The State Intellectual Property Office of China announced that several law firms have been penalized!

Yesterday, the IP office's penalty notice swept through industry WeChat Moments, with multiple law firms being penalized.

I. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Fu Jianzhou

Name: Fu Jianzhou
Qualification Number: 3316472
Affiliated Institution: Currently not practicing at a patent agency

Disciplinary Reason:

Fu Jianzhou signed a certificate-hanging agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suzhou Xinghuo), failed to engage in patent agency work full-time, and concealed the important fact that the agency's shareholder failed to engage in patent agency work full-time.

Specific Facts:

On June 26, 2017, the State Intellectual Property Office received a report from Dong Jianjun, then the legal representative of Suzhou Xinghuo, via email, stating that Suzhou Xinghuo was suspected of shareholder certificate-hanging behavior; after signing a partnership agreement with Zhang Yang (who does not have patent agency qualifications), the actual controller of Suzhou Xinghuo, he did not engage in patent agency work full-time at Suzhou Xinghuo; he was unaware of the company changing him to the legal representative.

On July 6, 2017, Suzhou Xinghuo submitted a report on the illegal certificate-hanging of Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou, stating that in order to meet the statutory conditions of a limited liability company agency, Suzhou Xinghuo shareholders Zhou Xue min, Shi Chengtao, and Shen Yuanyuan found Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou through Zhang Yang; both parties agreed that Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou should complete the resignation procedures from their original units after signing the letter of intent; however, after signing the agreement, the two were unwilling to resign from their existing jobs in Hangzhou to work at Suzhou Xinghuo.

In the same month, Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou again filed a complaint and submitted additional materials, including the consulting agreement signed between Fu Jianzhou and Zhang Yang.

The investigation found that Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou did not work at Suzhou Xinghuo after signing the agreement; Zhang Yang, as the actual controller of Suzhou Xinghuo, admitted that the shareholder signatures in the documents uploaded to the patent agency management system were signed by a proxy company; the shareholder meeting resolution, equity transfer agreement, and other materials submitted by Suzhou Xinghuo for registration changes in June 2018 were not signed by Dong Jianjun, and Shen Yuanyuan, who was changed to the legal representative, was also unaware.

The following materials serve as evidence:
1. Complaint materials submitted by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Suzhou Xinghuo;
2. Agreements signed by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Zhang Yang;
3. Investigation report from Jiangsu Provincial Intellectual Property Office and transcripts of questioning Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Zhang Yang;
4. Confirmation letter signed by Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou;
5. Remediation statement submitted by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Suzhou Xinghuo.

Fu Jianzhou signed a partnership agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo but failed to engage in patent agency work full-time, concealing the important fact that the agency's shareholder failed to engage in patent agency work full-time. This act violates Article 8, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)". In view of Fu Jianzhou's proactive reporting and active cooperation in the investigation, according to Article 10 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)", a lenient punishment will be given.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi [2019] No. 18), legally informing Fu Jianzhou of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed warning penalty and his legally protected rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Fu Jianzhou did not submit any valid statements, defenses, or hearing applications to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to Articles 8 and 10 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)", it is decided to give Fu Jianzhou a warning penalty.

If the party concerned is dissatisfied with this disciplinary decision, they may apply for administrative reconsideration to the State Intellectual Property Office within 60 days from the date of receipt of this decision, or may file an administrative lawsuit with a competent people's court within 6 months from the date of receipt of this decision. During the reconsideration and litigation period, the above decision will not be suspended.

State Intellectual Property Office
March 26, 2019

II. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Suzhou Xinghuo

Institution Name: Suzhou Xinghuo Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Institution Code: 32298

Legal Representative: Shen Yuanyuan

Shareholders: Zhou Xue min, Shen Yuanyuan

Address: Room 1402, Building 1, No. 211, Zhujiangnan Road, Mudu Town, Wujiang District, Suzhou City

Disciplinary Reason:

Suzhou Xinghuo Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (Suzhou Xinghuo) concealed the important fact that patent agency shareholders Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou failed to engage in patent agency work full-time; Suzhou Xinghuo repeatedly changed its registration matters, and the shareholder signatures on the relevant change materials were signed by a proxy company found by the actual controller, Zhang Yang, without the knowledge of the relevant shareholders.

Specific Facts:

On June 26, 2017, the State Intellectual Property Office received a report from Dong Jianjun, then the legal representative of Suzhou Xinghuo, via email, stating that Suzhou Xinghuo was suspected of shareholder certificate-hanging behavior ， After signing a partnership agreement with Zhang Yang (who does not have patent agency qualifications), the actual controller of Suzhou Xinghuo, he did not engage in patent agency work full-time at Suzhou Xinghuo; he was unaware of the company changing him to the legal representative.

In the same month, Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou again filed a complaint and submitted additional materials, including the consulting agreement signed between Fu Jianzhou and Zhang Yang.

Upon investigation, it was found that Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou did not work for Suzhou Xinghuo after signing the agreement; Zhang Yang, as the actual controller of Suzhou Xinghuo, admitted that the shareholder signatures on the documents uploaded to the patent agency management system were signed by a proxy company; the shareholder meeting resolution, equity transfer agreement, and other materials submitted by Suzhou Xinghuo for the change of registration in June 2018 were not signed by Dong Jianjun, and Shen Yuanyuan, who was changed to the legal representative, was also unaware. At the same time, both parties have reached a settlement and completed the equity transfer procedures at the Administration for Industry and Commerce, and Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou have withdrawn from the shareholder meeting. Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou also signed a letter of confirmation of the signatures on the previous change materials of Suzhou Xinghuo.

The following materials serve as evidence:

1. Complaint materials submitted by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Suzhou Xinghuo;

2. Agreements signed by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Zhang Yang;

3. Investigation report from Jiangsu Provincial Intellectual Property Office and transcripts of questioning Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Zhang Yang;

4. Confirmation letter signed by Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou;

5. Remediation statement submitted by Dong Jianjun, Fu Jianzhou, and Suzhou Xinghuo.

Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou signed an agreement with Zhang Yang, but they did not engage in patent agency work full-time at Suzhou Xinghuo after signing the agreement. Suzhou Xinghuo concealed the important fact that the shareholders of the patent agency did not engage in patent agency work full-time. Suzhou Xinghuo changed its registration information many times, and the shareholder signatures on the relevant change materials were signed by a proxy company found by Zhang Yang, without the knowledge of the relevant shareholders. The above actions constitute the "concealment of the true situation and falsification" situation stipulated in Item (1) of Article 24 of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision. Although both parties reached a settlement during the investigation, and Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou confirmed the signatures on the previous change materials of Suzhou Xinghuo, this does not change the fact that the above actions are illegal.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019] 17, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), informing Suzhou Xinghuo of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed penalty of "revocation of the patent agency registration certificate", and its legally entitled rights. On January 21, 2019, Suzhou Xinghuo sent a letter to the State Intellectual Property Office, stating that it had no objection to the proposed penalty decision.

