Which lawyer or law firm in Zhongshan has experience and strength in specialization and intellectual property rights, and it is best to be professional?

The following is a patent invalidation case entrusted by my friend's company to Jinjian Shikong Law Firm. I hope I can help you.

200420065266.6

Serial number: 2010091900167610.

Case number: 5W 100099

Name of invention: combined transformer

Patent holder: He Paizhi

Requestor for invalidation: Zhongshan Xianfeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

According to Article 46 1 of the Patent Law, the Patent Reexamination Board has examined the request for invalidation made by the above-mentioned patent claimant, and now makes the following decision:

Declare all patent rights invalid.

Declare the patent part invalid.

Maintain the patent right.

According to the second paragraph of Article 46 of the Patent Law, anyone who refuses to accept this judgment may bring a lawsuit to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court within 3 months from the date of receiving this notice, and the other party shall participate in the lawsuit as a third party.

Attachment: The text of the decision is 3 pages in total (the text is counted from page 2).

President of the collegial panel: Li Xi.

Presiding Judge: Zhan Jingkang

Examiner: Shen Li

Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office of China.

Decision on examining the request for invalidation (No.15328).

Case number: 5W 100099.

Decision date: September 20 10 15.

Patent number: 200420065266.6.

Name of invention: a combined transformer.

International classification number: H0 1F38/20.

Requestor for invalidation: Zhongshan Xianfeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

Address of the claimant for invalidation: Le Tong Industrial Park, dongfeng town, Zhongshan.

Attorney of the claimant for invalidation: Deng.

Address of the entrusted agent of the claimant for invalidation: Rooms E and F, Floor 5, Zhong Xing Building, Zhong Xing Road, Zhongshan City.

Patent holder: He Paizhi.

Address of the patentee: No.8 Jianye Road, dongfeng town, Zhongshan, Guangdong.

Authorized agent of the patentee: Ding.

Address of the authorized agent of the patentee: Floor 1, Science Museum, No.8 Zhong Xing Road, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province.

Request for invalidation: 2065438+February 20, 2000.

Legal basis: Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law.

Decision point: when evaluating the creativity of utility model patents, the existing technology generally focuses on considering the technical field to which utility model patents belong. Only by giving a clear revelation in the prior art, such as a clear record in the prior art, can the technicians in this field find relevant technical means to consider in similar or related technical fields.

First, the cause of action

This request for invalidation is related to the name of "combined transformer" authorized by People's Republic of China (PRC) and China National Intellectual Property Administration on March 30th, 2005. The patent number of this patent is 200420065266.6, the priority date is 065438+20041October 65438+July, and the filing date is May 23, 2004. Why did the patentee branch?

The content of claim 1-5 at the time of this patent authorization announcement is as follows:

1, a combined transformer, comprises a metal guide rod (1), a porcelain insulator (2), a current coil (8), a voltage coil (9) and transformer oil (7), and is characterized in that the box (10) is a closed hexahedron; Connecting a plurality of steel sleeves (5) on the front and rear plates (4) of the box (10), connecting cylindrical insulating materials (6) on the steel sleeves (5), connecting porcelain bottles in the insulating materials (6), and connecting metal guide rods (1) in the porcelain bottles (2); Connect the steel sleeve (1 1) to the side plate of the box (10), connect the insulating material (6) to the steel sleeve (1 1), and connect the secondary connecting bolt (3) to the insulating material (6).

2. The combined transformer according to claim 1, characterized in that the inner walls of the steel bushings (5) and (1 1) are both threaded grooves (12); The end of the porcelain bottle (2) is corrugated (13).

3. The combined transformer according to claim 1 is characterized in that: (10) the current frame (8) at the upper part inside the box is connected with the porcelain ring (2); The lower part of the box (10) is connected with a voltage line (9).

4. The combined transformer according to claim 1 is characterized in that six steel sleeves (5) are connected to the front and rear plates (4) of the box (10); There are also 6 porcelain vases (2).

5. The combined transformer according to claim 1 is characterized in that the box (10) is filled with transformer oil (7) ".

In view of this patent, Zhongshan Xianfeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the requester) filed a request for invalidation with the Patent Reexamination Board on February 20, 20 10 on the grounds that claim 1 0/5 of this patent is not creative compared with annexes12, 3 and 4, and requested to declare claim 655 of this patent.

