Case Overview
Beijing Zhifan IP Attorneys, Ltd. (Zhifan IP Attorneys) recently assisted Guangzhou Skechers Commercial Co., Ltd. (Skechers China) in winning a patent litigation battle that lasted over five years. After three rounds of hearings at the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Supreme People's Court, the core invention patent of Guandehong Technology Co., Ltd. was declared completely invalid, saving Skechers China from potential massive compensation risks.
Case Background
Five-Year Patent Litigation War
This patent dispute began in 2020, when Guandehong Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Guandehong") repeatedly sued Skechers China for patent infringement based on its invention patent "Jacquard Structure with Hierarchical Light Emitting Effect and Manufacturing Method" (Patent No.: 200610086745.X), interfering with Skechers China's normal business promotion and operations in China.
Patent Basic Information
Patent Title: Jacquard Structure with Hierarchical Light Emitting Effect and Manufacturing Method
Patent No.: 200610086745.X
Application Date: June 20, 2006
Grant Date: July 8, 2009
Patentee: Guandehong Technology Co., Ltd.
Case Timeline
First Round: Invalidation Request - Patent Declared Completely Invalid
In August 2023, under Zhifan IP Attorneys' professional guidance, Skechers China filed a patent invalidation request with CNIPA. Through thorough prior art research and analysis, the Zhifan IP Attorneys team identified that this patent lacked inventiveness.
On March 28, 2024, CNIPA issued Decision No. 566337 on the Examination of Invalidation Request, declaring the entire patent rights invalid.
Second Round: Administrative Litigation - First Instance Upholds Invalidation
Dissatisfied with the invalidation decision, Guandehong filed an administrative lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The Zhifan IP Attorneys team represented Skechers China in actively defending the case, providing comprehensive evidence and legal arguments.
On April 28, 2025, Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu 17507, rejecting Guandehong's claims and maintaining CNIPA's invalidation decision.
Third Round: Supreme Court Appeal - Final Judgment Upholds original judgment
Still refuse to accept the first instance judgment, Guandehong appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The Zhifan IP Attorneys team continued to represent Skechers China in the second instance proceedings.
On December 8, 2025, the Supreme People's Court issued Administrative Judgment (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong 564, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. Thus, this five-year patent litigation war ended with Skechers China's complete victory.
It is worth noting that this invention patent invalidation case had previously undergone a three-instance invalidation administrative litigation process in 2020, in which the patent was maintained as valid by the Supreme Court. Despite this unfavorable precedent, our firm won all three rounds of litigation against Guandehong in this second three-instance invalidation proceeding.
Zhifan IP Attorneys' Core Contributions
1. Precise Patent Invalidation Strategy
The Zhifan IP Attorneys team, through in-depth prior art analysis, accurately identified that claims 1-28 of this patent all lacked the inventiveness required by Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, laying a solid foundation for the success of the invalidation request.
2. Comprehensive Professional Representation
From the invalidation request to the first and second instance administrative litigations, the Zhifan IP Attorneys team provided full representation for Skechers China, delivering professional and efficient legal services:
Invalidation Stage: Prepared comprehensive evidence materials and legal opinions
First Instance: Actively defended the case and effectively refuted the opponent's arguments
Second Instance: Successfully protected the client's rights at the Supreme People's Court level
3. Critical Legal Arguments
The Zhifan IP Attorneys team successfully argued:
Evidence 1 (WO2005/039338A1) had already disclosed the technical solution of using light conductors to replace warp and weft threads in fabric to form jacquard structures
The patent's technical solution would be obvious to a person skilled in the art
The patent claims lacked distinctive substantive features and significant progress
Case Outcomes
1. Avoided Massive Compensation Risk
By successfully invalidating the patent, Skechers China avoided substantial potential patent infringement damages.
2. Maintained Market Competitive Position
Eliminated the threat of market monopoly by competitors using patents, safeguarding Skechers' normal business operations in the Chinese market.
3. Established Industry Precedent
This case provides an important reference for patent invalidation cases in the footwear industry, highlighting Zhifan IP Attorneys' expertise in handling patent infringement litigation in traditional manufacturing sectors and demonstrating the critical role of professional intellectual property services in corporate rights protection.
Client Testimonial
"Skechers China's legal director stated: 'The Zhifan IP Attorneys team demonstrated exceptional professional capabilities and dedication. Throughout the five-year litigation process, they maintained a high level of professionalism, providing us with precise legal strategies and strong litigation support. The final victory fully demonstrates their professional strength.'"
About Zhifan IP Attorneys
Beijing Zhifan IP Attorneys, Ltd. is a professional intellectual property service organization dedicated to providing comprehensive intellectual property solutions to domestic and international clients. The company has an experienced and highly specialized team of lawyers and patent agents with extensive practical experience in patent invalidation, patent litigation, trademark protection, and other IP areas.
Court Documents
CNIPA Decision No. 566337 on the Examination of Invalidation Request
Beijing Intellectual Property Court Administrative Judgment (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu 17507
Supreme People's Court Administrative Judgment (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong 564