Disciplinary Decision:

The above-mentioned actions implemented by Suzhou Xinghuo occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be subject to the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision, It is decided to impose a penalty of "revocation of the patent agency registration certificate" on Suzhou Xinghuo.

If the parties are dissatisfied with this disciplinary decision, they may apply for administrative reconsideration to the State Intellectual Property Office within 60 days from the date of receipt of this decision, or may file a lawsuit with a competent people's court within 6 months from the date of receipt of this decision. During the reconsideration and litigation period, the above decision shall not be suspended.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

III. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Dong Jianjun

Name: Dong Jianjun
Qualification Certificate No.: 3316538
Affiliated Institution: Currently not practicing at a patent agency

Disciplinary Reason:

Dong Jianjun signed a partnership agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suzhou Xinghuo), but failed to engage in patent agency work full-time, concealing the important fact that the shareholders of the agency failed to engage in patent agency work full-time.

Specific Facts:

On June 26, 2017, the State Intellectual Property Office received a report submitted by Dong Jianjun, then the legal representative of Suzhou Xinghuo, via email, Stating that Suzhou Xinghuo was suspected of shareholder registration behavior, and that he himself and Zhang Yang (who does not have a patent agent qualification), the actual controller of Suzhou Xinghuo, signed a partnership agreement but did not engage in patent agency work full-time at Suzhou Xinghuo; he was unaware of the company changing him to the legal representative.

In the same month, Dong Jianjun and Fu Jianzhou again filed a complaint and submitted additional materials, including the consulting agreement signed between Fu Jianzhou and Zhang Yang.

Dong Jianjun signed a partnership agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo but failed to engage in patent agency work full-time, concealing the important fact that the shareholders of the agency failed to engage in patent agency work full-time. This act violates Article 8, Item (4) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)". In view of Dong Jianjun's proactive reporting and active cooperation in the investigation, according to Article 10 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)", a lighter penalty is imposed.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019] 16, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), informing Dong Jianjun of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed warning penalty, and informing Dong Jianjun of his legally entitled rights to statement and defense.

On January 21, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office received Dong Jianjun's written statement. In his statement, Dong Jianjun stated that Zhang Yang promised that after the establishment of Suzhou Xinghuo, he would find an office in Hangzhou for him to work in, instead of requiring him to work in Suzhou; after he left his job in February 2017, he had not officially worked in Hangzhou, and he did not have any unwillingness to leave his job in Hangzhou to work for Suzhou Xinghuo, and his behavior was "passive registration".

After further verification, Dong Jianjun admitted in the previous inquiry record that he paid social security through other companies during the period of signing the partnership agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo; Suzhou Xinghuo's report also pointed out that Dong Jianjun worked for another consulting company in Hangzhou during this period. Dong Jianjun's above-mentioned defense reasons cannot deny the fact that he failed to engage in patent agency work full-time after signing the agreement with Suzhou Xinghuo, nor did he submit any substantial evidence that would affect the determination of facts. This office believes that Dong Jianjun's defense reasons are untenable.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to Articles 8 and 10 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)", It is decided to give Dong Jianjun a warning.

State Intellectual Property Office
March 26, 2019

IV. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Yang Li

Name: Yang Li
Qualification Certificate No.: 1108066
Institution: Beijing Qingchuang Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Qingchuang Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Qingchuang) engaged in abnormal patent application behaviors (handled separately in another case). As the person in charge of Beijing Qingchuang, Yang Li bears an inescapable responsibility for the above-mentioned illegal acts and consequences, which interfered with the normal conduct of patent examination work.

Specific Facts:

Beijing Qingchuang in April-May 2018 submitted on behalf of applicants "Foshan Qianyu Technology Co., Ltd." and "Foshan Yue Sanpang Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd." 60 content invention applications with obviously identical or simply substituted components, etc. , constituting the abnormal patent application behavior stipulated in Article 3, Item (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) This violated Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," constituting the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as per Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the pre-revised "Patent Agent Regulations".

As the person in charge of Beijing Qingchuang, Yang Li bears the inescapable responsibility for the aforementioned illegal acts and consequences, disrupting the normal conduct of patent examination.

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:
1. Patent application documents submitted by Beijing Qingchuang;
2. Interview transcript;
3. Beijing Qingchuang's submitted "Self-Examination and Rectification Report on Patent Application Cases".

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued a "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019]15, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), legally informing Yang Li of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the warning penalty and their right to make a statement and defense.

On January 28, 2019, our office received Yang Li's written statement. In this statement, Yang Li did not submit any substantive evidence affecting the determination of facts, nor did they provide a reasonable explanation for the illegal act of submitting abnormal applications. Our office deems Yang Li's defense untenable.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to Article 7, Paragraph (5) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)" and Article 4, Paragraph (5) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," It is decided to give Yang Li a warning penalty.

State Intellectual Property Office
March 26, 2019

5. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Wang Shulan

Name: Wang Shulan
Qualification Certificate No.: 1111553
Affiliated Institution: Beijing Chaofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

Wang Shulan, as a patent agent of Beijing Chaofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Chaofan Zhicheng), engaged in the act of filing abnormal patent applications.

Specific Facts:

Chaofan Zhicheng, from April 2017 to July 2018, acted as an agent for multiple applicants in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and other provinces, submitting 7 5 patent applications with clearly identical content, These applications involved multiple themes. On September 20, 2017, they submitted 88 patent applications on behalf of "Chengdu Qin Chuan Internet of Things Technology Co., Ltd." involving simple replacements of different components, covering multiple themes in the Internet of Things field. In August and December 2017, they submitted 9 patent applications on behalf of "Chengdu Yixin Chemical Co., Ltd." involving simple replacements of different materials, relating to fertilizers and their preparation methods. Of these patent applications, 101 belong to Article 3, Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) as abnormal patent applications , violating Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" and disrupting the normal conduct of patent examination.

Wang Shulan is the named agent for 54 of the applications involved in the abnormal applications.

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:
1. Patent application documents submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;
2. Interview transcript;
3. Chaofan Zhicheng's submitted "Explanation of Self-Examination and Rectification".

Wang Shulan's act of submitting abnormal patent applications disrupted the normal conduct of patent examination.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued a "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019]14, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), legally informing Wang Shulan of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning penalty and their legal rights. Within the stipulated timeframe, Wang Shulan did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to Article 7, Paragraph (5) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)" and Article 4, Paragraph (5) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," it is de cided to give Wang Shulan a warning penalty.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

6. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Tan Jie

Name: Tan Jie

Qualification Certificate No.: 1307454

Institution: Beijing Qingchuang Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Disciplinary Reason:

Tan Jie, as a patent agent of Beijing Qingchuang Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Qingchuang), engaged in the act of filing abnormal patent applications.

Specific facts:

violating Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," constituting the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as per Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Regulations".

