For those not steeped in the world of patents, the idea of correcting a patent after it's been granted can seem perplexing. Aren't patents set in stone once approved? Why would corrections be necessary?
 
Patents are a form of intangible property right that come into existence when an applicant submits a request through text and drawings. The authority in charge then grants the patent based on what it deems to be the appropriate scope of the content. However, during the application process, there might be unclear text, obvious errors, or translation mistakes. Allowing for corrections after a patent has been approved helps ensure that the scope of the patent is accurately understood.
 
Moreover, because patents are inherently uncertain, they can be revoked if prior art exists. Securing a patent is the result of an inventor's research and development efforts. If the disclosed specifications contain distinguishable content from prior art, allowing for corrections helps adjust the patent to maintain its validity, encouraging innovation rather than invalidating the patent entirely.
 
Of course, after a patent is approved and made public, patent holders cannot use corrections to substantially broaden the exclusivity of their patent. Therefore, patent law imposes restrictions on corrections to prevent any substantial expansion or alteration of the patent scope as initially declared, ensuring the public's trust in the defined scope of patent rights.
 
The patent correction system can lead to complex situations in patent infringement litigation. Typically, defendants will present evidence asking the court to declare a patent invalid; if the patent holder sees this evidence as a threat to the patent's validity, they might apply for a correction with the Intellectual Property Office(“IPO”).
 
As mentioned, corrections must meet specific legal conditions and are not guaranteed approval. The decision to allow a correction lies with the IPO. However, in patent infringement litigation, if civil courts cannot determine the legality of the correction requested by the patent holder and must wait for the IPO to make a final decision on the legality of the patent correction, the litigation process can be lengthy. Before, due to the lack of clear legal stipulations, there has been debate over whether civil courts have the authority to independently determine the legality of patent corrections during litigation.
 
Thus, in the revised Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (effective as of August 30, 2023), legislators have set forth provisions regarding patent corrections during patent infringement litigation, including:

1. Patent holders who have applied for a patent scope correction with the IPO must declare their claims based on the corrected patent scope to the court.
2. Patent holders must document the facts and reasons for the correction of the patent scope in writing and notify the other parties involved.
3. Courts have the authority to independently assess the legality of the patent scope correction and could disclose their legal opinion and reasoning before making a decision.
4. When a court deems the correction of the patent scope legal, it should conduct the trial based on the corrected patent scope.
5. To assess the legality of the patent scope correction, courts may seek opinions from the IPO; the IPO may submit written opinions or designate representatives to present their views to the court. Courts should then give the parties involved the opportunity to discuss the IPO's opinions.