[Article / Chinese patents] Points to note when claiming priority in China—focusing on a Chinese Supreme Court judgment (林軍, 胡春豊, Patent, December 2023)
更新日：3 時間前
Article information
Categories: China
Topics: Priority / Novelty
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Article / Chinese patents] Points to note when claiming priority in China—focusing on a Chinese Supreme Court judgment (林軍, 胡春豊, Patent, December 2023)
Chinese Supreme Court, (2019) 最高法行申 No. 12487
1. Case outline
The application was rejected for lack of novelty (self-collision) based on earlier application 134.
2. Chinese Supreme Court’s findings: Priority denied
(1) Method-step limitations (risk of generalization)
Earlier application 134 limited the “steps before cooling (before/after addition of specified agents),” but claim 2 of later application 004 removed that limitation.
Not limiting the pre-cooling steps creates a substantive difference in the invention’s scope. Priority denied.
(2) Continuous numerical ranges
Earlier application 134 specified “180 g/l–280 g/l,” whereas claim 3 of later application 004 broadened this to “170 g/l–280 g/l.”
A numerical range is regarded as one independent technical feature, so partial priority was denied.
3. Priority and novelty
Priority is assessed by whether there is a substantive difference (the first-application principle).
For novelty, partial overlap between the scope of the invention disclosed in prior art and the claimed invention’s scope negates novelty.
→ Novelty
4. Practical approach to securing priority in China
Completely separate the priority-entitled scope and the new scope into different claims.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510495971680735232/
