Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

Administrative Judgment

(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 413

Appellant (plaintiff at first instance, patent applicant): A certain Management Limited Liability Company. Domicile: Federal Republic of Germany.

Representative: Hai Mou, agent of the company.

Representative: Ka Mou, agent of the company.

Authorized litigation agent: Zhang Hao, lawyer of Beijing Unitalen Attorneys at Law.

Authorized litigation agent: Yu Feifan, lawyer of Beijing Unitalen Attorneys at Law.

Appellee (defendant at first instance): China National Intellectual Property Administration. Domicile: Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Legal representative: Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the Administration.

Authorized litigation agent: Wang Zhe, examiner of the Administration.

Authorized litigation agent: Chai Jin, examiner of the Administration.

The case of an administrative dispute over the refusal appeal of an invention patent application between the appellant, a certain Management Limited Liability Company (hereinafter "the Company"), and the appellee, the China National Intellectual Property Administration, concerns the invention patent application entitled "Conductor connection contact element" (hereinafter "the present application"), whose applicant is the Company. The China National Intellectual Property Administration issued Reexamination Decision No. 303804 (hereinafter "the accused decision"), maintaining its decision rejecting the present application. Dissatisfied, the Company brought an action before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter "the court of first instance"), requesting that the accused decision be revoked and that the China National Intellectual Property Administration be ordered to make a new examination decision. On 28 December 2022, the court of first instance rendered administrative judgment (2022) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 17108, dismissing the claims of the Company. Dissatisfied, the Company appealed to this Court. After docketing the case on 26 June 2023, this Court formed a collegiate panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing on 12 July 2024, at which Zhang Hao and Yu Feifan, authorized litigation agents of the appellant Company, and Wang Zhe and Chai Jin, authorized litigation agents of the appellee China National Intellectual Property Administration, appeared and participated in the proceedings. The trial of this case has now been concluded.

The basic facts of this case are as follows: the present application is an invention patent application entitled "Conductor connection contact element," whose applicant is the Company, with application number 20181015****.3, filing date 14 February 2018 and priority date 1 March 2017. Among the claims serving as the basis of examination in this case, claims 1, 2 and 7 read as follows:

"1. A conductor connection contact element (1) for clamping an electrical conductor, having at least one spring-type terminal, the spring-type terminal having a clamping location for fixedly clamping an electrical conductor, the conductor connection contact element having at least one first SMD soldering contact (60), the first SMD soldering contact being arranged on the mounting side (61) of the conductor connection contact element (1), the conductor connection contact element (1) further having a conductor lead-in region (14) formed by a sheet-metal part of the conductor connection contact element (1), the conductor lead-in region having at least one conductor guide bottom (17), the conductor guide bottom being oriented obliquely to the conductor lead-in direction (L) in order to form a guide surface for the electrical conductor to be led in, characterised in that,

the material section (62) of the sheet-metal part which is present in the conductor lead-in region (14) and which projects from the conductor guide bottom (17) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60), and at least one sub-region of the conductor guide bottom (17) adjoins at least one of the bending regions (63),

wherein the first SMD soldering contact (60) has a bearing surface (64), the bearing surface (64) being formed by the surface side of the conductor guide bottom (17) which guides the electrical conductor to be led in.

2. The conductor connection contact element according to the preceding claim, characterised in that the bearing surface (64) is spaced apart from the conductor guide bottom (17) via at least one of the bending regions (63).

7. The conductor connection contact element according to any of the preceding claims, characterised in that the conductor guide bottom (17) is formed by at least two mutually separate material sections (62) of the sheet-metal part or of different sheet-metal parts, and the first SMD soldering contact (60) is formed by an extended material section (62) of one of the sheet-metal parts or of two sheet-metal parts."

On 2 June 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration, following examination by its original examination department, decided to reject the present application. The principal grounds included: original claims 1 to 25 of the present application did not possess the inventive step required by Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 2008 (hereinafter "the Patent Law").

