BEIJING – Caihe Law Firm recently secured a significant victory before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in a highly contested patent invalidation administrative dispute (Case No. (2025) 京73行初8677号). The Court issued a first-instance judgment dismissing the patentee's claims and upholding the China National Intellectual Property Administration’s (CNIPA) Invalidation Decision No. 581455, thereby confirming the complete invalidation of the disputed "conductive adhesive" patent. This favorable ruling represents a definitive win for our clients, Changchun Yonggu Technology Co., Ltd. ("Yonggu") and Shanghai Longfu International Trade Co., Ltd. ("Longfu").
Background of the Dispute
The legal battle originated in 2020 when the patentee initiated a civil patent infringement lawsuit against our clients, Yonggu and Longfu. In a strategic countermeasure, the legal team at Caihe Law Firm filed a patent invalidation request with the CNIPA on behalf of the clients. Following the CNIPA’s decision to declare the patent entirely invalid, the initial infringement lawsuit against our clients was officially dismissed by the court. The patentee subsequently filed the recent administrative litigation to challenge the CNIPA's decision.
Innovative Legal Strategy and Key Findings
The core of this administrative litigation hinged on the establishment of prior art. The legal team at Caihe Law Firm demonstrated exceptional tactical precision. By identifying that a prior art textbook had already disclosed the conductive adhesive formula and the "Silflake282" flake silver powder, our attorneys procured the prior art product through a notarized purchase.
Crucially, the Caihe team engaged the exact same testing agency and utilized the identical testing methodologies that the patentee had previously relied upon during the infringement case. The resulting analysis definitively proved that the prior art product's composition, including its particle size distribution, was substantially identical to Claim 1 of the contested patent.
The Court fully supported Caihe’s rigorous chain of evidence, ruling that Claim 1 lacked novelty. Furthermore, the Court agreed that Claims 2-16 lacked both novelty and an inventive step, as the additional technical features were either disclosed by prior art or constituted routine adjustments without unexpected technical effects.
Our Commitment
This victory underscores Caihe Law Firm's exceptional capability in navigating complex intellectual property disputes and our commitment to protecting our clients' legitimate rights. Relying on profound legal expertise and extensive litigation experience, Caihe remains dedicated to providing top-tier, efficient legal solutions to safeguard enterprise innovation and resolve complex IP challenges for both domestic and international clients.
