Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered the Administrative Judgment No. (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu 2036 in the case of JSP Corporation v. the National Intellectual Property Administration and the third party, a Wuxi-based material joint-stock company, involving an administrative dispute over the invalidation of an invention patent right. The court ruled to revoke the Decision No. 564062 on the Request for Invalidation Review made by the National Intellectual Property Administration and ordered it to make a new decision on the request for invalidation review. In the judgment, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the addition amount of flame retardant is usually related to the type of flame retardant, and it is inappropriate to evaluate the type of flame retardant and its addition amount as two separate features. Since the type of flame retardant disclosed in Evidence 1 is different from that of the patent in question, the addition amount of flame retardant disclosed in Evidence 1 naturally does not disclose the addition amount of the hindered amine flame retardant described in the patent in question. Therefore, the addition amount of flame retardant should also be regarded as a distinguishing feature of Claim 1 compared with Evidence 1. The determination of distinguishing features in the appealed decision was incorrect. Beijing Caihe Law Firm was entrusted by JSP Corporation to act as the agent for the plaintiff in the aforementioned case.