The original examination department of the China National Intellectual Property Administration cited the following evidence:

Reference Document 1: a Chinese invention patent application document with publication date 11 January 2017 and publication number CN106329180A. Reference Document 1 discloses a connector (see paragraphs 26 to 71 of the description and Figures 1 to 14): the upper surface 82 of a circuit board 80 is provided with a plurality of pads 84 made of a conductor, and in use the connector 10 is fixed to the pads 84 by soldering or the like so as to achieve an electrical connection; the connector 10 fixed on the circuit board 80 can be electrically connected with the conductive core 72 of a cable 70 inserted into the connector 10 from the front end of the connector 10 in the front-rear direction; the connector 10 comprises a housing 20 and an elastic member 40, the housing 20 being made of metal and the elastic member 40 being made of another metal harder than the metal of the housing 20; the elastic member 40 is formed by bending a second blank and has overall the shape of a clip, and the elastic member 40 has a plate-shaped attachment portion 410 and a curved plate-shaped supported portion 420; the supported portion 420 is supported by the attachment portion 410 in a cantilever manner, and the supported portion 420 has an elastic portion 430 and an inclined portion 460; when the conductive core 72 is inserted into the space 12, the end portion of the conductive core 72, or the negative-X-side end, abuts against the inclined portion 460 of the elastic member 40; the housing 20 has a main body portion 210, a beam portion 230, two operating portions 240, two swing suppression portions 270, a swing suppression portion 272, a stopper 280 and two connecting portions 290; the main body portion 210 has overall the shape of a square tube and extends in the X direction between a front end 210F and a rear end 210R; the main body portion 210 has three guide portions 260, of which two guide portions 260 are respectively provided on the side portions 214 and 216 and the remaining one guide portion 260 is provided on the bottom portion 218; as can be seen from Figure 14, the guide portion 260 located at the bottom is oriented obliquely to the conductor lead-in direction so as to form a guide surface for the conductive core 72 to be led in; the swing suppression portion 272 extends forwards from the bottom portion 218 of the main body portion 210 while gradually inclining downwards; each of the swing suppression portions 270 and the swing suppression portion 272 extends forwards from the front end 210F of the main body portion 210 and is positioned in front of the entrance opening 122 of the insertion space 12; when the connector 10 is used, in the Y direction, the two opposite sides of the lower surface of the swing suppression portion 272 are also fixed to and connected with the pads 84 of the circuit board 80 by soldering or the like; as can be seen from Figures 1, 2 and 12 to 14, the lower surface of the swing suppression portion 272 bears against the contact surface of the circuit board 80, and is formed by the lower surface, on the outer side connected to a bending region, of the material section projecting from the guide portion 260 located at the bottom, the bending region having an angle greater than 90°; further, as can be seen from Figure 14, the swing suppression portion 272 is formed by bending, via one bending region, the material section projecting from the guide portion 260 located at the bottom towards the plane of the mounting side, and a partial region of the guide portion 260 located at the bottom and oriented obliquely to the conductor lead-in direction adjoins the above bending region.

On 24 August 2021, the Company filed a request for reexamination with the China National Intellectual Property Administration and amended the claims during the reexamination proceedings, resulting in the above claims that served as the basis of examination.

On 21 April 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration issued the accused decision, holding that: obtaining the technical solution claimed in claim 1 on the basis of Reference Document 1 in combination with the common general knowledge in the art was obvious to a person skilled in the art; claim 1 did not possess prominent substantive features and notable progress and therefore lacked an inventive step. On that basis, claims 2 to 25 likewise lacked an inventive step. The China National Intellectual Property Administration accordingly decided to maintain the rejection decision issued in respect of the present application on 2 June 2021.

Dissatisfied, WAGO brought an action before the court of first instance on 28 October 2022, requesting that the accused decision be revoked and that the China National Intellectual Property Administration be ordered to make a new examination decision. The facts and grounds were: the accused decision erred in its finding on the distinguishing features, and the accused decision also erred in finding that obtaining distinguishing feature (2) on the basis of Reference Document 1 was a conventional choice whose technical effect was foreseeable. The accused decision's finding that claims 2 to 25 lacked an inventive step involved errors in the ascertainment of facts.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration argued at first instance that: the accused decision ascertained the facts clearly, applied the laws and regulations correctly, followed a lawful examination procedure and reached a correct examination conclusion, and requested that the claims of the Company be dismissed.

The court of first instance, after trial, essentially ascertained the above facts.