Attachment 1: ZL 99222574.4 authorization announcement text, the announcement date is March 15, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the comparison document 1), and the page number is * * *;

Text of Annex 2: ZL95220528.9 Authorization Announcement, with the date of announcement of 1997 10.29 (hereinafter referred to as reference document 2), with 8 pages in total;

Text of Annex 3: ZL99233 184.6 Authorization Announcement, dated March 15, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Comparative Document 3), with 5 pages in total;

Attachment 4: ZL 97248063.3 Authorization Announcement, date of announcement1May 26th, 999 (hereinafter referred to as reference document 4), 8 pages in total;

The petitioner thinks that on the basis of comparison file 1, combining comparison file 2 and common sense, it is unnecessary to spend creative labor to obtain the technical scheme of this patent claim 1, and claim 1 is not creative. The additional technical features of claim 2 are disclosed in the comparison document 1; The additional technical features of Claim 3 are disclosed in Reference Document 3; The additional technical features of claim 4 are obvious; The additional technical features of Claim 5 are disclosed in the comparison document 1, so Claims 2-5 are not creative either.

After passing the formal examination, the Patent Reexamination Board accepted the above-mentioned request for invalidation on March 23, 20 10, transferred the request for invalidation and a copy of the evidence to the patentee, and set up a collegial panel to examine the case.

The collegiate panel of the Patent Re-examination Board sent a notice of oral hearing to both parties on June 20/KOOC-0/0, and it is scheduled for oral hearing on July 20/KOOC-0/9.

The oral hearing was held as scheduled and both parties attended the oral hearing. Both parties have no avoidance requirements for the members of the collegiate bench and the clerk, and have no objection to the identity of the other party to participate in the oral hearing. The collegial panel of this case investigated the invalid reasons, evidence and facts put forward by the claimant. During the trial, the patentee had no objection to the authenticity, legality and relevance of the comparison document 1-4. The reasons for the claimant's express invalidity are consistent with the written opinions. The patentee thinks that the technical field of the comparison document 1 is different from that of this patent, and it cannot be used as the closest existing technical evidence to evaluate the creativity of this patent. Claim 1 creative. On this basis, its dependent claims 2-5 are also creative. At this point, the collegial panel believes that the facts of the case are clear and can make a review decision.

Second, the reasons for the decision

The petitioner thinks that on the basis of comparison file 1, combining comparison file 2 and common sense, it is unnecessary to spend creative labor to obtain the technical scheme of this patent claim 1, and claim 1 is not creative. The additional technical features of claim 2 are disclosed in the comparison document 1; The additional technical features of Claim 3 are disclosed in Reference Document 3; The additional technical features of claim 4 are obvious: the additional technical features of claim 5 are disclosed in the comparison document 1, so claims 2-5 are not creative either. It can be seen that all the invalid reasons of the requester are related to creativity, and the comparison file 1 is the closest existing technology.

Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law stipulates that the creativity of a utility model means that compared with the prior art, the utility model has substantial features and progress.

The fourth section of Chapter 6 in the fourth part of the Examination Guide stipulates that the creativity standard of utility model patents should be lower than that of invention patents. ..... For utility model patents, it is generally concentrated in the technical field to which the utility model patent belongs. However, if there are clear revelations in the prior art, such as clear records in the prior art, which urge the technicians in this field to find relevant technical means in similar or related technical fields, they can consider their similar or related technical fields.

First of all, this patent relates to "combined transformer", which is an electrical device used for metering and charging of power grid. Realize the function of power grid metering and charging, and its classification number is H0 1F38/20. The comparison document 1 discloses a "fully enclosed discharge coil", which is an integral part of power transmission and transformation system equipment. Its function is to be used in parallel with parallel capacitor banks or filter capacitor banks in power transmission and transformation equipment, and to release the electric field energy of capacitor banks safely and quickly when the capacitor banks are cut off, so as to ensure the safety of capacitor banks when they are reclosed and the safety of maintenance personnel (see reference document 1, No.65438 instruction, it can be seen that the technical scheme of comparison document 1 is different from the technical scheme of this patent in both application fields and functions.

Secondly, the requester didn't give any evidence to show that there is a clear record in the prior art, which can prompt the technicians in this field to find relevant technical means in the technical field of the comparison document 1 and apply it to the technical field of this patent.

To sum up, the comparison file 1 cannot be used as a comparison file to evaluate whether this patent is creative or not. On this basis, all the invalid reasons put forward by the requester cannot be established.

Third, decide

Maintain the patent right of utility model No.200420065266.6 effective.

If a party refuses to accept this decision, he may bring a lawsuit to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court within three months from the date of receiving this decision in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 46 of the Patent Law. According to this provision, after one party files a lawsuit, the other party participates in the lawsuit as a third person.