Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a final judgment in an administrative dispute concerning the invalidation of an invention patent. The case involved Plaintiff (a spectral data technology company), the Defendant (China National Intellectual Property Administration, or CNIPA), and the Third Party, Beijing Seemile Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Seemile"). Beijing Caihe Law Firm represented Seemile in this litigation. The court ultimately dismissed the Plaintiff's claims and upheld the CNIPA's decision to declare the patent entirely invalid.

Case Background

The dispute began when the Plaintiff filed a civil patent infringement lawsuit against Seemile, alleging unauthorized use of its patented technology titled "Imaging Spectral Chip with Spectral and Imaging Functions and Preparation Method Thereof". In response to this high-stakes legal challenge, Seemile retained Beijing Caihe Law Firm.

Caihe’s legal team conducted an detailed analysis of the patent and performed extensive literature searches. By presenting dozens of pieces of evidence—including papers from top-tier international academic journals and prior patents—the team successfully petitioned to have the patent invalidated. Following the invalidation of the patent, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s original civil infringement lawsuit due to the loss of its legal basis.

Key Legal and Technical Arguments

In this complex administrative dispute within the semiconductor and optical chip sector, the Caihe team mounted a precise counter-offensive against the Plaintiff’s core arguments:

1. Challenging "Novelty" of Core Technical Features

The Plaintiff argued that its "incident spectrum inversion" and specific "filter film" structure were unique and not disclosed by prior art, such as the paper by Johannes Brauers et al. ("Evidence 1") .

Mathematical Consistency: Caihe lawyers demonstrated that the formula used in the patent for calculating sensor response was substantially identical to Formula (1) already disclosed in Evidence 1.

Universal Principles: The team argued that the signal processing logic followed standard optical path principles. The so-called "inversion" was merely a reverse calculation based on known formulas in different application scenarios, lacking any "prominent substantive features".

2. Debunking the "Innovation" of the Manufacturing Process

The Plaintiff claimed its method of creating filter films through the "step-by-step coating, etching, and splicing" of N materials was an inventive preparation process.

Combination of Prior Art: Caihe introduced Evidence 2 (CN108352391A), proving that using masks, dry etching, and sequential coating of pigments to manufacture color filters was already a mature, optimized process in the semiconductor imaging industry.

Common Knowledge: The team successfully argued that using filter films for light splitting is a standard technique for those skilled in the art, and the associated manufacturing processes are well-established in fields like liquid crystal displays.

3. Analyzing the "Motivation" for Functional Integration

The Plaintiff asserted that combining spectral and imaging functions into a single high-precision chip constituted a significant technical advancement.

Cross-Domain Technical Linkage: Using Evidence 4 (published in Nature Communications), Caihe proved that spectrometers based on photonic crystal slabs—capable of hyperspectral imaging and spectral recovery—already existed.

Obviousness of Improvement: The team demonstrated that a person skilled in the art would have a clear motivation to combine the imaging and recovery techniques from Evidence 4 with the sensor structures in Evidence 1, making the integration an "obvious" step.

4. Defense of Procedural Justice

The Plaintiff challenged the CNIPA’s decision by claiming that the introduction of "Beer-Lambert Law" as common knowledge during the review violated the principle of a fair hearing.

Legal Sufficiency: Caihe, in coordination with the CNIPA, successfully argued that citing a fundamental law of physics was merely illustrative for reasoning and did not constitute an illegal introduction of new evidence. The court upheld this view, ensuring the stability of the administrative decision.

Significance

This victory not only protected Seemile's legitimate rights and innovations but also showcased Beijing Caihe Law Firm’s profound expertise and practical experience in handling intellectual property matters involving complex semiconductors, precision optics, and chip technology. Caihe remains committed to providing professional and efficient legal protection for high-tech enterprises worldwide.