The court of first instance held that:

As regards claim 1 of the present application, compared with Reference Document 1, the distinguishing features are: (1) the housing is a sheet-metal part; (2) the bearing surface is formed by the surface side of the conductor guide bottom which guides the electrical conductor to be led in. On the basis of the above distinguishing features, the technical problem actually solved by that claim is: how to form the housing, and how to form the SMD soldering contact so as to save space.

As to distinguishing feature (1), Reference Document 1 has already disclosed that "the housing 20 is formed by bending a single plate made of a metal that is softer than stainless steel but has better electrical conductivity than stainless steel," while sheet-metal working is a comprehensive cold-working process for thin metal plates commonly used in the art, characterised by high strength, low cost and simple manufacture of stamping dies; therefore, on the basis of Reference Document 1 and the above common general knowledge, a person skilled in the art would readily conceive, according to actual circumstances or needs, of using a sheet-metal process to work and form the housing of the connector; this is a conventional choice for a person skilled in the art, requires no inventive effort on the part of a person skilled in the art, and its technical effect can reasonably be expected.

As to distinguishing feature (2), Reference Document 1 discloses that "the lower surface of the swing suppression portion 272 bears against the contact surface of the circuit board 80, and is formed by the lower surface, on the outer side connected to a bending region, of the material section projecting from the guide portion located at the bottom." The surfaces of the swing suppression portion 272 capable of being brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80 include, apart from the above lower surface, also the upper surface opposite to that lower surface and the end face between the two. A person skilled in the art would readily conceive that, besides using the above lower surface disclosed in Reference Document 1 for soldering contact with the circuit board 80, the upper surface or the end face could also be brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80 according to actual circumstances or needs. For example, where a firmer soldering to the circuit board and a smaller structural space are desired, but there is no particular requirement as to whether material is saved or whether the material cost is higher, a fully bent configuration greater than 90° may be adopted so that the upper surface of the swing suppression portion 272 is soldered to the circuit board 80; whereas where greater material saving, a lower material cost and a smaller structural space are desired, but there is no particular requirement as to whether the soldering to the circuit board is firmer, a bending configuration of less than 90° may be adopted so that the end face of the swing suppression portion 272 is soldered to the circuit board 80. All of the above are conventional means for a person skilled in the art, require no inventive effort on the part of a person skilled in the art, and their technical effects can reasonably be expected.

Therefore, obtaining the technical solution claimed in claim 1 on the basis of Reference Document 1 in combination with the common general knowledge in the art is obvious to a person skilled in the art; claim 1 does not possess prominent substantive features and notable progress and lacks the inventive step required by the Patent Law.

As regards claim 2 of the present application, in practical application and on the basis of the content disclosed in Reference Document 1, if there is no need to provide on the housing a swing suppression portion for retaining the cable sheath 74, a person skilled in the art is capable of appropriately adjusting the manner of forming the soldering portion according to actual circumstances or needs, and SMD soldering can be achieved so long as that portion contacts the contact surface of the circuit board with a planar structure; in addition, on the basis of Reference Document 1, the swing suppression portion 272 may also, according to actual circumstances or needs, be formed by bending via two bending regions of opposite bending directions, which is likewise a conventional means for a person skilled in the art; none of the above requires inventive effort on the part of a person skilled in the art, and the technical effects can reasonably be expected.

As regards claim 7 of the present application, on the basis of the content disclosed in Reference Document 1, in practical application a person skilled in the art is capable of appropriately adjusting the manner of forming the guide portion and the soldering portion according to actual circumstances or needs, and forming them integrally with the housing or separately from it are both conventional choices for a person skilled in the art.

In view of the fact that the Company stated at the hearing that, assuming claim 1 lacked an inventive step, it would maintain only that claims 2 and 7 possessed an inventive step and would no longer maintain the inventive step of the remaining claims, the comments made in the accused decision in respect of the remaining claims are all confirmed.

Pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law and Article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court of first instance rendered judgment: "The claims of the plaintiff, a certain Management Limited Liability Company, are dismissed. The case acceptance fee of RMB 100 shall be borne by the plaintiff, a certain Management Limited Liability Company."

