Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court of the People's Republic of China issued an administrative judgment (2021) Jing 73 Xingchu No. 1826, ruling to reject the plaintiff's claim of the Japanese National Research and Development Corporation Material Research Institute. So far, the administrative dispute over the invalidation of the patent rights of "Light-Emitting Elements and Lighting Appliances" has come to an end.

The judgment pointed out that the people's court should define the terms of the claims according to the ordinary meanings understood by those skilled in the technical field after reading the claims, description and drawings. Where the terms of a claim are clearly defined or illustrated in the specification and drawings, such terms shall be followed. If it cannot be defined according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, it may be defined in combination with technical dictionaries, technical manuals, reference books, textbooks, national or industrial technical standards, etc. commonly used by technicians in the technical field. When the concept of yttrium-aluminum-garnet-based phosphors is clearly defined in the patent specification involved in the case, the Japanese National Research and Development Corporation Material Research Institute claims that yttrium-aluminum-garnet-based phosphors are a general term for various phosphors with yttrium-aluminum garnet as the matrix of the luminescent material which is a common knowledge in the field, and the concept of yttrium aluminum garnet-based phosphors in the patent involved lacks factual and legal basis.

After accepting the entrustment of the client, Hengbo team made a lot of careful preparations, 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 invalid decision made by the State Intellectual Property Office and help the client Jiangsu Bree Optoelectronics Co., Ltd. win the first instance of an invalid administrative dispute.