The Intellectual Property (IP) Court of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) held an open hearing on an appeal case concerning an invention patent on April 25, which marked the beginning of the Public Hearing Week in 2022.

In this case, Intel China filed an appeal against the first-instance judgment of the Beijing IP court in favor of the National Intellectual Property Administration (NIPA)'s decision to endow an invention patent registered by the Institute of Microelectronics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IMECAS). The patent involves FinFET chip manufacturing technology.

Previously, Intel China filed a request to the NIPA to invalidate the invention patent, and the latter released its decision to maintain the patent's validity, saying it has originality and creativity and conforms with the provisions of China's Patent Law.

Deeming the decision unacceptable, Intel China filed an administrative lawsuit at the Beijing IP court, requesting revocation of the original decision. After the trial, the Beijing IP court upheld the original ruling and rejected Intel China's request. Intel China thus filed an appeal to the SPC against this judgment.

In this appeal case, Intel China claimed that the patent involved does not possess originality and creativity, as its technical scheme and features had all been disclosed by public documents, based on which the manufacturing technology of the patent involved could be easily discovered by professionals.

The NIPA argued that the manufacturing procedures were not publicly disclosed. And without specific indication, professionals are not motivated to use the technical means of the patent in the MOS device to solve the problem in the FinFET device.

According to the IMECAS, Intel China had a biased interpretation of the public reference documents and those documents did not disclose or teach the distinctive technical features of the independent claims of the patent involved, thus the patent involved has originality. The IMECAS agreed with the NIPA's evaluation methods regarding creativity. The reference documents solve different technical issues than the patent involved and the disclosed technical features are only part of the claims of the patent involved, thus the patent has creativity.

The public hearing held via video link lasted for over three hours where the three parties' statements were fully presented. The case is still ongoing.