Dissatisfied with the judgment of first instance, WAGO appealed to this Court, requesting that: 1. the judgment of first instance be revoked; 2. the accused decision be revoked and the China National Intellectual Property Administration be ordered to make a new examination decision. The facts and grounds were: (1) Claim 1 of the present application possesses an inventive step. 1. The accused decision omitted distinguishing feature (3) between claim 1 of the present application and Reference Document 1, namely "the material section (62) of the sheet-metal part which is present in the conductor lead-in region (14) and which projects from the conductor guide bottom (17) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60)." Claim 1 of the present application defines "bending greater than 90°," whereas in Reference Document 1 the bending is less than 90°; the bending direction and the bending angle of the two differ. In Figure 2 of the present application, the material section projecting obliquely downwards from the conductor guide bottom 17 is bent at an obtuse angle towards the mounting side 61 on the right so as to form the first SMD soldering contact. In Figure 11 of Reference Document 1, it can clearly be seen that the material section projecting obliquely downwards from the guide portion 260 is bent leftwards at an acute angle away from the bottom portion 218 (the mounting side) on the right so as to form the swing suppression portion 272. The bending direction and bending angle of the present application are entirely different from those of Reference Document 1, and the accused decision's finding that Reference Document 1 disclosed the above distinguishing feature constitutes an error in the ascertainment of facts. On that basis, the technical problem identified in the judgment of first instance is not sufficiently comprehensive; the present application obtains a larger soldering area parallel to the circuit board, thereby improving reliability. 2. The accused decision's finding that obtaining distinguishing feature (2) on the basis of Reference Document 1 was a conventional choice whose technical effect was foreseeable constitutes an error in the ascertainment of facts. The accused decision's finding that distinguishing feature (2) was a conventional choice is unsupported by evidence, and distinguishing features (1) to (3) have notable technical effects. Reference Document 1 gives a teaching contrary to distinguishing feature (2): in Reference Document 1, because the front region including the swing suppression portion 272 is manufactured integrally with the side wall 270, this would preclude the swing suppression portion 272 from being bent towards the mounting side at an angle greater than 90° in the manner of the present application so as to form a front soldering contact, and consequently the bearing surface could not be formed by the surface side of the conductor guide bottom which guides the conductor to be led in. The swing suppression portion 272 serves to suppress swinging of the conductor; if the swing suppression portion 272 were bent towards the mounting side at an angle greater than 90° in the manner of the present application so as to form a front soldering contact, the swing suppression portion would be unable to suppress downward swinging of the cable and would lose the above important function; Reference Document 1 thus gives a contrary teaching. (2) Claims 2 to 25 of the present application possess an inventive step.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration argued that: the scope for which protection is sought by a claim should be determined by reference to what is actually recited therein; the technical solution recited in claim 1 of the present application does not correspond only to the specific structure of Figures 1 to 3 of the embodiment of the present application; the mounting side 61 may be located on the left side of the SMD soldering contact or on its right side, so the bending direction cannot be determined and a structure bent towards the right cannot be uniquely determined; it may therefore be found that Reference Document 1 disclosed the corresponding feature, and there is no such omission of distinguishing feature (3) as asserted by the Company. A person skilled in the art would readily conceive that, besides the lower surface disclosed in Reference Document 1 being brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80, the upper surface or the end portion could be brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80 according to actual circumstances or needs. Reference Document 1 gives no contrary teaching, the corresponding modification is a conventional means for a person skilled in the art requiring no inventive effort, and the technical effect thereby brought about can reasonably be expected. The bearing by the upper surface in the present application, compared with the bearing by the lower surface of the swing suppression portion in Reference Document 1, does not bring about any notable technical effect. The judgment of first instance ascertained the facts clearly, applied the laws and regulations correctly and followed a lawful trial procedure; it requested that the appeal be dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

During the second instance of this case, neither party submitted new evidence, and both raised no objection to the findings of the judgment of first instance as to the authenticity, legality and relevance of the evidence.

This Court ascertained after trial that the facts found by the court of first instance are true, and this Court confirms them.

