1. Legal Framework
Article 45 of the Patent Law of China provides that, after a patent right is granted and
announced, any entity or individual may request the invalidation of the patent if it is believed
to be non-compliant with relevant provisions.
This reflects the public supervision nature of the invalidation system, meaning that filing
such a request does not require a direct legal interest. However, in practice, situations have
arisen where requests are filed in the name of nominal applicants acting on behalf of others.
In recent years, regulatory focus has shifted toward the concept of “genuine intent.”
Updated examination rules clarify that requests not reflecting the true intention of the
applicant may be rejected, indicating a move toward stricter and more substantive review.
In a recent case, an individual filed a request to invalidate an invention patent. The patentee
argued that the applicant was merely a nominal party, citing factors such as inconsistencies
in payment records and potential connections in representation arrangements.
The authority held that the key issue was whether the request genuinely reflected the
applicant’s intent. As insufficient evidence was provided to prove otherwise, the invalidation
decision was upheld.
This case demonstrates that, in the absence of clear evidence, the standing of a nominal
applicant is generally recognized, and the burden of proof lies with the party challenging
the legitimacy.
In another case, the authority rejected an invalidation request after identifying irregularities
in authorization documents, determining that the request did not reflect the applicant’s
genuine intent. This highlights a stricter approach toward procedural authenticity.
There are also cases involving multiple filings made under another person’s name.
Authorities found such conduct disruptive to professional order, while clarifying that
violations of administrative rules do not necessarily invalidate the legal effect of completed
procedures. This distinction separates administrative liability from procedural validity.
Overall, the issue of nominal applicants in patent invalidation procedures is facing increasing
regulatory scrutiny, with “genuine intent” becoming a central standard.From an
evidentiary perspective, clear and direct evidence (such as document authenticity issues) may
lead to outright rejection, whereas indirect or circumstantial evidence typically requires a higher
burden of proof.
From a policy standpoint, regulation is moving toward greater emphasis on authenticity,
transparency, and integrity. Going forward, all parties should strengthen compliance awareness:
patentees should focus on evidence collection, while applicants must ensure procedural
legitimacy to avoid potential legal risks.
