An application for an invention patent (note that here refers specifically to "invention" patents. According to the Patent Law, technical patent applications are divided into two categories: "invention" and "utilitarian models". The invention has much higher value and much stricter review). After submitting it to the National Knowledge Bureau, how will the National Knowledge Bureau review and how will it go through the process?

If you write it all out, you will definitely be so annoyed that your brain will explode if you don’t learn the Dharma.

So, to summarize it in inaccurate but easy to understand words, it is roughly like this: (Don’t look at the law. I have dealt with it for the structure of the novel. If you want to learn the law, please go directly to the textbook for legal interpretation.)

First, the parties submitted an invention application, and then the State Administration of Knowledge first checked briefly whether it belongs to the legal scope of acceptance of "invention". The scope of acceptance is no problem, so it issued a "Acceptance Notice".

Then, when entering the preliminary review stage, the preliminary review stage is the same as the "utilitarian model" review, that is, the examiner will not conduct a "comprehensive search".

The so-called "comprehensive search" means finding other related technologies in the national patent database and in all existing technology documents that can be found on the market to determine whether the patent technology you applied for is novel and creative.

If the initial review does not conduct a comprehensive search, it means that as long as your technology is smooth and technically capable of operating, and achieve the effect you described, the initial review will be considered to be passed. As for whether others are the same as you, the initial review will not be very concerned. (Unless it is obviously an existing technology)

Then after another three months, you can apply for the "substantive review" in advance. (Or you can not apply, and you can use a one-and-a-half-year "regret period" and then the content of the invention will be made public to the public. At the latest, three years from the application date, you must enter the substantive review. The specific principle will not be explained. If you really want to explain this point alone, you can write tens of thousands of words).

At this time, we need to "full search".

If the examiner searches and finds that your technology is indeed very novel and creative, and is indeed unprecedented in the market, then you can directly pass the "substantive review" and issue a patent certificate.

But in fact, this is unlikely.

Because in today's era, the amount of innovation of every invention is actually very small.

In other words, if only a little bit more progressive and improved than the existing technology, companies will be anxious to register new inventions.

This leads to a problem: most of the time the examiner will feel that your technology actually has not many new points.

At this time, the "dear examiner" will issue a "Notice of Review Opinion".

Ask the applicant to modify his application documents, or conduct a written defense and debate, and state the reasons why you think you are innovative.

This kind of game of notice/modification/defense must last at least two rounds, sometimes three rounds.

After the three rounds of defense amendment, the examiner will not pass it. At this time, the decision document for "Rejection Application" can be issued.

Of course, the parties involved can still express dissatisfaction with the "rejection" at this time.

But it's just a matter of no matter how much. If you don't accept it this time, it's useless to find the front-line examiner of the National Knowledge Bureau.

Article 41 of the Patent Law, the Implementation Rules of the Patent Law and the Patent Examination Guidelines, at this time, the relief provided to applicants is to find the "Patent Reexamination Committee", referred to as the "Reexamination Committee".

According to the old law, after finding the "Review Committee" and "visiting" again, if the Review Committee feels that the applicant is still unreasonable (that is, it is believed that the first-instance examiner is responsible), then directly issue the "Review Notice to Maintain the Original Rejection Decision".

This situation is the simplest, so there is nothing to do next.

But what is complicated is another situation, that is, the review committee feels that "the first instance rejection makes sense, but if you give you another chance to change this thing, you can still save it."

At this time, the review committee will also issue a "Re-examination Notice", but the content is to ask the applicant to change it again.

If the applicant makes a great deal of improvement this time, the people from the review committee will find it perfect after the correction. At this point, the differences between the new law and the new interpretation and the old law and the old interpretation will arise.

Originally, the old explanation was that after reading the review committee, even if it was "very satisfied and happy", it would not be left alone.

Because the Re-Review Committee is just an administrative reconsideration agency, not a standing review agency. It should not be in charge of this matter.

The correct approach of the Re-Examination Committee at this moment is to "send it back and re-examination."

That is, "although I think it's OK", I have no right to "say it directly". I want to let the person who said "I don't think it's OK" read it again, and let the person who said "I don't think it's OK" change his words and say "I think it's OK".

But now, according to the new explanation, it has become the "I think it's OK" of the Re-examination Committee, and it has changed the judgment directly to "I think it's OK".

It can be said that the gap between the old and new explanations, details and guidelines is very subtle.

Even an expert cannot notice such a little legal risk that several offices within the National Knowledge Institute and the specific division of labor between the departments and departments can arise.

Professor Liu, the top 50 experts and scholars in the field of intellectual property law in China, have not seen it. This is a clear proof of the concealment of this point.

When the Supreme Court gave this explanation, the original intention was actually good - they were kind enough to save administrative review resources in some countries and improve administrative efficiency.

