In this case, the SPC specified a criterion for assessing the inventiveness of novel crystalline forms of compounds. Although the preparation of the novel crystal form has a certain degree of uncertainty, merely preparing and obtaining a novel crystalline form does not necessarily mean that the said crystalline form meets the requirement of inventiveness under the patent law.

In this case, the SPC established an adjudicative standard for identifying common technical knowledge (CTK) and its evidence in the relevant technical field. The identification of CTK as well as evidence of CTK may determine the technical knowledge and cognitive capability that so-called persons skilled in the art shall possess, and, hence, is of significant influence on inventiveness assessment at issue.

In this case, the SPC established the standard for accepting supplementary experimental data by CNIPA in patent invalidation process.

In this case, the SPC pointed out that in terms of inventiveness assessment, if a person skilled in the art cannot obtain the biological material claimed in the patent by repeating the preparation method in the reference document, then the claimed biological material shall be identified as being not disclosed by such reference document.