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Beijing Qingchuang;

2. Interview transcript;

3. Beijing Qingchuang's submitted "Self-Examination and Rectification Report on Patent Application Cases".

Tan Jie is the named agent for the aforementioned 60 abnormal patent applications involved, bearing the inescapable responsibility for the aforementioned illegal acts and consequences, disrupting the normal conduct of patent examination.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued a "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019]13, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), legally informing Tan Jie of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning penalty and their right to make a statement and defense.

Disciplinary Decision:

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

7. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Beijing Shengfan Zhirong

Agency: Beijing Shengfan Zhirong Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Agency Code: 11616

Person in Charge: Ye Shan

Shareholders: Liu Xiaohui, Shang Xin, Li Lijun, Ye Shan, Gao Zhijun

Address: Room 057A, 9th Floor, No. 1 Suzhou Street, Haidian District, Beijing

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Shengfan Zhirong Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shengfan Zhirong) engaged in the act of applying for patents abnormally.

Specific Facts:

From March to May 2018, Shengfan Zhirong acted as an agent for multiple applicants in Jiawang District, Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province submitting 123 invention patent applications with obviously fabricated technical effects.

The following materials serve as evidence for the above facts:

I. Patent application documents submitted by Shengfan Zhirong;

2. Interview transcript;

III. Self-examination report submitted by Shengfan Zhirong.

The above actions constitute the act of applying for patents abnormally as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office), violating the provisions of Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors," and constitute the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as stipulated in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Punishment Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Punishment Letter No. [2019] 12), legally informing Shengfan Zhirong of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning punishment, as well as its legally entitled rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Shengfan Zhirong did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The above actions implemented by Shengfan Zhirong occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be subject to the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision, it is decided to give Shengfan Zhirong a warning punishment.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

VIII. Patent Agent Punishment Decision—Dai Xiang

Name: Dai Xiang

Qualification Certificate No.: 3216224

Affiliated Institution: Currently not practicing at a patent agency

Disciplinary Reason:

Dai Xiang, as a patent agent, engaged in the act of applying for patents abnormally; during his tenure as the person in charge of Beijing Shengfan Zhirong Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shengfan Zhirong), he bears the inescapable management responsibility for the abnormal patent application behaviors and consequences of the company (already handled in a separate case).

Specific Facts:

Shengfan Zhirong in March-May 2018 acted as an agent and submitted 123 invention patent applications with obviously fabricated technical effects, constitute the act of filing the act of applying for patents abnormally. This violated Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" and constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as stipulated in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision.

Dai Xiang is the named agent for 72 of the above abnormal applications.

The following materials serve as evidence for the above facts:

I. Patent application documents submitted by Shengfan Zhirong;

2. Interview transcript;

III. Self-examination report submitted by Shengfan Zhirong.

During the period when the above abnormal patent application behaviors occurred, Dai Xiang served as the person in charge of Shengfan Zhirong and bears the inescapable management responsibility for the occurrence of the above illegal behaviors; at the same time, as the named agent for 72 of the above abnormal applications, Dai Xiang acted as an agent in submitting abnormal patent applications, interfering with the normal progress of patent examination work, violating Article 7, Paragraph (5) of the "Patent Agent Punishment Rules (Trial Implementation)" and Article 4, Paragraph (5) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors".

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Punishment Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Punishment Letter No. [2019] 11), legally informing Dai Xiang of the proposed warning punishment decision, the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed punishment decision, as well as his legally entitled rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Dai Xiang did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to the provisions of Article 7 of the "Patent Agent Punishment Rules (Trial Implementation)" and Article 4 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" it is decided to give Dai Xiang a warning punishment.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

IX. Patent Agent Punishment Decision—Yin Lei

Name: Yin Lei

Qualification Certificate No.: 3705546

Agency: Qingdao Yongji Intellectual Property Agency Office (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

Yin Lei, as a patent agent of Qingdao Yongji Intellectual Property Agency Office (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Qingdao Yongji), engaged in the act of applying for patents abnormally; as the person in charge of Qingdao Yongji, he bears the inescapable management responsibility for the abnormal patent application behaviors and consequences of the office (already handled in a separate case).

Specific Facts:

On February 28, 2018, Qingdao Yongji acted as an agent for the applicant "Qingdao Changsheng Ridian Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd." and submitted 78 invention patent applications with obviously identical content , which constitutes the act of applying for patents abnormally as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) . The main subject of this batch of applications involves analytical methods and calculation methods. Its characteristics are: there are two or more applications with obviously identical content under each subject. For example, application "2018101669124" with the invention name "A finite element fatigue analysis method for photovoltaic spring and autumn shed structure" and application "2018101689128" with the invention name "A finite element fatigue analysis method for photovoltaic medicinal herb shed structure". Except for the technical characteristics "spring and autumn shed" and "medicinal herb shed" involved in the invention name, the technical solutions are obviously identical. The above actions of Qingdao Yongji violated Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" and constitute the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as stipulated in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision.

The following materials serve as evidence for the above facts:

I. Relevant patent application documents submitted by Qingdao Yongji Agency;

II. Verification report submitted by Shandong Provincial Intellectual Property Bureau;

III. Explanation made by Qingdao Yongji.

Yin Lei is the named agent for all 78 cases of abnormal patent applications involved, and he submitted abnormal patent applications, interfering with the normal progress of patent examination work; at the same time, as the person in charge of Qingdao Yongji, he bears the inescapable management responsibility for the above-mentioned illegal acts and consequences.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Punishment Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Punishment Letter No. [2019] 10), legally informing Yin Lei of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed warning penalty, as well as his legally enjoyed rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Yin Lei did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

X. Patent Agent Punishment Decision - Qingdao Yongji

Agency: Qingdao Yongji Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership)

Agency Code: 37235

Person in charge: Yin Lei

Shareholders: Zhao Hang, Yin Lei, Shi Lankai

Address: No. 5, Jiading Road, Sifang District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province (Qingdao Industrial Design Industry Park) Office Building 3+

Disciplinary Reason:

Qingdao Yongji Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Qingdao Yongji) engaged in abnormal patent application activities.

Specific Facts:

On February 28, 2018, Qingdao Yongji submitted on behalf of the applicant "Qingdao Changsheng Ridian Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd." 78 invention patent applications with obviously identical content , which constitutes the act of applying for patents abnormally as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) abnormal patent application behavior stipulated in Article 3, Item (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) These applications mainly involve analytical methods and calculation methods. Their characteristics are: there are two or more applications with obviously identical content under each topic. For example, the application "2018101669124" with the invention name "A finite element fatigue analysis method for photovoltaic spring and autumn shed structure" and the application "2018101689128" with the invention name "A finite element fatigue analysis method for photovoltaic medicinal herb shed structure", except for the technical characteristics "spring and autumn shed" and "medicinal herb shed" involved in the invention name, the technical solutions are obviously the same.