Perhaps the expert from the Legal Interpretation Office slapped his forehead and thought, "Since the parties involved make sense, why bother sending them back for retrial again? Isn't it more savings for national resources to directly change the sentence?

Now it seems that only Feng Jianxiong can see the secret behind this.

...

So, after finding this point, how can we make money?

Feng Jianxiong gave an example for Professor Liu: "I can't see the available points behind this? Then I'll change the easy-to-understand statement - although you are engaged in intellectual property law, you should also understand some of the Civil Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law, right?"

Professor Liu promised: "That's necessary! How can you not understand the basic three major litigation laws? You are too underestimating me!"

Feng Jianxiong raised his hand and signaled the other party to be calm: "Don't be anxious, let me give you an example. I believe you all know the "two-in-final review system" stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law?

It should also be known that in the final two-instance trial system, the second-instance court can only "directly change the judgment in the second-instance trial" only when encountering a general situation such as "clear fact determination, solid and sufficient evidence, and error in the application of the law", right?

If the second instance court finds that the facts in the first instance are not determined clearly and the evidence is insufficient, then it is absolutely impossible to directly change the judgment. Even if you re-collect new evidence, it must be "playing the first instance court to re-examination"?"

Professor Liu nodded: "Of course I know this."

Feng Jianxiong also continued to ask with a kind look: "Then do you know why the law is established like this? What is the legal basis behind this?"

Professor Liu didn't have to think about it: "That's more to say? Of course, it is to prevent one party from raiding evidence - everyone knows that the first instance is not final, even if you lose, there is still a chance to appeal. The second instance is final, and if you lose, you will basically be completely helpless (not considering the procuratorate's appeal and the court's retrial according to its authority, those are not controlled by the plaintiff and the defendant).

Therefore, if the first instance case is unclear and the evidence is insufficient, the second instance can be directly changed to the final judgment, which will lead to a terrible consequence: no one will take out the most powerful evidence for themselves in the first instance, or even would rather lead to the loss of the first instance. In the second instance, they will add these secretly hidden evidence to conduct sneak attacks on evidence, and defeat the opponent in this final trial.

Therefore, if the second instance can directly change the case with insufficient evidence, the foundation of the two-instance final trial system will be uprooted and useless, and the first instance will be completely abolished and become a joke. No one will pay attention to the first instance..."

As Professor Liu said, he seemed to have realized something, and suddenly stopped talking and his expression trembled.

His thinking seemed to jump back to the Patent Law directly, so he was too lazy to continue talking about the Civil Procedure Law.

"You...you mean that the "National Inquirer of the National Knowledge Bureau" in the Patent Law is equivalent to the "first instance court" in the civil lawsuit, and the "re-examination committee" is equivalent to the "second instance court"? According to the old law, the "second instance" re-examination committee found problems and had to "send them back to re-examination", but now it can "request the parties to correct the problem and confirm that there is no problem and pass the judgment directly"?

This will also lead to the same legal risks as in the Civil Procedure Law, that is, the fact that the first instance does not show all its strength, but the evidence will be stormed in the second instance?..."

Professor Liu became more and more excited at first, and he thought he had figured out Feng Jianxiong's strategy.

For a moment, a hint of unwillingness flashed through Professor Liu's mind:

That's it? Although this idea and strategy are very confusing, with my own academic literacy, I can still figure it out after half a year of concentration!

Just for such an idea, I gave Feng Jianxiong more than 3 million yuan a house. It was a big loss!

Fortunately, this complacent idea just passed away.

Because Professor Liu soon discovered that this statement still doesn't make sense, it seems that there is a series of key points behind it that cannot be broken through.

Maybe there is more than one - after all, only by breaking through the wall in front of you can you know if there is a new wall behind this wall.

"...But patent examination is the nature of administrative approval and administrative reconsideration! How can a civil lawsuit in which the judge is in a central and impartial manner be the same?

This kind of approval is passed directly after passing any one time. It is not like civil litigation, "winning in the first instance is not considered a win, and it may be reversed."

If there is really enough evidence to lead to passing the trial, why leave it until the "second trial" of the review committee? The first trial is taken out directly. Wasn't it passed the first trial? Why is it costing this?

Do you think that the examiners in the first instance are more strict than the review committee in the second instance? It is even more sad? The evidence of the same scale can be passed by the second instance if it cannot pass the first instance? It doesn’t make sense..."

Professor Liu murmured to himself for a long time, and finally gave up in frustration.

He had to admit that his IQ was really far from Feng Jianxiong.

Feng Jianxiong is "true. The world is unparalleled and unparalleled, and the world is unprecedented and the world is the most ancient and old man."
Chapter completed!