Beijing Small Canned Tea Co., Ltd. was founded in Beijing in 2014. It claims to be an original technology of keeping fresh in small cans, one can of one can of one can of one can of one can of tea, and innovatively introduces the concept and design of user experience. It not only makes brewing easier, cooperates with the use of small canned tea sets, but also ensures that the taste of each teapot is just right. Such novel and traditional technology and marketing model has been peer-reviewed since online. Question. In 2017, CCTV, the advertising giant for small pots of tea, was hotly debated about the company's Internet marketing model, which at the same time led to a patent dispute. Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Intellectual Property Office concluded the administrative dispute over the request for invalidation of the patent right for utility model of small pot tea.

How can we feel when we apply for patents on technologies that have existed for more than 100 years and have passed them?

In 1795, Napoleon awarded 12,000 francs to anyone who could find a way to preserve the food supplied to the army.
In 1809 Nicholas Appel, a confectioner, came up with the idea of preserving food, such as wine, in glass bottles. After years of research, the French government awarded 12,000 francs for inventing a way to preserve food by disinfecting it.
In 1810 King George III granted Peter Durand a patent for preserving food in glass, earthenware or metal jars.
In 1812, Thomas Kensett, a British immigrant, established a small factory in New York to produce sealed canned oysters, meat, fruits and vegetables.
In 1825 Kensett obtained the patent for the first tin can in the United States...


In 2016, the small pot tea company applied for a patent for utility model as a tea packaging container (patent number: ZL201620589762.4) and obtained approval.  This is a kind of utility model patents which replace the sealing ring to firmly close the tank body by curling.

Encapsulation technology already exists

On June 16, 2016, Dongguan Xinghan Hardware Products Co., Ltd. filed an application for invalidation with the Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, claiming that the metal material of the "small pot" is not novel, and that its easy-to-tear cover is sealed by curling method, although it is different from other cans by curling method, but the "curling method" is the same in substance as the curling method, and all for the purpose of closeness. Roll up.

_In addition, the edge rolling method can achieve the technical effects of beautiful containers, good sealing effect, compact tank structure and easy to carry.

The Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, after hearing, held that:

According to the Patent Law, creativity means that compared with the existing technology, the invention has substantive characteristics and significant progress, and the utility model has substantive characteristics and progress. According to the other packaging patents submitted by Xinghan Hardware Products Co., Ltd., the packaging of small pot tea is not creative, substantive characteristics and progress, so finally declared the small pot tea packaging patent of small pot tea company invalid.

_Small Canned Tea Company refuses to file a lawsuit and requests that the above decision be revoked according to law:

It is not common sense to pack tea tightly and tightly by curling. Vacuum packaging is a common packaging method. In the field of tea, we have never seen the use of metal cans to directly fill tea. Small cans of tea is the first person to apply this double-edged packaging method in the field of tea. At the same time, the attorney for the small pot tea company also believes that the case involves a utility model patent, not an invention patent. The requirement for the creativity of the utility model patent is lower than that of the invention patent itself. It is inappropriate to judge the utility model patent according to the creative standard of the invention patent. There are obvious differences between the patent and the existing technology. These differences are neither public nor common sense, and can bring excellent technical results. They should be considered as meeting the creative requirements stipulated in the Patent Law.
_After hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that:

_Although it is not common sense for small can tea companies to advocate sealing in the field of tea by curling, the so-called tea field is divided from the perspective of commodities. From the technical point of view, this patent should belong to the category of packaging containers, and the curling structure is the common sealing structure in the field of packaging containers. Sealing ring is not an indispensable part to achieve sealing, so technicians in the field can adjust the sealing mode of setting sealing ring between tank body and tank cover to curling mode according to actual needs, which does not require creative work. Therefore, it has no substantive characteristics and progress to replace the sealed ring and tightly seal the tank body by curling, and it does not have the creativity stipulated in the Patent Law. Therefore, the lawsuit request of the small pot tea company was rejected.