Anhui Qing* Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration, *tie Group Co., Ltd. and * Water Conservancy and Hydropower Co., Ltd.: Administrative Dispute over Invalidation of a Design Patent

— Method for determining whether a patented design is obviously different from a combination of prior design features

Keywords: administrative; patent-related administrative case; invalidation of design patent; design feature; teaching of combination; obvious difference

Basic Facts

Anhui Qing* Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Anhui Qing*") is the patentee of the design patent No. 20173058****.4 titled "Ecological Slope Protection (Four-Leaf Clover)" (hereinafter the "Patent in Suit"). The filing date is November 23, 2017, and the date of announcement of grant is June 19, 2018. The use of the product is "for preventing soil from collapsing and sliding", the main point of the design lies in "the shape of the product", and the drawing or photograph that best shows the main point of the design of the Patent in Suit is the perspective view.

On April 16, 2023, *tie Group Co., Ltd. requested the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to declare the Patent in Suit invalid in its entirety. The main grounds included that the Patent in Suit did not comply with Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended in 2008) in view of the combination of Evidence 1.1, Evidence 1.2 and Evidence 1.3 with Evidence 1.4 or Evidence 1.5. The evidence submitted was printouts of five design patent announcement texts with different numbers, namely Evidence 1.1, Evidence 1.2, Evidence 1.3, Evidence 1.4 and Evidence 1.5, together with their Chinese translations.

On June 25, 2023, * Water Conservancy and Hydropower Co., Ltd. requested CNIPA to declare the Patent in Suit invalid in its entirety. The main grounds included that the Patent in Suit was not obviously different from the combination of Evidence 2.8, Evidence 2.3, Evidence 2.5, or Evidence 2.6, or Evidence 2.7, or customary designs. The evidence submitted was printouts of ten design patent announcement texts with different numbers, namely Evidence 2.1, Evidence 2.2, Evidence 2.3, Evidence 2.4, Evidence 2.5, Evidence 2.6, Evidence 2.7, Evidence 2.8, Evidence 2.9 and Evidence 2.10, together with their Chinese translations.

After examining the requests jointly, CNIPA issued Decision on Request for Invalidation No. 564729 on October 26, 2023 (hereinafter the "Challenged Decision"), declaring the Patent in Suit invalid in its entirety. The Challenged Decision held that: taking Evidence 2.8 as the closest prior design and combining it with the four heart-shaped holes in Evidence 2.3 and the dovetail groove in Evidence 2.7, this manner of combination is a design obtained by replacing a design feature of a product design with a design feature of another product of the same kind, either as is or with minor changes, which falls within the circumstances where there is an obvious teaching of the combination technique. Compared with the combined design, the Patent in Suit has basically the same overall shape and interlocking structure, both have a block-shaped protrusion and four heart-shaped through-holes on the front, and the overall shape as well as the specific shapes, relative positions and relative proportions of the main components are relatively consistent; these similarities occupy a large area and have a significant impact on the overall visual effect, so the two are not obviously different, and the Patent in Suit therefore does not comply with Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law.

Dissatisfied, Anhui Qing* argued that the Patent in Suit was obviously different from the combined design and that the differences were not minor local differences. It therefore filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting that the Challenged Decision be revoked and that CNIPA be ordered to make a new decision.

On August 20, 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 2618: the claims of Anhui Qing* are dismissed.

After the judgment was pronounced, Anhui Qing* appealed. On November 18, 2025, the Supreme People's Court rendered Administrative Judgment (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1005, revoking the Challenged Decision and the first-instance judgment, and ordering CNIPA to make a new examination decision on the requests for invalidation of the Patent in Suit filed by *tie Company and * Hydropower Company.

Reasons for the Judgment

The issue in dispute in this case is whether the Patent in Suit is obviously different from the combination of prior design features.

Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law (as amended in 2008) provides: "A design for which a patent right is granted shall be obviously different from the prior design or the combination of prior design features." (Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law as amended in 2020 retains this provision.) Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Patent Rights (I) (Fa Shi [2020] No. 8) provides: "Where, based on the design teaching given by the prior designs as a whole, a design that is substantially the same as the design patent, i.e., having the same overall visual effect or only minor local differences, is obtained through the transfer, splicing or replacement of design features that an ordinary consumer would easily think of, and the design does not have a unique visual effect, the people's court shall determine that the design patent is not 'obviously different' from the combination of prior design features as provided in Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law." Accordingly, the criterion for judging whether a design is creative is whether it is obviously different from the prior design or the combination of prior design features. In determining whether a patented design is obviously different from a combination of prior design features, it is generally necessary first to determine whether there is a teaching to combine the prior design features. However, if the patented design features differ considerably from the prior design features used for the combination and have a significant impact on the overall visual effect, it can be determined that the patented design is obviously different from the combination of prior design features without the need to determine the teaching of combination.

In this case, the heart-shaped holes of the Patent in Suit and of Evidence 2.3 and the through-hole of Evidence 2.8 are all located at the center of the front of the product and occupy a large proportion, which more easily attracts the attention of ordinary consumers and carries greater weight in the overall visual effect. It can be clearly seen from the design drawings that the Patent in Suit has four heart-shaped holes, two large and two small, symmetrically distributed at the center of the front, while Evidence 2.8 has only one large square through-hole at the center of the front, and the difference between the two is obvious. The Patent in Suit adopts a double-line design as a whole, with the four heart-shaped holes arranged in a cross shape, giving an impression of roundness, softness, ease and squareness; Evidence 2.3 adopts a single-line design as a whole, with the four heart-shaped holes arranged in an X shape, giving an impression of slenderness, sharpness, cramping and dynamism. It can be seen that there are many differences in shape between the Patent in Suit and the heart-shaped holes in Evidence 2.3 and the through-hole in Evidence 2.8, and these differences have a significant impact on the overall visual effect. Therefore, regardless of whether there is a teaching to combine Evidence 2.3 and Evidence 2.8, the Patent in Suit is already obviously different from the combination of Evidence 2.3 and Evidence 2.8.

Gist of the Judgment

In determining whether a patented design is obviously different from a combination of prior design features, it is generally necessary first to determine whether there is a teaching to combine the prior design features. However, if the patented design features differ considerably from the prior design features used for the combination and have a significant impact on the overall visual effect, it can be determined that the patented design is obviously different from the combination of prior design features without the need to determine the teaching of combination.

Related Index

Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended in 2020) (Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 2008 applies to this case)

Article 20, paragraph 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Grant and Confirmation of Patent Rights (I) (Fa Shi [2020] No. 8)

First instance: Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 2618 of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (August 20, 2024)

Second instance: Administrative Judgment (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1005 of the Supreme People's Court (November 18, 2025)

Attachment: Gist of the case (PDF, Chinese original)

Source：Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court News；2026-10-20；https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6183.html