Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued an administrative judgment (2022) JXC No.7308, ruling to reject the plaintiff's claim. So far, the administrative dispute over the invalidation of the patent right of the "intelligent education all-in-one machine" has come to an end.

After accepting the entrustment of the client, Hengbo team carried out a lot of meticulous preparation work, including successfully pointing out the defects of the other party's evidence and misunderstanding of the technology. In the end, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to uphold the invalidation decision made by the State Intellectual Property Office, Hengbo helped the client win the first instance of the invalidation administrative dispute.

The judgment pointed out that : the design involved and the comparative design are basically the same in terms of overall shape, main design layout, etc., and the overall vision of the two is basically the same. The differences ① , ③ and ⑤ belong to local subtle differences, which account for a relatively small proportion of the overall product; the differences ② and ④ are common designs of this type of product; the difference ⑥ is located on the back of the product, and it also accounts for a relatively small proportion of the overall product and is not easy to be noticed by consumers. The above- mentioned differences ① - ⑥ are minor design changes in parts of the product, and do not cause significant differences in the overall visual effect of the product. Therefore, the design involved is not significantly different from the comparative design.