Can a single conjunction influence the fate of a patent?

In one of China’s most frequently cited patent invalidation cases involving a PCT application, the answer is yes.

During the Chinese national phase, the English word “or” was translated as the Chinese conjunction “或”. Years later, this seemingly ordinary choice became a central issue in proceedings that reached all the way to the Supreme People’s Court of China.

This case serves as a powerful reminder: patent translation is not mere language conversion. It is about accurately preserving the legal and technical meaning of claims. When that meaning shifts—even subtly—the consequences can be profound.

A Translation Issue That Reached the Supreme People's Court

The case concerned InterDigital’s invention patent “Retuning Gaps and Scheduling Gaps in Discontinuous Reception” (PCT Publication No. WO 2011/149920 A2; Chinese Patent No. ZL 201180025946.8, Publication No. CN 102907060 B), which entered China through the PCT national phase.

Huawei challenged the patent in invalidation proceedings before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). Although the patent was ultimately invalidated on grounds of lack of inventive step, the interpretation of the Chinese translation emerged as a recurring key issue—from CNIPA through the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to the Supreme People’s Court.

One Word, Two Different Meanings

The disputed phrasing appears straightforward at first glance:

English Claim:

“…no longer within DRX Active Time or within the required retuning gap period…”

Chinese Translation:

“…不再在DRX活动时间内或不再在需要的重调谐间隙周期内…”

The controversy centered on the logical relationship in a negative construction.

In the English original, read in light of the full claim and technical disclosure, it required the simultaneous absence of both conditions (neither A nor B).

The Chinese “或”, however, could naturally be read as requiring only one condition to be absent (not A or not B).

English logic: Neither A nor B — both conditions must be absent.

Chinese translation logic: Not A or not B — either condition is absent.

This difference effectively broadened the claim scope by lowering the threshold for satisfying the claimed condition.

The lesson is not to mechanically translate every “or” in negative sentences as “neither…nor…”. Rather, translators must carefully determine the intended logical relationship by considering the claims together with the specification and underlying technology.

Patent translation is ultimately an exercise in precise interpretation.

Why the Error Could Not Be Corrected

InterDigital later sought to amend the granted claims, arguing an “obvious translation error.”

CNIPA and the courts, including the Supreme People’s Court, rejected the request. They held that the granted claims contained no “obvious error” recognizable directly and unambiguously by a person skilled in the art from the patent documents as a whole.

Moreover, the proposed change would have altered the legal scope of protection, which is not permitted post-grant.

This highlights a practical reality in Chinese patent practice: while limited post-grant amendments are possible in some cases, substantive translation errors that affect claim scope are exceptionally difficult to remedy once the patent has been granted.

What This Case Means for PCT Applicants

The InterDigital case offers important practical lessons for applicants entering China via the PCT route:

· The translated claims become the legally operative text in China.

· Small linguistic choices, especially logical connectors, can significantly alter claim interpretation and scope.

· Once granted, translation errors impacting scope are often irreversible.

· High-quality patent translation requires integrated linguistic, technical, and legal expertise.

In essence, the real issue was whether the translation faithfully preserved the invention the applicant originally intended to protect.

Conclusion

Patents may be lost not only due to insufficient inventiveness but also because the language used no longer accurately conveys the intended legal and technical scope.

The InterDigital case demonstrates why translation should never be treated as a routine administrative task in PCT national phase entry. It is one of the final—and most critical—opportunities to safeguard the patent’s intended protection before risks become irreversible.

Have you encountered a patent translation issue where a seemingly minor linguistic choice had a significant impact on claim interpretation or scope?

 

I often encounter Indian examiners raising clarity objections regarding the use of “at least” and “one or more elements selected from.” I am quite confused because some materials inherently contain one or more elements. If the above phases are changed to “one or more elements of,” would this overcome the objection?

I’m looking for some opinions from people who have experience with product licensing/inventing.
I have a pending/published utility patent application.

I was recently contacted unsolicited by Axis International Marketing / Patents to Retail. They reviewed my invention, I spoke with their licensing agent, and they called back saying they want to move forward.
The proposed agreement is:
12-month non-exclusive agreement
I retain ownership of my patent/IP
10% royalty based on Axis’s sales price, subject to certain deductions
Monthly royalty reports and audit rights
Axis markets/pitches the product to retailers/e-commerce companies
If a potential buyer shows sufficient interest, Axis says it will provide CAD/3D drawings, engineering/production drawings, a prototype and an animated video
Axis can potentially manufacture and sell the product itself
I have to pay an $8,000 upfront development/licensing fee
The $8,000 is what’s making me hesitant. There’s no guarantee that a retailer will be interested or that the product will ever actually be manufactured/sold, so theoretically I could pay $8k and never receive any royalties.

If you have ever tried to find a patent to license and manufacture, then you probably know how time consuming it is. You can search the USPTO website looking for relevant patents and you can read the patents that seem valuable to determine if the patent claims provide meaningful protection for the invention.

But if you want to know if the invention works as described in the patent, then you need to contact the inventor and find out if the inventor has a prototype, and arrange to see a demonstration of the prototype. Once you see the prototype demonstration, you may realize that there are problems you did not expect with the performance of the invention and decide that you need to continue your search for another valuable patent.

This time consuming effort is made even more time consuming because the USPTO patent search database contains only address contact information for inventors and patent assignees that is generally out of date within two to three years after a patent has been issued. While you can often contact the patent attorney of record or look for updated contact information for the inventor, both of these processes are time consuming and not certain to succeed.

This problem could be addressed by including optional email addresses of the inventors in the patent search database. Inventors (and/or patent owners) could update their email addresses on the Internet if they change. An email address option will also provide an alternative contact option for inventors with private mailing addresses.

The patent search database could also be updated to include an optional website address where the patent owner can provide relevant business and technical information regarding the invention as well as product demonstration photos and videos. Websites can provide information to potential licensees that can be updated easily by the inventor, thereby improving the likelihood for successful commercialization of the invention.  

By adding email and website addresses of inventors to the online patent database, communication with inventors will be enhanced, and by speeding up the communication that takes place between inventors and industry, technology can develop more rapidly and cost effectively.  By facilitating commercialization, the USPTO will encourage innovation and discourage useless invention marketing companies.

I'm a 23F working as a patent professional at a law firm in India, currently earning around ₹10 LPA with 2.5 years of experience.

Lately, I've been questioning whether this is the right long-term career for me. One of my biggest concerns is the salary growth in this field in India. It seems like compensation slows down after a point, and I'm not sure if that's actually true or just my perception.

I'm currently deciding between two paths:

- Prepare for CAT examination this year and pursue an MBA.
- Prepare for the Indian Patent Agent Exam next January and then try to move into an in-house IP role.

By the time I make my next switch, I'll probably have around 3–3.5 years of experience, and hopefully the Patent Agent qualification as well.

For those already working in the industry:

1. What salary range is realistic at that level of experience?

2. Does clearing the Patent Agent Exam significantly improve compensation?

3. Is it actually possible to reach ₹20–30 LPA within 3–4 years in the Indian patent/IP industry, or is that unrealistic?

4 Are there people here who are genuinely earning well in this field, especially outside of senior management or partner-level roles?

I'd really appreciate hearing from people who've been in the industry for a while and can share what career progression and compensation actually look like.