Nikon has lost the patent lawsuit against Viltrox in China. Nikon’s Chinese Z-mount patent (202010127062.4) was declared fully invalid by CNIPA (see previous coverage of the Nikon vs. Viltrox lawsuit). The full court ruling can be found here. The documents are in Chinese – here is the AI recap:
Case Overview
- Patent in Question: Chinese Invention Patent No. 202010127062.4, titled “Accessory” (配件).
- Patentee: Nikon Corporation (株式会社尼康).
- Patent Type: This is a divisional application with a parent application (201811247662.3), both filed on October 25, 2018, with a priority date of October 26, 2017.
- Invalidation Petitioner: Shenzhen Jueying Technology Co., Ltd. (深圳市爵影科技有限公司).
- Outcome: The CNIPA declared the patent entirely invalid in its decision (Decision No. 661357) dated July 13, 2026.
Chronological Summary of Events
- Initial Challenge (December 2025): The petitioner filed a request for invalidation on December 16, 2025, arguing that claims 1-11 were unclear and not supported by the description (Article 26.4 of the Patent Law).
- Supplemental Arguments (December 2025 & January 2026): The petitioner supplemented their arguments, adding reasons related to lack of novelty and inventive step, lack of priority entitlement, and added subject matter. They submitted several pieces of prior art (US2016/0041453A1, CN103620496A, JP2000047308A) as evidence.
- Patentee’s Amendment (February 2026): Nikon modified the claims. They merged features from original dependent claims 4 and 7 into independent claims 1 and 2. The final claim set was reduced from 11 to 10 claims.
- Oral Hearing (May 15, 2026): An oral hearing was held. Key clarifications were made:
- The petitioner withdrew their arguments regarding the right of priority.
- The panel confirmed the amended claims (1-10) as the basis for the decision.
- Both parties agreed on the authenticity of the prior art documents submitted.
- Final Decision (July 13, 2026): The panel issued its decision to declare the patent invalid based on a lack of inventive step (Article 22.3 of the Patent Law).
Key Arguments and Reasoning
The main independent claims (1 and 2) define a lens accessory with four protrusions (第1-第4配件侧突出部) that engage with corresponding protrusions on a camera body’s mount. Key features added by the amendment include:
- Specifying that the length of the 2nd protrusion is shorter than the distance between the two closest protrusions on the camera body.
- Specifying that the center angle of the 2nd protrusion is smaller than the center angles of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th protrusions.
The Petitioner’s Argument (Lack of Inventive Step)
The petitioner argued that the claims were obvious in light of the prior art. The primary evidence used was:
- Evidence 2 (CN103620496A): A camera body, lens barrel, and interchangeable lens system.
- The panel found this document disclosed nearly all features of the “accessory,” including the lens mount, terminal groups, a cylindrical portion, and multiple protrusions.
- The key differences were that the patent used four protrusions in a specific arrangement, while Evidence 2’s main embodiment used three.
The Panel’s Decision & Reasoning
The panel ruled that the claimed invention was obvious for the following reasons:
- Number of Protrusions: Although Evidence 2 shows 3 protrusions, its description explicitly states that the number of protrusions can be “any number” (including four), providing a direct motivation to increase them.
- Arrangement: Evidence 1 (US2016/0041453A1) and Evidence 3 (JP2000047308A) disclose interchangeable lenses with four or more protrusions arranged around the mount, providing a clear technical teaching for the claimed layout.
- Preventing Mis-Insertion: The panel reasoned that even in Evidence 2, the different sizes of the protrusions inherently prevent incorrect insertion, making the patent’s solution a conventional design choice.
- “Second Center Angle” Feature: The panel found the relationship between the center angles of the protrusions to be a routine design choice (a “limited experiment”) for a person skilled in the art, and the resulting effects (shock resistance, load-bearing) were predictable.
- Terminal Protection: The arrangement of the protrusions relative to the terminal group was also deemed a predictable and conventional design to prevent damage.
The panel concluded that the modifications from three to four protrusions and their specific angular relationships were “obvious” (显而易见) and did not involve an inventive step. Therefore, all 10 amended claims were invalidated.
Final Verdict
The CNIPA invalidated all claims of Nikon’s patent (202010127062.4). The decision states that Nikon can appeal to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months.
Via NikonRumors
The post Nikon lost the patent lawsuit against Viltrox in China appeared first on Photo Rumors.
Connexion
