2026-13-3-024-011

Dai *hua v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Suzhou Hua* Packaging Co., Ltd.: Administrative Dispute over Invalidation of a Design Patent

— Use of the absolute values of a product's length, width and height and of the relative proportions of its parts in determining whether there is an obvious difference in the invalidation of a design patent

Keywords: administrative; patent-related administrative case; invalidation of design patent; obvious difference; absolute values of length, width and height; relative proportional relationship

Basic Facts

Dai *hua is the patentee of the design patent No. 20223041****.3 titled "Chair (EPP Smiley 2)" (hereinafter the "Patent in Suit"). The filing date is July 1, 2022, and the date of announcement of grant is October 11, 2022. The brief description of the Patent in Suit states: "Use of the product of this design: the product of this design is used as a bathroom seat."

On July 11, 2023, Suzhou Hua* Packaging Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Hua*") requested the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to declare the Patent in Suit invalid in its entirety on the ground 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 2020). Hua* submitted the following main evidence for design comparison:

Evidence 1: the grant announcement text of Chinese design patent No. 20213029****.3 titled "Chair (EPP Multifunctional)" (see Annex 2 for the drawings of Evidence 1), with a date of announcement of grant of August 24, 2021. The brief description of Evidence 1 states: "Use of the product of this design: the product of this design is used as a bathroom seat."

Evidence 5: the grant announcement text of Chinese design patent No. 20213046****.1 titled "Multifunctional Stool (EPP)" (see Annex 3 for the drawings of Evidence 5), with a date of announcement of grant of November 16, 2021. The brief description of Evidence 5 states: "Use of the product of this design: used as a bathroom stool."

On December 29, 2023, CNIPA issued Decision on Request for Invalidation No. 566017 (hereinafter the "Challenged Decision"), holding that although there were the following differences between the Patent in Suit and the comparative design: (1) the heights of the seat bodies are different, the Patent in Suit being taller than the comparative design; (2) the specific shapes of the smiley faces are different, the Patent in Suit having four-leaf-clover-shaped eyes and the comparative design oval eyes, and the curvature at both ends of the mouths is different; (3) the curvature where both ends of the backrest extend to the seat surface is slightly different; (4) the front of the seat body of the Patent in Suit has an arc-shaped groove design while the comparative design does not; and (5) the shapes of the reinforcing ribs are different, these differences did not constitute an obvious difference. Regarding difference (1), changing the height of the seat body is a common design technique; regarding difference (2), the changes in the eye shape between four-leaf clover and oval and the change in the curvature of the mouth occupy a small proportion of the whole and are minor local differences; regarding difference (3), the slight difference in curvature is a minor local difference; regarding difference (4), arc-shaped groove designs of this kind in the Patent in Suit have appeared many times in existing designs of chairs and stools, and it is not uncommon for bathroom stool products to have a groove at the front end, so this difference has limited influence on the overall visual effect; regarding difference (5), it is an adaptive change based on difference (4) and is located in a part not easily observed during use. Considering all factors, the Patent in Suit did not have an obvious difference from the comparative designs and did not comply with Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law. Accordingly, it decided to declare the Patent in Suit invalid in its entirety. Dissatisfied, Dai *hua 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 examination decision, on the grounds that "difference (1) is not a difference in the height of the seat body, but a difference in the ratio of the height of the seat body to the height of the backrest", and that the arc-shaped groove design feature did not appear in the comparative designs, nor did it appear in bathroom seat products or products of similar kinds, so difference (4) should be found to have a significant impact on the overall visual effect and the Patent in Suit had an obvious difference from the comparative designs.

On September 11, 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6866: Dai *hua's claims are dismissed. After the judgment was pronounced, Dai *hua appealed. On June 20, 2025, the Supreme People's Court rendered Administrative Judgment (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1085: the appeal is dismissed and the original judgment is upheld.

Reasons for the Judgment

One of the main issues in this case is whether, in determining whether the Patent in Suit and the comparative designs have an obvious difference, the absolute values of their length, width and height can be specifically compared.

Article 23, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law 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." Accordingly, when trying administrative cases on the grant and confirmation of patent rights, a people's court needs to compare the design for which a patent right is granted with the prior design or the combination of prior design features to determine whether the conditions for grant are met. Considering that a design patent is represented by the drawings or photographs in the patent grant announcement text, the comparison shall be based on them, and the brief description may be used to interpret the design represented by the drawings or photographs. Since the grant announcement text of a design patent usually does not record or define specific numerical values of length, width and height, it is generally not possible to specifically compare the absolute values of length, width and height of the patent in suit and the comparative design. However, if the drawings or photographs of the design patent can reflect the relative proportional relationship between different parts of the design, that relative proportional relationship may be used as a basis for determining the similarities or differences between the patent in suit and the comparative design.

In this case, the administrative proceedings and the first and second instances all found that the Patent in Suit did not have an obvious difference from the comparative designs, which will not be detailed here. It should be noted that the Challenged Decision treated "the heights of the seat bodies are different, the Patent in Suit being taller than the comparative design" as one of the differences, and the first-instance judgment also endorsed this. However, as stated above, the Patent in Suit is represented by the drawings in the patent grant announcement text, from which the height of the seat body cannot itself be determined; therefore, it was improper to identify the height of the seat body as a difference, and the people's court corrected this in the reasoning section of the second-instance judgment. The grant announcement text of the Patent in Suit can determine the relative proportional relationship between different parts of the seat body; therefore, the second-instance judgment used it as one of the points of comparison for determining whether there was a significant difference and, in combination with the comparison of other points, found that the Patent in Suit did not have an obvious difference from the comparative designs, thereby upholding in accordance with the law the findings made in the Challenged Decision and the first-instance judgment.

Gist of the Judgment

Since the grant announcement text of a design patent usually does not record or define specific numerical values of length, width and height, in determining whether a design patent and a comparative design have an obvious difference, it is generally not possible to specifically compare the absolute values of length, width and height of the patent in suit and the comparative design. However, if the drawings or photographs of the design patent can reflect the relative proportional relationship between different parts of the design, that relative proportional relationship may be used as a basis for determining the similarities or differences between the patent in suit and the comparative design.

Related Index

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

First instance: Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6866 of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (September 11, 2024)

Second instance: Administrative Judgment (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 1085 of the Supreme People's Court (June 20, 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-6182.html