爱立信 5G 发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

Ericsson v. CNIPA

爱立信 5G 发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

Docket number of the case in the first instance: 6121, first instance (初), administrative case (行), (2015) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京知)

Docket number of the case in the second instance: 513, second instance (终), administrative case (行), (2019) Beijing High People’s Court (京)

一审案号：（2015）京知行初字第6121号

二审案号：（2019）京行终513号

Appellant (Plaintiff in the case in the first instance): Ericsson Telephone Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Ericsson)

Appellee (Defendant in first trial): China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

Third party in the case in the first instance: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd (Hereinafter: Huawei)

上诉人（原审原告）：爱立信电话股份有限公司（简称爱立信公司）

被上诉人（原审被告）：国家知识产权局

原审第三人：华为技术有限公司（简称华为公司

The patent involved (Patent No. 200880129948.X) refers to the invention patent named "Method and Equipment for Random Access in a Telecommunications System" (hereinafter: the Patent). The application date is December 15, 2008, the priority date is June 19, 2008, and the authorization announcement date is May 7, 2014. Ericsson is the patentee. Claims 1-4 of this patent include:

涉案专利（专利号200880129948.X）名称为“用于执行电信系统中的随机访问的方法和设备”的发明专利（简称本专利），其申请日为2008年12月15日，优先权日为2008年6月19日，授权公告日为2014年5月7日，专利权人为爱立信公司。本专利的权利要求1-4为：

1. A method in which a user device (110,500) in a radio base station (120,400) can perform contend-based random access. It can assign to the radio base station (120,400) the first set of synchronized code pools before non-dedicated random access and the second set of synchronized code pools before dedicated random access. The method is characterized by the following steps:

“1．一种在无线电基站（120，400）中使用户设备（110，500）能够执行基于争用的随机访问的方法，向所述无线电基站（120，400）指配形成非专用随机访问前同步码池的第一集合以及形成专用随机访问前同步码池的第二集合，所述方法的特征在于它包括下列步骤：

Determine the synchronous code identifier RAPID before random access (201);

确定（201）随机访问前同步码标识符RAPID；

Transmit a message (202) that contains the identified RAPID to the user device (110,500); and receive (203) from the user device (110,500) a synchronous code before non-dedicated random access that is selected according to RAPID contained in the transmitted message.

向所述用户设备（110，500）传送（202）消息，所述消息包含所确定R A P I D；以及从所述用户设备（110，500）接收（203）由所述用户设备（110，500）根据所述所传送消息中包含的所述RAPID所选择的非专用随机访问前同步码。

2. The method as described in Claim 1, where the steps in determining RAPID described in (201) include: Select pre-configured RAPID associated with the first set of synchronous code before non-dedicated random access.

2. 如权利要求1所述的方法，其中，确定（201）所述RAPID的所述步骤包括：选择与所述第一集合的非专用随机访问前同步码关联的预先配置的RAPID。

3. The method described in claim 1, where the steps in determining the RAPID described in (201) include: Select RAPID associated with the first set of synchronous code before non-dedicated random access.

3. 如权利要求1所述的方法，其中，确定（201）所述RAPID的所述步骤包括：随机选择与所述第一集合的非专用随机访问前同步码关联的RAPID。

4. Either method as described in Claims 1-3, where the transmission steps (202) include: Transmit the message containing RAPID on the Physical Downlink Control Channels (PDCCH).”

4. 如权利要求1-3中的任一项所述的方法，其中，所述传送步骤（202）包括：在物理下行链路控制信道P D C C H上传送包含所述RAPID的所述消息。”

Regarding this patent, on November 14, 2014, Huawei filed a request for invalidation with the former Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter: the Patent Reexamination Board), and submitted Evidence 1 (Application Announcement Specification of CN101682870A Chinese Invention Patent, the application date is May 16, 2008, the priority date is May 24, 2007, and the announcement date is March 24, 2010). Upon review, the Patent Reexamination Board made a decision on reviewing the request for invalidation of No. 26030 patent (referred to as the decision) on May 21, 2015, declaring Claims 1-7, 12, 14-20 and 25 of this patent invalid and continuing to maintain this patent in effect on the basis of Claims 8-11, 13, 21-24 and 26.

针对本专利，华为公司于2014年11月14日向原国家知识产权局专利复审委员会（简称专利复审委员会）提出无效宣告请求，同时提交了证据1（C N101682870A中国发明专利申请公布说明书，申请日为2008年5月16日，优先权日为2007年5月24日，公开日为2010年3月24日）。专利复审委员会经审查，于2015年5月21日作出第26030号无效宣告请求审查决定（简称被诉决定），宣告本专利的权利要求1-7、12、14-20、25无效，在权利要求8-11、13、21-24、26的基础上继续维持本专利有效。

Ericsson refused to accept the decision and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The first-instance court held that Evidence 1 met the formal requirements for contravening the application. Claim 1 for this patent has no novelty relative to Evidence 1. Similarly, Claim 14 of this patent has no novelty. Evidence 1 has disclosed additional technical features of Claim 2 of this patent. So Claim 2 for this patent has no novelty relative to Evidence 1. Evidence 1 has disclosed the transfer of a message containing ID number of a condition code by switching messages; Claim 4 for this patent replaces the transmission of messages by switching messages to the transmission of messages via PDCCH, which is a direct replacement of conventional means in this area. Therefore, Claim 4 for this patent has no novelty relative to Evidence 1. Similarly, Claims 15 and 17 of this patent have no novelty relative to Evidence 1. Based on these grounds, the court ruled in first instance: dismiss Ericsson's litigation request.