This Court holds that: this case is an administrative dispute over the refusal appeal of an invention patent application. The priority date of the present application falls after the date of entry into force of the Patent Law as amended in 2008 (1 October 2009) and before the date of entry into force of the Patent Law as amended in 2020 (1 June 2021), so the Patent Law as amended in 2008 should apply to this case. The focal issue in dispute at second instance in this case is whether claims 1 to 25 of the present application possess an inventive step.

Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law provides: "Inventive step means that, compared with the prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents notable progress, and that the utility model has substantive features and represents progress." In determining whether an invention has prominent substantive features, one should generally determine the closest prior art, analyse what distinguishing features the claimed invention has compared with the closest prior art, determine the technical problem actually solved by the invention on the basis of the technical effect achievable by those distinguishing features, and then determine whether the claimed invention is obvious to a person skilled in the art, that is, whether the prior art gives a hint of applying the distinguishing features to the closest prior art so as to solve the technical problem existing therein. In determining whether an invention represents notable progress, consideration should mainly be given to whether the invention has beneficial technical effects relative to the prior art.

(1) Whether claim 1 of the present application possesses an inventive step

1. Concerning the distinguishing features and the technical problem actually solved

The Company contends that the accused decision omitted the distinguishing feature that "the material section (62) of the sheet-metal part which is present in the conductor lead-in region (14) and which projects from the conductor guide bottom (17) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60)." The China National Intellectual Property Administration asserts that the mounting side (61) may be located on the left side of the SMD soldering contact or on its right side, so the bending direction of the material section (62) cannot be determined, bending towards the right cannot be uniquely determined, and claim 1 cannot correspond only to the technical solution of Embodiment 1. In this regard, first, the mounting side is a part of the conductor connection contact element, and bending towards the mounting side must necessarily be bending in the direction of the conductor connection contact element rather than in the opposite direction. Second, that technical feature, while defining the bending direction, also defines "bending at an angle greater than 90°," and the result of the bending is the formation of a first SMD soldering contact having a bearing surface, which likewise indicates that bending towards the mounting side can only be bending in one direction; construing the mounting side as possibly being located on different sides of the SMD soldering contact is not a reasonable construction of the above technical feature as a whole. The material section disclosed in Reference Document 1 is oriented away from the mounting side and is bent by less than 90° to form the swing suppression portion 272; that is, Reference Document 1 does not disclose the technical feature that "the material section (62) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60)." The Company's ground of appeal that the accused decision omitted the aforesaid distinguishing feature is tenable, and this Court supports it.

On this basis, the distinguishing features between claim 1 of the present application and Reference Document 1 are: (1) the housing is a sheet-metal part; (2) the bearing surface is formed by the surface side of the conductor guide bottom which guides the electrical conductor to be led in; (3) the material section (62) of the sheet-metal part which is present in the conductor lead-in region (14) and which projects from the conductor guide bottom (17) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60).

The Company contends that the technical problem actually solved by claim 1 of the present application is to have a larger bearing surface so as to improve reliability. In this regard, the technical problem actually solved by an invention should be determined on the basis of the technical effect achievable by the distinguishing features. The technical effect of distinguishing feature (1) concerns how to form the housing, while distinguishing features (2) and (3) both relate to how to form the SMD soldering contact. The Company asserts that distinguishing feature (3) can provide the effect of a larger bearing surface so as to improve reliability, but the difference in bending direction and angle between the present application and Reference Document 1 does not necessarily result in the present application having a larger bearing surface, so that effect is not a technical effect achievable on the basis of the distinguishing features; claim 1 of the present application merely provides an SMD soldering contact of a different structure. Therefore, although the accused decision omitted a distinguishing feature, the technical problem it identified as being actually solved by claim 1 of the present application is not manifestly improper, and this Court confirms it.

2. Concerning whether claim 1 is obvious in relation to the combination of Reference Document 1 with the common general knowledge in the art

The Company contends that distinguishing features (1), (2) and (3) have notable technical effects, that Reference Document 1 gives teachings contrary to distinguishing features (2) and (3), and that a person skilled in the art would have no motivation, on the basis of Reference Document 1, to arrive at distinguishing features (1), (2) and (3).

