Photo of Yingli Wang

Dr. Yingli Wang is partner in the firm's Intellectual Property practice, with a primary focus on biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and polymer/material industry. Yingli leads the patent group in the firm's Shanghai office.

The Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department (PRID) of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidated the CN Invention Patent No. 201310567987.0 (the ’987 patent)[1] because the patentee failed to submit a request for grace period for a novelty art (“the Request”) within two months after the patentee knew or should have known about the novelty art. The novelty art is an article published within the grace period (i.e., within six months before the priority date of the ’987 patent), and all the inventors of the ’987 patent are also authors of the article. In addition, the article was cited by the patentee for related projects after the ’987 patent was granted. Therefore, the PRID found that the patentee knew about the novelty art at least when the patentee cited the novelty art. The PRID further found that 1) the patentee should have known the novelty art would anticipate the claims of the ’987 patent; and 2) it is the patentee’s responsibility to file the Request in time after the patentee knew or should have known about the novelty art after the application was filed.

Continue Reading A Request for Grace Period for a Novelty Art Should Be Submitted Within Two Months When the Patentee Knew or Should Have Known About the Novelty Art After the Patent Application Was Filed

The Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department (PRID) of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) maintained the validity of CN Invention Patent No. ZL02123000.5 (the ’000 patent) in an invalidation proceeding.[1] The PRID held that the claimed invention is inventive because: (1) one person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to increase the water-solubility of butylphthalide by complexation with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin; and (2) one person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that the increase of the water-solubility would be sufficient to allow a therapeutically effective amount of butylphthalide to be delivered in aqueous formulations. The PRID appeared to adopt the “reasonable expectation of success” requirement in the U.S. patent practice. Although prior art references establish that cyclodextrin derivatives can improve water solubilities of compounds having low or no water solubilities, the claimed invention is not obvious because one person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reasonable expectation that the increase of the water-solubility of the complex of butylphthalide with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin allows the therapeutic use of butylphthalide in aqueous formulations.

Continue Reading “Reasonable Expectation Of Success” Considered in an Invalidation Proceeding of a Chinese Invention Patent

On February 05, 2022, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced that China had joined the Hague International Design System (the Hague System) that allows registering up to 100 designs in 94 countries through one international application.[1]
Continue Reading China Joins the Hague International Design System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs

The Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department (PRID) of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) maintained the validity of Chinese design patent No. ZL201730205645.3 (the ’645 patent) in an invalidation proceeding.[1] The PRID held that the patented designs are patentable because the more squared-off design of the ’645 patent is significantly different compared to

The Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) of the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) issued a notice that the patent information registration platform of drugs approved in the PRC will be put into official operation soon.[1] The CDE attached a user manual to specify (1) that the indications

This article addresses three important changes to pharmaceutical patents in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in view of the newly amended PRC Patent Law (the Law), which will take effect on June 1, 2021, and the recent amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines (the 2021 Guidelines) that took effect on January 15, 2021. These changes involve (1) patent term compensation due to delay in patent prosecution and/or marketing approval; (2) patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents; and (3) relaxed criteria for consideration of post-filing data in patent prosecution. These changes aim to improve patent protection and enhance patent value for inventions in the PRC; they are also consistent with matters addressed in the Economic And Trade Agreement Between the Government othe United States of America And the Government othe People’s Republic of China (the Agreement) issued January 15, 2020.

Continue Reading Three Changes to Pharmaceutical Patents in the PRC

On May 25, 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued the interim measures for processing of related examination businesses regarding the implementation of the amended patent law (the Measures).[1] Both the Measures and the amended patent law (the Law) will take effect on June 1, 2021.
Continue Reading Interim Measures for Implementation of the Amended Patent Law in the PRC

The Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) of the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) launched a patent information registration platform for public testing of drugs approved in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).[1] The CDE further specified 1) patents eligible for the registration; 2) the deadline for generic applicants to submit a patent declaration; and 3) the four types of patent declarations.
Continue Reading Patent Linkage Registration Platform Launched in China for Public Testing

On May 15, 2019, the Zhejiang High People’s Court (the Appellate Court) reversed the trial court decision and found the defendant infringing the plaintiff’s Chinese Patent No. ZL 200880118796.3. The Appellate Court concluded that the term “the luggage strap . . . guided adjustably along the wall of the luggage” does not require the luggage