案专利权利要求1-6不具备《专利法》第二十二条第三款规定的创造性，宣告涉案专利全部无效。

Giesecke & Devrient refused to accept the decision and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting to annul the decision and order the China National Intellectual Property Administration to make a decision on review. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to dismiss Giesecke & Devrient’s claim.

捷德公司不服被诉决定，向北京知识产权法院提起诉讼，请求撤销被诉决定，判令国家知识产权局重新作出审查决定。北京知识产权法院判决驳回捷德公司的诉讼请求。

Giesecke & Devrient refused to accept the verdict of first trial, and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court ruled in the second instance to dismiss Giesecke & Devrient's appeal and uphold the original judgment as Giesecke & Devrient's appeal was untenable. Giesecke & Devrient shall bear the court acceptance fee of RMB 100 for the second instance.

捷德公司不服原审判决，向最高人民法院提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，捷德公司的上诉请求不能成立，故判决驳回上诉，维持原判；二审案件受理费100元，由捷德公司负担。

To meet practical needs of the patent applicants to prepare claims for defining the scope of their protection, the Guideline for Patent Examination provides for open and closed forms of claim expression. Due to the nature of some inventions in the technical area, especially the composition invention in the chemical area, it is not suitable to divide independent claims for them into the preface and features. As a result of the interaction between composition components, the substantial changes in the technical effect of the invention arising out of an increase or decrease in chemical constituents may render the purpose of the invention unachievable. Therefore, patent applicants usually prepare claims in a closed form to define the scope of their patent protection.

《专利审查指南》之所以规定开放式和封闭式的权利要求表达方式，是为了满足专利申请人撰写权利要求以限定其保护范围的现实需求。部分技术领域发明创造的性质不适合将独立权利要求撰写成前序和特征两部分，特别是化学领域的组合物发明，因组合物组分之间的相互作用，增加或减少化学组分可能导致发明的技术效果产生实质性变化致使发明目的无法实现。因此，专利申请人通常采用封闭式表达方式撰写权利要求，以明确其专利权保护范围。

However, regarding inventions in the machinery area, by adding or reducing structural technical features, it usually will not lead to substantial changes in other technical features of the original technical plan in terms of characters, functions, features, etc., thus destroying the purpose of invention in the original technical plan. Therefore, the claim for inventions in the machinery area is usually expressed in an open way. Only when the claim can still keep its original functional effect unchanged after a certain structural feature is reduced, i.e., under the circumstance of inventions with one or more elements omitted, it’s necessary to adopt a closed expression. Therefore, although the Guideline for Patent Examination provides in Section 3.3/Chapter 2/Part II that "Closed claims shall be expressed in the form of “consisting of” ... It is generally construed to contain no structural components or methods and steps other than those described in such Claims”. However, it doesn’t mean that the claims using the above expression form are necessarily closed claims. To explain the protection scope of the claims expressed in the form of “consisting of”, it’s necessary to determine whether the claim excludes structural components or methods and steps other than those described therein as per the provisions of Article 59 of the Patent Law from the perspective of the technician in this area by reviewing the context of claims and the contents recorded in the patent and its attached drawings.

但对于机械领域的发明创造，增加或减少结构上的技术特征并不会导致原技术方案中的其他技术特征在性状、功能、特点等方面发生实质性改变，从而破坏原技术方案的发明目的，故机械领域发明创造的权利要求通常采用开放式的表达方式。只有当某一结构特征减少后该权利要求依然能够保持其原有的功能效果不变，即要素省略发明的情况下，才有必要采用封闭式的表达方式。因此，《专利审查指南》虽然在第二部分第二章第3.3节规定了“封闭式权利要求宜采用‘由……组成’的表达方式，其一般解释为不含有该权利要求所述以外的结构组成部分或方法步骤，”但这并不表明采用上述表达方式的权利要求必然为封闭式权利要求。在对采用“由……组成”或“由……构成”的表达方式的权利要求的保护范围进行解释时，仍应当按照《专利法》第五十九条的规定，站位本领域技术人员的视角，通过审查权利要求的上下文以及专利的说明书及附图记载内容，以确定权利要求是否排除了其所述以外的结构组成部分或方法步骤。

When determining whether a claim is an independent claim or a dependent claim, given that the patentee prepares dependent claims to define different levels of protection, the claims prepared by reference shall be generally presumed to be dependent claims, that is, the scope of protection shall be smaller than the claim referred to and all the technical features of the claim referred to shall have a limited effect on the claim, unless the identification of it as a dependent claim will lead to the contradictions or ambiguities between various claims. Based on the patentee's general perception of the rules for preparing claims, where the preparation defects of the patentee lead to the preparation of an independent claim into a dependent claim, the patentee shall bear adverse liability for its preparation errors.

在判断某一权利要求是独立权利要求还是从属权利要求时，考虑到专利权人撰写从属权利要求的目的是为了限定出不同层次的保护范围，通常情况下，对于采用引用关系方式撰写的权利要求，一般应当推定为从属权利要求，即其保护范围应当小于所引用的权利要求，且所引用权利要求的全部技术特征对该权利要求具有限定作用，除非将其认定为从属权利要求将导致各权利要求之间存在相互矛盾之处或产生歧义。基于专利权人对权利要求撰写规则所具有的一般认知，由于专利权人撰写上的瑕疵导致将一项独立权利要求撰写成从属权利要求的，应当由专利权人自行就其撰写上的失误承担不利责任。

英文投稿及市场合作：

jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com

18911449529（微信同号）