Abstract
Recently, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China (SPC) clarified the rules on amendments to claims of a patent application and the role of prosecution history in interpreting claims during the invalidation proceedings. In its decision in EPSON v PRAB, SPC affirmed in part the Beijing Higher People's Court's (BHPC) decision upholding the validity of the Seiko Epson Corporation's (EPSON) invention patent (Patent no. 00131800.4) for ‘Ink Cartridge’ (’800 Patent) and reversing the Beijing Intermediate People's Court's (BIPC) and the Patent Re-examination and Appeal Board's (PRAB’) decisions. The SPC's decision is significant in ruling standards to determine the disclosure scope of the initial description and claims. In addition, the SPC clarifies that prosecution history can be used to interpret the meaning of terms in the description and claims during prosecution.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