In this regard, first, as to distinguishing feature (1), Reference Document 1 has already disclosed that "the housing 20 is formed by bending a single plate made of a metal that is softer than stainless steel but has better electrical conductivity than stainless steel," while sheet-metal working is a comprehensive cold-working process for thin metal plates commonly used in the art, characterised by high strength, low cost and simple manufacture of stamping dies; therefore a person skilled in the art would have motivation to use a sheet-metal process to work and form the housing of the connector, and choosing to make the housing of sheet metal requires no inventive effort on the part of a person skilled in the art and its technical effect can reasonably be expected.

Second, as to distinguishing features (2) and (3), for technical features which functionally support one another and are in an interactive relationship, the technical effect achieved in the claimed invention by those technical features and by the relationship between them should be considered as a whole. In this case, "the bearing surface is formed by the surface side of the conductor guide bottom which guides the electrical conductor to be led in" and "the material section (62) of the sheet-metal part which is present in the conductor lead-in region (14) and which projects from the conductor guide bottom (17) is bent, via at least one bending region (63), towards the plane of the mounting side (61) at an angle greater than 90° so as to form the first SMD soldering contact (60)" together define the bending direction of the material section so as to form the bearing surface, and the above distinguishing features should be considered as a whole. The Company likewise takes the view that the distinguishing features should be judged as a whole. Reference Document 1 discloses that "the lower surface of the swing suppression portion 272 bears against the contact surface of the circuit board 80, and is formed by the lower surface, on the outer side connected to a bending region, of the material section projecting from the guide portion located at the bottom." The surfaces of the swing suppression portion 272 capable of being brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80 include, apart from the above lower surface, also the upper surface opposite to that lower surface. A person skilled in the art would readily conceive that, besides using the above lower surface disclosed in Reference Document 1 for soldering contact with the circuit board 80, the upper surface or the end face could also be brought into soldering contact with the circuit board 80 according to actual circumstances or needs; and forming the upper surface or the lower surface of the material section as the bearing surface can be achieved respectively by bending towards the mounting side by more than 90° or bending away from the mounting portion by less than 90°. All of the above are conventional technical means for a person skilled in the art, require no inventive effort, and their technical effects can reasonably be expected.

Finally, as to the Company's contention that Reference Document 1 contains a teaching away, so-called teaching away is still part of the assessment of the technical hint and should therefore still be judged on the basis of the technical problem actually solved by the invention; if the content disclosed in the prior art does not constitute an obstacle for a person skilled in the art in solving the technical problem actually solved by the invention, it is generally not considered to constitute a teaching away. As stated above, claim 1 of the present application merely provides, relative to Reference Document 1, an SMD soldering contact of a different structure; it does not retain the swing suppression function or achieve any other function. It is obvious for a person skilled in the art, starting from the position and structure of the swing suppression portion disclosed in Reference Document 1, to abandon the swing suppression function and arrive at the first SMD soldering contact of claim 1 of the present application which likewise serves as a bearing surface, and such a modification cannot be regarded as requiring inventive effort. Reference Document 1 therefore does not constitute a teaching away, and this assertion of WAGO cannot be sustained.

In sum, claim 1 of the present application lacks an inventive step relative to the combination of Reference Document 1 with the common general knowledge in the art. The accused decision and the judgment of first instance erred in their findings on the distinguishing features, but their conclusion that claim 1 lacks an inventive step is not improper, and this Court confirms it.

(2) Whether the other claims of the present application possess an inventive step

The Company has not put forward any clear opinion on the inventive step of the other claims of the present application. Upon examination, the conclusions of the accused decision and the judgment of first instance on the inventive step of the other claims of the present application are not improper, and this Court confirms them.

In sum, the appeal requests of the Company cannot be sustained and should be dismissed; although the judgment of first instance contains flaws in its ascertainment of facts and application of law, the outcome of the adjudication is correct and should be upheld. Pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, it is hereby adjudged as follows:

The appeal is dismissed and the original judgment is upheld.

The second-instance case acceptance fee of RMB 100 shall be borne by the certain Management Limited Liability Company.

This judgment is final.

Presiding Judge: Cui Ning

Judge: Gu Zhengyi

Judge: Wang Qian

24 December 2024

Judge's Assistant: Liu Ziming

Clerk: Chen Qi

Source: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court, 7 August 2026. Original: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5988.html