China Patent Law: SPC Clarifies Inventive Step Requirements and Procedural Diligence
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) of China has overturned the ruling from lower instances which declared the “magnetic repulsion suspension device” patent invalid. Advisors from Shanghai K-insight Law Firm – A Member of ECOVIS International, outline the key facts and the legal principles established in the proceedings.
In case (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 959, which had already been heard by the courts and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), the SPC has now established decisive principles regarding inventive step in patents and the weight to be accorded to prior decisions in patent invalidation proceedings.
The essential facts of the case
- Patent Involved: An invention titled “Magnetic Repulsion Type Suspension Device” (No. 200610065336.1).
- Procedural history: The patent has withstood 10 invalidation challenges since 2015, with CNIPA issuing 9 prior decisions all upholding its validity. The 10th challenge led to full invalidation, which was reversed by the SPC on appeal.
- Technical Dispute: The patent uses a “base-mounted ring permanent magnet + upper suspended body” structure for static repulsive balance, whereas the cited prior art relied on a “magnetic attraction + electromagnetic control” scheme for dynamic suspension. The SPC found this to be a substantive difference in implementation, rejecting the notion that “same principle” equates to obviousness.
We advise you on questions concerning patent laws and regulations.
Annie Li, Lawyer, Shanghai K-insight Law Firm – A Member of ECOVIS International, Shanghai, China
The legal principles established by the SPC
- Non-obviousness assessment: A patent cannot be deemed “obvious” merely because it shares the same underlying scientific principle with prior art. A detailed analysis of differences in technical problems, means and effects is required.
Procedural prudence: While each invalidation proceeding is independent, subsequent examinations must treat prior decisions with prudence. Deviating from established review standards requires compelling justification.
