If the request for invalidation is deemed not to have been filed or is not accepted, the Patent Reexamination Board shall issue a notice that the request for invalidation is deemed not to have been filed or a notice that the request for invalidation is not accepted to notify the requester.
(1) The scope of the request for invalidation should be clearly stated in the request for invalidation. If it is not clear, the Patent Reexamination Board shall notify the requester to make corrections within the specified time limit; if no correction is made within the specified time limit, the request for invalidation shall be regarded as Not proposed.
(2) The reasons for invalidation are limited to those specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law, and the relevant articles, paragraphs and items in the Patent Law and its Implementing Rules shall be considered as independent grounds. reasons put forward. If the reasons for invalidation do not fall within the grounds stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Implementation Rules of the Patent Law, they will not be accepted.
(3) After the Patent Reexamination Board has made a review decision on a request for invalidation of a patent right, if a request for invalidation is made again with the same reasons and evidence, it will not be accepted, but the stated reasons or Exceptions may be made where the evidence is not considered in the decision due to time constraints or other reasons
.
(4) If a person requests to declare the design patent right invalid on the grounds that the design for which the patent right is granted conflicts with the legal rights obtained by others before the filing date, but no evidence proving the conflict of rights is submitted, Not accepted.
(5) The petitioner shall specify the reasons for the invalidation declaration, and if there is evidence submitted, the request shall be explained in detail in conjunction with all the evidence submitted. If a comparison of technical solutions is required for an invention or utility model patent, the relevant technical solutions in the patent involved and the comparison documents should be described in detail, and a comparative analysis should be conducted; if a comparison of design patents is required, the technical solutions should be compared. Describe the product design represented by the relevant pictures or photos in the patent involved and the comparison document in detail, and conduct a comparative analysis. For example, if the petitioner submits multiple comparative documents for the reasons for invalidation in Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, he should indicate the comparative document that is closest to the patent for which invalidation is requested and the method of comparison, whether alone or in combination. Describe the technical solutions of the patent involved and comparative documents, and conduct comparative analysis. If it is a combination comparison and there are two or more combination methods, the specific combination method should be specified. For different independent claims, the closest reference document may be specified respectively.
If the petitioner fails to specify the reasons for the invalidation declaration, or submits evidence but fails to specify the reasons for the invalidation declaration in conjunction with all the evidence submitted, or fails to specify the evidence on which each reason is based, the invalidation declaration shall be The request will not be accepted.