The following materials serve as evidence for the above facts:

I. Relevant patent application documents submitted by Qingdao Yongji Agency;

II. Verification report submitted by Shandong Provincial Intellectual Property Bureau;

III. Report made by Qingdao Yongji.

The above-mentioned acts of Qingdao Yongji constitute the act of abnormal patent application as stipulated in Item (6) of Article 3 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior", violate the provisions of Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior", and belong to Item (4) of Article 24 of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" "engaging in other illegal business activities".

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Punishment Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Punishment Letter No. [2019] 9), legally informing Qingdao Yongji of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed warning penalty, as well as its legally enjoyed rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Qingdao Yongji did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The above-mentioned acts implemented by Qingdao Yongji occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations", and the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" should be applied. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations", the decision is made to give Qingdao Yongji a warning penalty.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

XI. Patent Agent Punishment Decision - Jin Xiangyun

Name: Jin Xiangyun

Qualification Certificate No.: 1111837

Affiliated Institution: Chengdu Chaofan Mingyuan Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Chaofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Chaofan Zhicheng) has committed the illegal act of "leaking the content of the client's invention creation" (already handled in a separate case). Jin Xiangyun, as the former patent agent of Chaofan Zhicheng, is the named agent of the leaked invention patent application and bears relevant responsibility for the above-mentioned illegal acts of Chaofan Zhicheng.

Specific Facts:

Chaofan Zhicheng sent the undisclosed content of two patent applications (application numbers 201720710071x, 2017207100743, the named agent is Jin Xiangyun) of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics) to Chongqing Chuang Hua Glass Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing Chuanhua Glass) on July 13, 2017. After confirmation by Chongqing Chuanhua Glass, Chaofan Zhicheng submitted two patent applications with exactly the same content as the patent applications of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics (application numbers 2017209176770, 2017209181995) on July 26, 2017. Chaofan Zhicheng sent the undisclosed invention creation content of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics to Chongqing Chuanhua Glass, leaking the content of the client's invention creation.

As the named agent for two relevant patent applications of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics, Jin Xiangyun should bear the relevant responsibility for leaking the invention creation content involved.

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

2. Interview transcript;

III. Self-inspection and rectification report submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

IV. Punishment decision of the Patent Agent Association (Quan Zhuan Xie Chu Zi [2018] No. 006).

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Punishment Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Punishment Letter No. [2019] 8), legally informing Jin Xiangyun of the proposed decision to revoke his patent agent qualification certificate, as well as the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed punishment decision, and informing Jin Xiangyun of his legally enjoyed rights to a hearing, statement, and defense. On January 22, 2019, our office received Jin Xiangyun's hearing application, applying for a hearing on the proposed revocation matter. On March 12, 2019, our office received Jin Xiangyun's written statement and relevant evidence materials. On the same day, our office conducted a hearing on the case of revoking Jin Xiangyun's patent agent qualification certificate in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Administrative Penalty Law". Jin Xiangyun and his agent participated in the hearing.

In written statements and at the hearing, Jin Xiangyun submitted new evidence that others were directly responsible for leaking the client's invention content, and presented the following defense arguments regarding the facts of the case: 1. Jin Xiangyun did not handle the patent business involved in the case and was unaware of the content of the invention involved. He was only the named agent for two patent applications of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics, the prior applicant. The person who sent the two undisclosed patent application documents of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics to Chongqing Chuanhua Glass was not Jin Xiangyun, but Li Siying, a former employee of Chuofan Zhicheng. 2. Article 8, Paragraph (1) of the Disciplinary Rules, on which the Disciplinary Opinion Notification is based, targets "directly responsible persons." Jin Xiangyun did not participate in the agency activities of the patent involved, nor did he leak the content of the invention involved; therefore, he is not directly responsible. 3. Regarding the leakage, Chuofan Zhicheng has taken effective measures to proactively eliminate and mitigate the harmful consequences of the illegal act, earnestly conducted internal self-examination and rectification, and introduced a series of rectification measures, achieving certain results. It is hoped that Jin Xiangyun will receive a lighter penalty.

The following evidentiary materials are presented to prove the above facts:

V. Hearing Record

VI. Hearing Statement and Related Evidence

Based on the above defense arguments and the latest evidence, this bureau believes that Li Siying (not a patent agent, now resigned) is directly responsible for leaking the invention content involved. Jin Xiangyun, as the named agent for the relevant invention patent application, failed to fulfill his duties or was incompetent, resulting in damage to the client's interests, and should bear the relevant responsibility for leaking the invention content involved.

Disciplinary Decision:

Jin Xiangyun's aforementioned illegal acts occurred before the implementation of the revised Patent Agent Regulations and should be subject to the previous Patent Agent Regulations. According to Article 25 of the previous Patent Agent Regulations, It is decided to give Jin Xiangyun a warning.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

XII. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Li Binglin

Name: Li Binglin

Qualification Number: 1106987

Affiliated Institution: Beijing Chaofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

As the person in charge of Beijing Chuofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Chuofan Zhicheng), Li Binglin failed to fulfill his management responsibilities and bears the inescapable management responsibility for Chuofan Zhicheng's engagement in abnormal patent applications and leakage of client's invention content (already handled separately).

Specific Facts:

I. Chuofan Zhicheng engaged in abnormal patent application activities

From April 2017 to July 2018, Chuofan Zhicheng acted as an agent for multiple applicants in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and other provinces to submit 7 5 patent applications with clearly identical content These applications involved multiple topics. On September 20, 2017, it acted as an agent for the applicant "Chengdu Qin Chuan Internet of Things Technology Co., Ltd." to submit 88 patent applications with simple replacements of different components. These applications involved multiple topics in the Internet of Things field. In August and December 2017, it acted as an agent for the applicant "Chengdu Yixin Chemical Co., Ltd." to submit 9 patent applications with simple replacements of different materials. These applications involved fertilizers and their preparation methods. Among the above patent applications, 101 belong to Article 3, Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office) Abnormal patent applications. The above actions violate Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," interfere with the normal conduct of patent examination work, and constitute the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" under Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations.

II. Chuofan Zhicheng leaked the client's invention content

On July 13, 2017, Chuofan Zhicheng sent the content of two undisclosed patent applications (application numbers 201720710071x, 2017207100743) of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics) to Chongqing Nanshan District Chuanhua Glass Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing Chuanhua Glass). After confirmation by Chongqing Chuanhua Glass, Chuofan Zhicheng submitted two more patent applications on July 26, 2017, with exactly the same content as the patent applications of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics (application numbers 2017209176770, 2017209181995). Chuofan Zhicheng sent the undisclosed invention content of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics to Chongqing Chuanhua Glass , violating Article 19 of the Patent Law, leaking the client's invention content, which falls under the category of "violating Article 19 of the Patent Law and leaking the client's invention content" as stipulated in Article 8, Paragraph (1) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)".

