The Supreme Administrative Court rendered the 104-Pan-71 Decision of February 5, 2015 (hereinafter, the "Decision"), holding that a power generator patent should observe the law of conservation of energy. If its technical details violate such natural law, the application will not be patentable for violation of Article 21 of the Patent Law.
According to the facts underlying the Decision, the Appellant applied to the Appellee for an invention patent for "an independent, freestyle, cumulative compound excitation, automatic ring poly synchronous magnetic power generator" (hereinafter, the "Patent-in-suit") on November 29, 2006. The Appellee rejected the application after its examination. Dissatisfied, the Appellant filed administrative appeal and then administrative lawsuit, which were both rejected. As a result, this appeal was filed.
Article 21 of the Patent Law provides: "Invention' means the creation of technical ideas, utilizing the laws of nature." According to the Decision, a power generator generates electrical energy by inputting mechanical energy, while an electric motor is the opposite. In either case, energy usually attenuates from energy input to energy output, because there are copper losses, brush losses, core losses, mechanical losses and stray losses in the course of energy conversion. Therefore, output energy is usually equal to or less than input energy. Therefore, under the natural law of conservation of energy, the output of electrical energy will be reduced as a result of relevant losses in the absence of externally connected electrical energy or mechanical energy for the power generator, thereby depleting the electrical energy of a battery.
It was further pointed out that the patent applicant's depiction in its patent specification that the value of the electrical energy as input through the charging of the power generator he created is always greater than the output value of the electrical energy of the battery has in fact violated natural laws. In addition, there is no explanation regarding how to achieve the scenario that the value of charged electrical energy is always greater than that of the energy output from the battery. The contents of the specification are merely based on speculation while the operating methods and experimental data are lacking with no sufficient evidence to prove that the value of the electrical energy output from a power generator is always greater than that of the electrical energy output from a battery. Since the technical contents of the patent violate the natural law of conservation of energy and certainly Article 21 of the Patent Law effective at the time of application, the application is not patentable. Therefore, it was further held that the original decision did not violate the law and was not erroneous, and the Appellant's appeal was rejected.