Kangrui Won the Appeal of the Administrative Litigation on Behalf of CREE
date: 2021-05-14

    Recently, Kangrui Law Firm received the Supreme Court's Administration Judgment of (2020) ZHI XING ZHONG No. 481 and won the appeal of the administrative litigation. The first appellant, Institute of Semiconductors, CAS (hereinafter referred to as CAS) and the second appellant, China National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter referred to as CNIPA) appealed against the respondent, CREE Huizhou Solid State Lighting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CREE) for the primary judgment made by Beijing Intellectual Property Court of "canceling the examination decision on the request for invalidation". CREE entrusted Kangrui Law Firm to represent it in the appeal.


    The decision, “examination decision on the request for invalidation”, was made by the CNIPA on the request from CREE for the application invalidation of an invention patent No.201010145087.3, named “growth method of phase transition nucleation in Gan epitaxy” and owned by CAS. The decision held that all the invalid reasons put forward by CREE are not tenable, so the invention patent shall remain valid. CREE did not accept the decision and entrusted Kangrui right away to file an administration lawsuit of the first instance against the CNIPA to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming the court to cancel the decision and ordering the CNIPA to remake it. After receiving our client’s instructions, Kangrui’s legal team promptly responded and conducted a thorough research on the patent, then submitted the comprehensive and detailed evidence and facts to the court. Through primary hearing, Kangrui won the suit and Beijing Intellectual Property Court overturned the decision and supported CREE’s claims. However, CAS and the CNIPA did not accept the primary judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the court to overturn the above judgment and dismiss CREE’s claims.


    After the trail, The Supreme Court held that the claims appealed by CSA and CNIPA cannot be established and the court shall not accept them; the facts in the primary judgment are clear and the result is correct. In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the primary judgment.