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

2. Interview transcript;

III. Self-inspection and rectification report submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

IV. Punishment decision of the Patent Agent Association (Quan Zhuan Xie Chu Zi [2018] No. 006).

As the person in charge of Chuofan Zhicheng, Li Binglin bears the inescapable management responsibility for the aforementioned illegal acts of the firm. This falls under the behavior stipulated in Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi [2019] No. 7), legally informing Li Binglin of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning penalty, as well as his legally protected rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Li Binglin did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The aforementioned acts committed by Li Binglin occurred before the implementation of the revised Patent Agent Regulations and should be subject to the previous Patent Agent Regulations. According to Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations, Article 7, Paragraph (5) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)", and Article 4, Paragraph (5) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior", It is decided to give Li Binglin a warning.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

XIII. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Beijing Chuofan Zhicheng

Institution Name: Beijing Chuofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership)

Institution Code: 11371

Person in Charge: Li Binglin

Partners: Li Binglin, Wu Kailei, Wang Shulan

Address: Room 1218, 12th Floor, Zuoan Gongshe, No. 68, Bei Sihuan West Road, Haidian District, Beijing

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Chaofan Zhicheng Intellectual Property Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Chaofan Zhicheng) is suspected of engaging in abnormal patent applications and disclosing the content of the client's inventions.

Specific Facts:

I. Chuofan Zhicheng engaged in abnormal patent application activities

From April 2017 to July 2018, Chuofan Zhicheng acted as an agent for multiple applicants in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and other provinces to submit 7 5 patent applications with clearly identical content These applications involve multiple topics. On September 20, 2017, the applicant "Chengdu Qin Chuan Internet of Things Technology Co., Ltd." was represented in submitting 88 patent applications involving simple replacements of different components. These applications involve multiple topics in the field of the Internet of Things . In August and December 2017, the applicant "Chengdu Yixin Chemical Co., Ltd." was represented in submitting 9 patent applications involving simple replacements of different materials. These applications involve fertilizers and their preparation methods . Of the above patent applications, 101 belong to abnormal patent applications under Article 3, Paragraph (1) and (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office).

II. Chuofan Zhicheng leaked the client's invention content

Chaofan Zhicheng sent the content of two unpublished patent applications (application numbers 201720710071x, 2017207100743) of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics) to Chongqing Chuang Hua Glass Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing Chuang Hua Glass) on July 13, 2017. After confirmation by Chongqing Chuang Hua Glass, Chaofan Zhicheng submitted two more patent applications with exactly the same content as Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics' patent applications (application numbers 2017209176770, 2017209181995) on July 26, 2017. Chaofan Zhicheng disclosed the content of Sichuan Xuhong Optoelectronics' unpublished inventions to Chongqing Chuang Hua Glass, leaking the content of the client's inventions. Chaofan Zhicheng has problems with inadequate implementation of confidentiality systems and imperfect internal management systems.

The following evidentiary materials substantiate these facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

2. Interview transcript;

III. Self-inspection and rectification report submitted by Chaofan Zhicheng;

IV. Punishment decision of the Patent Agent Association (Quan Zhuan Xie Chu Zi [2018] No. 006).

Chaofan Zhicheng's act of engaging in abnormal patent applications violates Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," disrupting the normal conduct of patent examination work. This act constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" under Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision; the act of disclosing the content of the client's inventions violates Article 19 of the "Patent Law" and constitutes the situation of "violating Article 19 of the Patent Law and disclosing the content of the client's inventions" under Article 8, Paragraph (1) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation).

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi [2019] No. 6), legally informing Chaofan Zhicheng of the proposed disciplinary decision to revoke its "Patent Agency Registration Certificate," as well as the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed disciplinary decision, and informing Chaofan Zhicheng of its legal right to a hearing, statement, and defense. On January 22, 2019, our office received Chaofan Zhicheng's application for a hearing to hear the proposed revocation. On March 11, 2019, our office received Chaofan Zhicheng's written statement and relevant evidence.

On March 12, 2019, our office conducted a hearing on the case of the proposed revocation of Chaofan Zhicheng's "Patent Agency Registration Certificate" in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Administrative Penalty Law." Li Binglin, the person in charge of Chaofan Zhicheng, and Xu Bin and Sun Yan, the entrusted agents, represented Chaofan Zhicheng at the hearing.

In the written statement and at the hearing, Chaofan Zhicheng expressed no objection to the illegal facts determined in the "Disciplinary Opinion Notification," such as "disclosing the content of the client's inventions" and "engaging in abnormal patent applications," and deeply regretted the adverse impact. It submitted "letters of understanding" and understanding documents from the prior applicant and the subsequent applicant involved in the act of "disclosing the content of the client's inventions," as well as documents showing that the prior application had been granted and the subsequent application had received a notice of case withdrawal; it also submitted various rectification measures and implementation progress of Chaofan Zhicheng for the above-mentioned illegal acts, as well as relevant materials of self-examination and self-correction.

At the same time, Chaofan Zhicheng made the following defense arguments regarding the specific circumstances of the case: 1. For the illegal acts determined in the "Disciplinary Opinion Notification," Chaofan Zhicheng has taken effective measures to proactively eliminate and mitigate the harmful consequences; 2. For the illegal acts pointed out in the "Disciplinary Opinion Notification," Chaofan Zhicheng has conducted deep reflection, seriously carried out internal self-examination and self-correction, and introduced a series of rectification measures, achieving certain results; 3. The revised "Patent Agent Regulations" has been implemented since March 1, and stipulates other new and lighter penalties for the illegal act of "disclosing the content of the client's inventions." It is hoped that in reference to the relevant provisions in the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Issues of Applying Legal Norms in Handling Administrative Cases" (Fa [2004] No. 96), the circumstances of Chaofan Zhicheng's elimination and mitigation of illegal consequences and rectification should be considered, and the provisions of Article 27, Paragraph (1) of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and the "Administrative Penalty Law" should be applied to give a lighter or mitigated penalty.

The following evidentiary materials are presented to prove the above facts:

V. Hearing Record

VI. Hearing Statement and Related Evidence

Based on the new evidence and defense arguments, our office believes that Chaofan Zhicheng's illegal acts of engaging in abnormal patent applications and disclosing the content of the client's inventions should be punished. Chaofan Zhicheng also has problems with inadequate implementation of confidentiality systems and imperfect internal management systems. However, considering that Chaofan Zhicheng has a good attitude of admitting its mistakes, proactively apologized to the applicants of the relevant patent applications involved in the leak and obtained their understanding, seriously conducted self-examination and self-correction within the company, and introduced corresponding rectification measures, mitigating the harmful consequences of the illegal acts, there are circumstances for lighter or mitigated punishment.

Given that the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and the "Patent Agent Regulations" before the revision have different types of penalties for the illegal act of "disclosing the content of the client's inventions," although Chaofan Zhicheng's above-mentioned illegal acts occurred before the implementation of the new law, according to Article 93 of the "Legislation Law," combined with the relevant provisions on the application rules of new and old legal norms in the "Notice of the Supreme People's Court on the Issues of Applying Legal Norms in Handling Administrative Cases" (Fa [2004] No. 96), applying the new law is in line with the principle of being more favorable to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts, our office decided to apply the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" to give Chaofan Zhicheng a mitigated penalty.