爱立信公司不服被诉决定，向北京知识产权法院提起诉讼。一审法院认为，证据1满足构成抵触申请的形式要件。本专利权利要求1相对于证据1不具备新颖性。同理，本专利权利要求14亦不具备新颖性。证据1已经公开了本专利权利要求2的附加技术特征，本专利权利要求2相对于证据1不具备新颖性。证据1已经公开了通过切换消息传送包含特征码I D编号的消息，本专利权利要求4将通过切换消息传送消息改换为在物理下行链路控制信道PDCCH上传送消息，是本领域的惯用手段的直接置换，因此，本专利权利要求4相对于证据1不具备新颖性。同理，本专利权利要求15、17相对于证据1亦均不具备新颖性。据此，一审法院判决：驳回爱立信公司的诉讼请求。

Ericsson refused to accept the verdict of first instance, and appealed to Beijing High People’s Court. The second-instance court held that, Claim 4 for this patent further defines "the transmission of the message containing RAPID on the Physical Downlink Control Channels (PDCCH)”, while Evidence 1 transmits messages by means of switching messages. The two don’t constitute a direct replacement of conventional means. Based on these grounds, the court ruled in second instance to: annul the first-instance judgment and decision. The China National Intellectual Property Administration shall make a new decision.

爱立信公司不服一审判决，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。二审法院认为，本专利权利要求4进一步限定了“在物理下行链路控制信道PDCCH上传送包含所述RAPID的所述消息”，而证据1是通过切换消息的方式传送消息，二者不属于惯用手段的直接置换。据此，二审法院判决：撤销一审判决与被诉决定，由国家知识产权局重新作出决定。

The case involves the basic patent in the 5G technology area, and the focus of dispute lies in the identification of "direct replacement of conventional means" in the judgment process of novelty. In patent authorization cases, there is the concept of "conventional means" in the determination process of novelty and creativity. In the second instance, this case clarifies that although conventional means in this area under novelty is an inferior concept of common knowledge in this area under creativity, there is a significant difference between the two, that is, in the judgment process of novelty, the replacement of conventional means shall be "direct replacement". In "direct replacement”, it not only requires that the relevant technical means can be replaced, but also requires that the replacement of different technical means in the invention involved and comparison documents will not affect the cooperation and collaboration between such technical means and other technical features. For technicians in this area, even if the replacement of relevant technical means is easy to think of, but other technical features required to cooperate with such technical means need to be adjusted after the replacement of relevant technical means, it shall not be considered to have no novelty, though the invention involved may not be creative.

本案涉及5G技术的基础专利，争议焦点在于新颖性判断过程中的“惯用手段的直接置换”的认定。专利授权确权案件中，新颖性及创造性的评判过程中均存在“惯用手段”的概念。本案二审判决明确，虽然新颖性下本领域惯用手段为创造性下本领域公知常识的下位概念，但二者存在显著的区别，即新颖性判断过程中要求惯用手段的替换必须为“直接置换”。所谓“直接置换”，不但要求相关的技术手段可以替换，同时要求将涉案发明与对比文件中的不同技术手段替换后，不会影响该技术手段与其他技术特征之间的配合、协作关系。对于本领域技术人员而言，即便相关技术手段的替换是容易想到的，但若相关技术手段替换后，同时要求与该技术手段配合的其他技术特征需要作出适应性调整，此时，虽然涉案发明可能不具备创造性，但不宜认定其不具备新颖性。

In this case, the second-instance court strictly adopts the judgment criterion of novelty in the trial, and asserts some claims for the patent involved have novelty, fully embodying the judicial policy of equal protection of legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties concerned, showcasing the attitude of actively providing judicial guarantee for creating a fair and transparent business environment and providing a reference for the judgment of similar cases in the future.

本案二审法院通过在审理中严格适用新颖性的裁判标准，认定涉案专利部分权利要求具备新颖性，充分体现了平等保护中外当事人合法权益的司法政策，展现了为营造公平透明营商环境积极提供司法保障的态度，同时也为今后此类案件的裁判提供了指引。

This case was selected as one of the “Top10 Judicial Protection Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Tried by Beijing Courts in 2020".

本案入选“2020年度北京法院知识产权司法保护十大案例”。

英文投稿及市场合作：

jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com

18911449529（微信同号）