Find an analytical answer to a patent case

First, the P2 patent of Xianjian Company is invalid, because P2 is only slightly modified on the basis of P 1, which does not meet the outstanding substantive features and significant progress required by the Patent Law of Utility Model. Article 22 of the Patent Law Inventions and utility models for which patent rights are granted shall be novel, creative and practical. Creativity means that compared with the prior art, the invention has outstanding substantive features and remarkable progress, and the utility model has substantive features and progress.

Secondly, Jinjian Company can defend the existing technology in P2 patent, because its technical features have been known by P 1 patent application before P2 patent application date.

Thirdly, according to the above analysis, the technical features of P2 belong to the existing technology and the patent has been declared invalid, so it does not infringe the P2 patent of Xianjian Company.

Fourthly, Jinjian Company infringed the P 1 patent of Xianjian Company, because the protection scope of P2 patent is basically the same as that of P 1, and the technology used by Jinjian Company is basically the same as that of P2, that is, it belongs to the protection scope of P 1 patent.