Disciplinary Decision:

According to Article 19 of the "Patent Law," Article 25 of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations," and Article 27 of the "Administrative Penalty Law," the penalty of "ordering to stop undertaking new patent agency business for 12 months" is imposed on Chaofan Zhicheng.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

14. Patent Agency Disciplinary Decision - Beijing Qingchuang

Agency: Beijing Qingchuang Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.

Agency Code: 11212

Person in charge: Yang Li

Shareholders: Wang Xinsheng, Wei Baofang, Zhao Xiubin, He Peiying, Wang Peng, Yang Li

Address: Room 3011, 3rd Floor, Building 18, Laizhun Home, Haidian District, Beijing

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Light Creation Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Beijing Light Creation") is engaged in abnormal patent application behaviors.

Specific Facts:

In April-May 2018, Beijing Light Creation, on behalf of applicants "Foshan Qianyu Technology Co., Ltd." and "Foshan Yuesanpang Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd.", submitted 60 invention patent applications with obviously identical content or simple substitutions of different components, This behavior constitutes abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (1) and (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office). These applications involve various feed or feed additive formulas. Their characteristics are: some applications have obviously identical content, such as "A chicken feed and its preparation method for preventing and treating chicken gout (2018103578153)" and "A chicken feed for preventing and treating infectious bursal disease in chickens (2018103578172)". Except for the subject name, the technical solutions are obviously the same; some applications have simple substitutions of different components, such as "A feed additive for preventing and treating Newcastle disease in chickens (2018103578191)", "A feed additive for preventing and treating fowl cholera (2018103578327)". The technical solutions of the patent applications only differ in the simple substitution of some components and proportions in the feed additive formula.

In July 2018, the State Intellectual Property Office conducted a meeting with Beijing Light Creation. After the meeting, Beijing Light Creation submitted the "Self-Examination and Rectification Report on Patent Application Cases", stating that quality inspection loopholes caused problems in the submission of cases, mainly due to the failure to withdraw cases in a timely manner after repeated submissions, and proposed to actively withdraw, including those submitted by "Foshan Qianyu Technology Co., Ltd.", 18 patent applications and those submitted by "Foshan Yuesanpang Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd.", 11 patent applications, totaling 48 patent applications.

The following evidence materials prove the above facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Beijing Qingchuang;

2. Interview transcript;

3. Beijing Qingchuang's submitted "Self-Examination and Rectification Report on Patent Application Cases".

The above-mentioned actions of Beijing Light Creation constitute abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors", violate the provisions of Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors", and constitute the behavior of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations".

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi [2019] No. 5), legally informing Beijing Light Creation of the facts, reasons, and evidence of the proposed disciplinary decision of a warning, as well as its legally enjoyed rights.

On January 28, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office received a written statement from Beijing Light Creation, stating that before the submission of the 60 abnormal patent applications, it had suggested to the client that they might be identified as abnormal applications, but the client still insisted on submitting them. Beijing Light Creation submitted them based on the idea of protecting the intellectual property rights of the applicant, and there were unavoidable difficulties.

This office believes that the statement does not submit substantial evidence that affects the determination of facts, and the above-mentioned defense reasons of Beijing Light Creation are untenable.

Disciplinary Decision:

The above-mentioned actions implemented by Beijing Light Creation occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be subject to the previous "Patent Agent Regulations". According to the provisions of Article 24 of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations", It is decided to give Beijing Light Creation a warning punishment.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

XV. Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Beijing Huazhong Longteng

Agency: Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership)

Agency Code: 11548

Person in charge: Li Jing

Partners: Jiang Qingmei, Li Jing, Huang Yuju

Address: Room 206, 2nd Floor, Building 1, Jimenli Community, Haidian District, Beijing

Disciplinary Reason:

Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Huazhong Longteng) is engaged in renting patent agency qualifications, abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times".

Specific Facts:

I. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in renting patent agency qualifications.

The materials submitted by Huazhong Longteng show that Huazhong Longteng has 24 branches, and most of its cases come from these branches and trademark agencies, technology service companies, etc. The heads of each branch are responsible for the operation and management of the branch, undertake the establishment and expenses of the branch, and undertake external operations, funds, expenses, personnel wages, insurance, etc. Huazhong Longteng provides seals, licenses, accounts, etc., according to the operating needs of the branch, and charges fees per case. The personnel who write the cases in each branch are not practicing agents, but a large number of unqualified personnel write them and submit them in the names of Li Jing, Jiang Qingmei, and Huang Yuju.

The personnel, finances, and responsibilities of Huazhong Longteng in various branches are handled by the branches themselves. Its so-called "branches" are not true offices, but only cooperate with Huazhong Longteng for business because they do not have patent agency qualifications. They submit patent applications through Huazhong Longteng, and this behavior constitutes the act of renting patent agency qualifications.

II. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times".

From November 2017 to March 2018, many applicants, including "Jinhua Aili Biotechnology Co., Ltd.", submitted through Huazhong Longteng 126 patent applications. These applications involve multiple topics, among which 74 applications have obviously identical content, This behavior constitutes abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors" (Order No. 75 of the State Intellectual Property Office). Its characteristics are: There are two or more applications with obviously identical content under each topic For example, applications with the same invention name "A polishing machine", application numbers "2018102013822" and "2018102043974", have completely identical technical solutions; Another 52 applications are simple substitutions of different components and ratios, which constitutes abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior." Its characteristic is that different applications only make simple substitutions of constituent raw materials and ratios. Huazhong Longteng engaged in abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior."

During our interviews and investigations, we found that when Huazhong Longteng staff visited clients for so-called "patent mining," they would fabricate several so-called technical improvements for clients to choose from, and sell the "ideas" left unchosen by clients to other clients. In some cases, they even engaged in "selling one case multiple times," leading to "similar cases." Due to the numerous branches, it is difficult to know about similar cases. That is, Huazhong Longteng engaged in fabricating patents and "selling one case multiple times."

The following evidence supports the above facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

2. Minutes of questioning of Li Jing;

3. Remediation report submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

4. Cooperation agreements signed between Huazhong Longteng and its various branches;

5. Letters of commitment from the heads of various branches.

Huazhong Longteng engaged in the act of "altering, reselling, renting, or lending administrative license certificates" as defined in Article 80, Paragraph (1) of the Administrative License Law, which constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations. Huazhong Longteng's engagement in abnormal patent applications, fabrication of patents, and "selling one case multiple times" violates Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," interferes with the normal conduct of patent examination work, and constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations.

