1. Principles of proof in patent invalidation proceedings
The distribution of the burden of proof also follows the general principle of “whoever claims the proof shall give evidence.” Or it is the responsibility of the party to provide evidence to prove the facts on which the other party's request for invalidation is based. If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual claims of the parties, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. As a lawyer with litigation experience, he generally has a good understanding of the burden of proof and the distribution of the burden of proof, and can make timely predictions about the strength of the evidence and whether the evidence chain is complete. For example, the application of the principle of preponderance of evidence and the principle of probability of evidence proving facts is beyond the reach of other professionals. Although the application of these evidence principles in patent invalidation proceedings is not clearly stipulated, it has long been used in practice. The "Examination Guidelines" It also stipulates that reference may be made to the provisions on evidence in civil litigation. Therefore, lawyers have certain advantages in organizing evidence based on the reasons for invalidation or rebutting the opponent's evidence. Of course, the premise is that lawyers must understand patents, understand the particularity of patent invalidation procedures, and understand the essence of patent invalidation—especially patent novelty and creativity. and the degree of disclosure of patent application documents. Therefore, lawyers who are also qualified as patent attorneys should have greater achievements in patent invalidation proceedings.
2. What evidence needs to be submitted in the patent invalidation procedure
There are special requirements for the submission of evidence in the patent invalidation procedure;
First, the request for invalidation The requirements for evidence when accepting the application;
The second is the requirement for the submission of evidence after the invalid request is accepted;
The third is the requirement for overdue requests.
1. The requirements for evidence when accepting an invalidation request are in accordance with the provisions of Article 64, Paragraph 1, of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law. If a request is made to declare a patent invalid or partially invalid, the request shall be submitted to the Patent Reexamination Board. Submit the corresponding evidence when submitting the invalidation request, and specify the reasons for the invalidation request based on the submitted evidence, and indicate the evidence on which each reason is based. Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of Part IV of the "Examination Guidelines" stipulates that "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 reasons for each reason. The above provisions show that the requirements for evidence when accepting a patent invalidation request are obviously different from the requirements for case filing evidence under the Civil Procedure Law and the Administrative Procedure Law. Section 4.1 of Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the "Review Guidelines" clearly states that the collegial panel usually only reviews the scope, reasons and evidence submitted by the requester for invalidation. It can be seen that in the invalidation procedure, evidence is not only a formal requirement for whether the procedure can be started, but also the key to the success of the invalidation request.
2. The time limit for submitting supplementary evidence after the invalidation request is accepted. In the patent invalidation procedure, the time limit for proof is of great significance. Once the evidence produced beyond the time limit is not considered by the Patent Reexamination Board, it will often become an issue that will affect the application. Determining factors of success or failure of sub-invalidation procedures.