Patent applications consist of two core sections: claims (defining the legal scope of protection) and specification (explaining the invention). Errors in claims can lead to broader challenges against a patent's validity, while specification errors typically hinge on whether the invention is deemed "non-enabling" under Article 26(3) of China’s Patent Law.
Even patents containing obvious errors can remain valid—but only under strict conditions. First, the error must not undermine the "three core requirements" of patentability: novelty, inventiveness, and practical applicability. Second, the patent holder must prove through amendments or evidence that the invention still meets all authorization criteria. Lastly, the mistake must not render the technical solution unworkable or blur the patent's protective scope. Courts carefully weigh these factors when deciding whether to uphold or invalidate a patent.
What Qualifies as an "Obvious Error"?
Type 1: Errors Identifiable from the Patent's Context Alone
Example: A patent claimed an anode made of "polonium (Po) wire," a highly toxic, radioactive, and rare element. Courts ruled this was an obvious typo; experts would recognize "platinum (Pt)" as the intended material. The error was corrected without invalidating the patent.
Type 2: Errors Requiring Domain Knowledge for Clarification
Landmark Case: A patent described a "gap between an outer sleeve and extension tube." Challengers argued the gap was physically impossible if the parts were fixedly connected. Lower courts initially upheld the claim’s invalidity, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision in 2012, ruling the phrasing was an obvious error. This case set a precedent: errors must be correctable without ambiguity using common technical knowledge.
Type 3: Errors Requiring External Evidence for Resolution
Example: A patent labeled an "inlet pipe" but meant "outlet pipe." By referencing drawings and prior patents (external evidence), experts corrected the error. Post-correction, the invention was deemed unoriginal and invalidated.
Key Takeaways:
- Courts allow corrections if errors are glaringly clear, whether from the patent alone, common technical sense, or external proof.
- The 2012 Supreme Court ruling established critical rules for evaluating obvious errors, shaping future patent disputes.
- Correcting errors ensures patents protect genuine innovations, not typographical or contextual mistakes.