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Penalty Opinion Notification" (No. [2019] 4, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), legally informing Huazhong Longteng of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed penalty of revoking its "Patent Agency Registration Certificate," as well as its legally protected rights. Within the stipulated time limit, Huazhong Longteng did not submit a statement, defense, or application for a hearing to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The above-mentioned acts of Huazhong Longteng occurred before the implementation of the revised Patent Agent Regulations and should be governed by the previous Patent Agent Regulations. Based on Article 80, Paragraph (1) of the Administrative License Law, Article 24 of the previous Patent Agent Regulations, and Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," it is decided to impose the penalty of "revoking the patent agency registration certificate" on Huazhong Longteng.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

XVI. Patent Agent Penalty Decision - Jiang Qingmei

Name: Jiang Qingmei

Qualification Certificate Number: 3710403

Institution: Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

As a partner of Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Huazhong Longteng), Jiang Qingmei failed to fulfill her management responsibilities and bears some responsibility for the leasing of patent agency qualifications, abnormal patent applications, fabrication of patents, and "selling one case multiple times" (handled separately) that occurred at the firm.

Specific Facts:

I. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in renting patent agency qualifications.

Materials submitted by Huazhong Longteng show that it has 24 branches, and most of its cases come from these branches, trademark agencies, and technology service companies. The heads of each branch are responsible for the operation and management of the branch, undertaking the establishment and expenses of the branch, and external operations, funds, expenses, personnel wages, and insurance. Huazhong Longteng provides seals, certificates, and accounts according to the operating needs of the branches, submits patent applications on behalf of the branches, and charges fees per case. The personnel who write the cases in the branches are not practicing agents, but a large number of unqualified personnel who write them and then submit them under the names of Li Jing, Jiang Qingmei, Huang Yuju, etc.

Huazhong Longteng's personnel, finances, and responsibilities in its various branches are handled by the branches themselves. Its so-called "branches" are not true offices, but rather cooperate with Huazhong Longteng because they lack patent agency qualifications. They submit patent applications through Huazhong Longteng, which constitutes the act of leasing patent agency qualifications. This constitutes the act of "altering, reselling, renting, or lending administrative license certificates" as defined in Article 80, Paragraph (1) of the Administrative License Law, which constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous Patent Agent Regulations.

II. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times".

From November 2017 to March 2018, multiple applicants, including "Jinhua Aili Biotechnology Co., Ltd.," submitted 126 patent applications through Huazhong Longteng. These applications involve multiple topics, with the content of 74 applications being clearly identical This constitutes abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (State Intellectual Property Office Order No. 75). Its characteristic is that there are two or more applications with clearly identical content under each topic. For example, applications with the same invention name "A polishing machine", application numbers "2018102013822" and "2018102043974", have completely identical technical solutions; This constitutes abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior." Its characteristic is that different applications only make simple substitutions of constituent raw materials and ratios . Huazhong Longteng engaged in abnormal patent application behavior as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior."

During our interviews and investigations, we found that when Huazhong Longteng staff visited clients for so-called " "patent mining," they would fabricate several so-called technical improvements for clients to choose from, and sell the "ideas" left unchosen by clients to other clients. In some cases, they even engaged in "selling one case multiple times," leading to "similar cases." Due to the numerous branches, it is difficult to know about similar cases . That is, Huazhong Longteng engaged in fabricating patents and "selling one case multiple times."

Huazhong Longteng's aforementioned actions of engaging in abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times" violate Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," disrupting the normal operation of patent examination work, and constituting the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" under Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations."

The following evidence supports the above facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

2. Minutes of questioning of Li Jing;

3. Remediation report submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

4. Cooperation agreements signed between Huazhong Longteng and its various branches;

5. Letters of commitment from the heads of various branches.

As a partner of Huazhong Longteng, Jiang Qingmei failed to fulfill her management responsibilities and bears certain responsibility for the aforementioned illegal acts and consequences of Huazhong Longteng. This constitutes the acts stipulated in Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Article 7, Paragraph (9) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)."

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Disciplinary Letter No. [2019] No. 3), legally informing Jiang Qingmei of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning penalty, as well as her legally entitled rights. Within the stipulated timeframe, Jiang Qingmei did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The aforementioned acts committed by Jiang Qingmei occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be subject to the previous "Patent Agent Regulations." According to Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Article 7 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)," it is decided to give Jiang Qingmei a warning penalty.

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

Seventeen, Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Huang Yuju

Name: Huang Yuju

Qualification Certificate Number: 4409401

Institution: Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

As a partner of Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Huazhong Longteng), Huang Yuju failed to fulfill her management responsibilities and bears certain responsibility for the firm's actions of leasing patent agency qualifications, engaging in abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times" (already handled separately).

Specific Facts:

I. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in renting patent agency qualifications.

Materials submitted by Huazhong Longteng show that it has 24 branches, and most of its cases come from these branches, trademark agencies, and technology service companies. The heads of each branch are responsible for the operation and management of the branch, undertaking the establishment and expenses of the branch, and external operations, funds, expenses, personnel wages, and insurance. Huazhong Longteng provides seals, certificates, and accounts according to the operating needs of the branches, submits patent applications on behalf of the branches, and charges fees per case. The personnel who write the cases in the branches are not practicing agents, but a large number of unqualified personnel write them and submit them in the names of Li Jing, Jiang Qingmei, and Huang Yuju.

II. Huazhong Longteng is engaged in abnormal patent applications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times".

"Jinhua Aili Biotechnology Co., Ltd." and other multiple applicants submitted 126 patent applications through Huazhong Longteng from November 2017 to March 2018. This batch of applications involves multiple themes, with the content of 74 applications being clearly identical. have completely identical technical solutions; This act constitutes the act of abnormal patent application as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (State Intellectual Property Office Order No. 75), characterized by the existence of two or more applications with clearly identical content under each theme. For example, applications with the same invention name "A type of polishing machine," application numbers "2018102013822" and "2018102043974",

This act constitutes the act of abnormal patent application as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior," characterized by simply replacing the constituent raw materials and proportions between different applications. Huazhong Longteng engaged in the act of abnormal patent application as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior." During the interview and investigation, our office found that when Huazhong Longteng staff went to clients' premises for so-called "patent mining," they would fabricate several so-called technical improvements for clients to choose from and sell the clients' "leftover" ideas to other clients, with some cases of "selling one case multiple times," resulting in "similar cases,"

and due to numerous branch offices, it is difficult to know about similar cases. That is, Huazhong Longteng engaged in fabricating patents and "selling one case multiple times."

The following evidence supports the above facts:

1. Patent application documents submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

2. Minutes of questioning of Li Jing;

3. Remediation report submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

4. Cooperation agreements signed between Huazhong Longteng and its various branches;

5. Letters of commitment from the heads of various branches.

As a partner of Huazhong Longteng, Huang Yuju failed to fulfill her management responsibilities and bears certain responsibility for the aforementioned illegal acts and consequences of Huazhong Longteng. This constitutes the acts stipulated in Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Article 7, Paragraph (9) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)."

Disciplinary Decision:

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (Guozhi Disciplinary Letter No. [2019] No. 2), legally informing Huang Yuju of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed warning penalty, as well as her legally entitled rights. Within the stipulated timeframe, Huang Yuju did not submit a statement, defense, or hearing application to the State Intellectual Property Office. Huang Yuju's aforementioned acts occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be subject to the previous "Patent Agent Regulations." According to Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Article 7 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation),"

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

it is decided to give Huang Yuju a warning penalty.

Eighteen, Patent Agent Disciplinary Decision - Li Jing

Name: Li Jing

Institution: Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership)

Disciplinary Reason:

Qualification Certificate Number: 1111635 Li Jing, as a patent agent, engaged in abnormal patent application; failed to review and check most patent applications submitted in her own name,

Specific Facts:

failed to fulfill her responsibilities, was incompetent, and seriously harmed the interests of the client; as the person in charge of Beijing Huazhong Longteng Patent Agency (General Partnership) (hereinafter referred to as Huazhong Longteng), she bears management responsibility for the firm's actions of leasing patent agency qualifications, fabricating patents, and "selling one case multiple times" (already handled separately).

"Jinhua Aili Biotechnology Co., Ltd." and other multiple applicants submitted I. Li Jing personally submitted 106 abnormal patent applications submitted 126 patent applications. This batch of applications involves multiple themes, with the content of 74 applications being clearly identical. This act constitutes the act of abnormal patent application as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph (1) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" (State Intellectual Property Office Order No. 75), characterized by the existence of two or more applications with clearly identical content under each theme. For example, applications with the same invention name "A type of polishing machine," application numbers "2018102013822" and "2018102043974", In addition, 52 applications were simply replaced with different components and ratios, This behavior constitutes an abnormal patent application as defined in Article 3, Paragraph (3) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior." Its characteristic is the simple replacement of constituent raw materials and ratios between different applications.

Li Jing is the named agent for 106 of the aforementioned 126 abnormal patent applications.

II. Li Jing did not review and oversee most patent applications submitted in her own name

Li Jing personally handles thousands of patent applications annually, reviewing only dozens each month. She is unaware of and unfamiliar with other cases, failing to conduct reviews and seriously harming the interests of her clients.

III. Li Jing bears primary management responsibility for other illegal acts of Huazhong Longteng

Materials submitted by Huazhong Longteng show that it has 24 branch offices, with most cases originating from these 24 branches, trademark agencies, and technology service companies. The heads of each Huazhong Longteng branch office are responsible for the management and operation of their respective offices, including establishment matters and expenses, external operations, funds, personnel salaries, and insurance. Huazhong Longteng provides seals, licenses, and accounts as needed by the branch offices, filing patent applications on their behalf and charging fees per case. The personnel drafting cases in the branch offices are not licensed agents but numerous unqualified individuals. These drafts are then submitted under the names of Li Jing, Jiang Qingmei, Huang Yuju, etc. Huazhong Longteng's personnel, financial matters, and responsibilities in its various branch offices are handled by the respective branch offices. These so-called "branch offices" are not true business offices but rather operate in partnership with Huazhong Longteng due to lacking patent agency qualifications. They file patent applications through Huazhong Longteng, which constitutes the leasing of patent agency qualifications, falling under Article 80, Paragraph (1) of the "Administrative License Law" as "altering, reselling, leasing, or lending administrative license certificates." This also constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations."

During our interviews and investigations, we found that when Huazhong Longteng staff visit clients for so-called "patent mining," they fabricate several so-called technical improvements for clients to choose from. They then sell the "ideas" the clients "leave behind" to other clients, with some instances of "selling one case multiple times," leading to duplicate cases. Due to the numerous branch offices, it is difficult to identify duplicate cases.

That is, Huazhong Longteng fabricated patents and engaged in "selling one case multiple times." It also engaged in the aforementioned act of filing abnormal patent applications, violating Article 2 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior." This interfered with the normal conduct of patent examination and constitutes the act of "engaging in other illegal business activities" as defined in Article 24, Paragraph (4) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations."

The following evidence supports the above facts:

1. Relevant patent application documents filed by Huazhong Longteng;

2. Inquiry record of Li Jing;

3. Corrective report submitted by Huazhong Longteng;

4. Cooperation agreements signed between Huazhong Longteng and its various branch offices;

5. Letters of commitment from the heads of various branch offices.

Li Jing herself engaged in abnormal patent applications, interfering with the normal conduct of patent examination. This falls under Article 4, Paragraph (5) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behavior" and violates Article 7, Paragraph (5) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)."

As a patent agent, Li Jing failed to review and oversee most patent applications submitted in her own name, failing to fulfill her duties and responsibilities, and seriously harming the interests of her clients. As the head of Huazhong Longteng, Li Jing bears undeniable management responsibility for the firm's engagement in abnormal patent applications and leasing of agency qualifications. She also failed to fulfill her duties regarding the firm's fabrication of patents and "selling one case multiple times." These actions violate Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Article 8, Paragraph (6) of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)."

On January 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Opinion Notification" (No. [2019] 1, Guo Zhi Cheng Jie Han Zi), legally informing Li Jing of the facts, reasons, and evidence for the proposed revocation of her patent agent qualification certificate, as well as her legal rights. Within the stipulated timeframe, Li Jing did not submit a statement, defense, or request for a hearing to the State Intellectual Property Office.

Disciplinary Decision:

The aforementioned actions by Li Jing occurred before the implementation of the revised "Patent Agent Regulations" and should be governed by the previous "Patent Agent Regulations." Based on Article 25, Paragraph (1) of the previous "Patent Agent Regulations" and Articles 7 and 8 of the "Patent Agent Disciplinary Rules (Trial Implementation)," it is decided to revoke Li Jing's "Patent Agent Qualification Certificate."

State Intellectual Property Office

March 26, 2019

Have you all been reading this for a while? The relevant responsible persons of the above-mentioned agencies have also been given corresponding penalties, including revocation of the "Patent Agent Qualification Certificate" and warnings.

Furthermore, relevant issues such as illegal registration of agents by relevant agencies have also been investigated and penalized.

Canada becomes the 104th member state of Madrid

Hot Topic: Su Daqiang's expression packs are wildly popular and sweeping the screen, but be careful about copyright infringement if you use them improperly!

Tel

010-68083066

official

Scan the
official account

TOP

Job

Branches

Contact

Scan
Zhongbei Official WeChat

COOKIES

Our website uses cookies and similar technologies to personalize the advertising shown to you and to help you get the best experience on our website. For more information, see our Privacy & Cookie Policy

COOKIES

required

These cookies are necessary for basic functions such as payment. Standard cookies cannot be turned off and do not store any of your information.

analyze

These cookies collect information, such as how many people are using our site or which pages are popular, to help us improve the customer experience. Turning these cookies off will mean we can't collect information to improve your experience.

Feature

These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. They may be set by us or by third-party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.

advertise

These cookies help us understand what you are interested in so that we can show you relevant advertising on other websites. Turning these cookies off will mean we are unable to show you any personalized advertising.

Power by : 300.cn Beijing

Business License