Invalid Case Sharing: WeChat Moments Does Not Necessarily Constitute Public Disclosure

In patent invalidation and infringement disputes, the defense of "prior art" or "prior design" is one of the most common strategies. With the rise of social media, WeChat chat logs and Moments screenshots are increasingly submitted by parties as evidence of "public sales" or "technical disclosure."

Many patent owners and even patent practitioners hold a misconception: they believe that posting product photos on WeChat Moments or discussing technical solutions in WeChat groups before the patent application date will inevitably destroy the novelty of the patent. However, this is not necessarily true.

Key PointsWhether WeChat Moments and chat logs constitute "public disclosure" under patent law depends on the audience reach, the poster's intent, and whether there is sufficient evidence that the information was accessible to anyone who wished to know.

This article synthesizes findings from patent examination practices and invalidation proceedings to outline four typical scenarios, helping patent owners and agencies accurately determine the evidentiary boundaries of WeChat data.

Scenario 1: Sharing photos on social media does not constitute public disclosure under patent law.

This is the most common scenario. A patentee posted product photos on their personal social media moments before the patent application filing date, and the petitioner argues that the product design or technical solution was already disclosed.

Under the Patent Law and its Implementing Regulations, "disclosure" means that an invention or utility model has been made available to the public—i.e., any unspecified person who is not bound by confidentiality obligations can access the technical solution. There are two core requirements:

Openness of audience: The information is directed at the general public, not a limited group.

Ease of Access – The information is publicly available without confidentiality obligations or special barriers.

In a typical WeChat Moments scenario: if an account is set to "visible only to friends" (the most common setting) and the friend count is limited to a specific social circle, then from the perspective of audience scope, Moments content is not directed at the general public.

Practical DeterminationIf a WeChat Moments post is visible only to approved friends and contains no obvious promotional intent, it generally does not constitute public disclosure under patent law.

Scenario 2: Self-admitted sale constituting a highly probable public sale

In contrast to Scenario 1, if the WeChat account holder explicitly posts product sales information in Moments—such as new launches, immediate availability, or acceptance of pre-orders—or even admits in comments or captions that "the product has been sold," the legal outcome will be entirely different.

The legal logic here is: once a product sale occurs, the product leaves the seller's control and enters public circulation. The buyer (and potentially unspecified third parties) has already come into actual contact with the product's appearance, structure, or function, placing its technical or design solution in a state where it is "readily accessible to anyone who wishes to know."

Practical DeterminationIf a WeChat account owner asserts that the products featured in their Moments posts have been sold, and no contrary evidence sufficiently refutes this claim, it is highly probable that the products were made available to the public through sales, thereby constituting an "open disclosure" under patent law.

It is important to note that "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof in civil litigation, indicating that under the existing evidence, the fact of product sales is highly probable. To rebut this presumption, the patentee must provide sufficient contrary evidence, such as demonstrating that the "sale" was merely an internal transfer with no actual delivery, or that the products were in a confidential trial phase.

Scenario 3: One-on-one private chat logs, inherently non-public

In patent invalidation proceedings, petitioners sometimes submit one-on-one WeChat chat logs between the patentee or inventor and a third party, attempting to extract technical details or product design information to argue that such information was publicly available before the filing date.

At its core, a one-on-one WeChat chat occurs between two specific parties and falls under the category of private communication. Access to chat content is strictly limited to the participants; third parties have neither the right nor the means to access it. This fundamentally differs from an "open state accessible to the public."

Practical DeterminationOne-on-one WeChat chats occur between specific individuals and are inherently private. Chat content from such conversations alone is insufficient to establish that the technical or design solutions involved were accessible to the public.

Scenario 4: Claiming sales from chat history requires supporting sales receipts

Although one-on-one chats are not inherently public, in some cases, petitioners may argue that the chat content demonstrates the product has already been publicly circulated through sales. For example, messages such as "goods have been shipped," "customer has received the package," or "we sold dozens of units last week" can serve as evidence.

The Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Board typically adopts a cautious stance toward such claims. This is because chat logs constitute testimonial evidence, the authenticity and completeness of which are difficult to verify independently. The parties involved may use ambiguous commercial terminology; for instance, "sold" does not necessarily equate to "public sale," and "shipped" could refer to confidential shipments made exclusively to specific clients.

Practical DeterminationWhen the requester claims that chat records demonstrate public sale of a product, they must provide supporting sales documentation (e.g., sales contracts, invoices, shipping records, payment receipts). Chat content alone is insufficient to substantiate such a claim.

In other words, chat logs can serve as supplementary or corroborating evidence for public sales but cannot alone constitute sufficient proof of such facts. A complete chain of evidence should include: chat logs (to prove communication content) + sales receipts (to verify the transaction occurred) +, where necessary, additional documentation on product distribution scope.

Practical Advice: How to Mitigate and Address WeChat Public Risks

To the Patent Owner/Inventor:

1. Before the patent application filing date, avoid posting product photos, technical details, or usage instructions related to the proposed invention on any social media platforms (including but not limited to WeChat Moments, WeChat Channels, Douyin, and Xiaohongshu).

2. If promotion is necessary before product launch, ensure that promotional content does not include core design features or key technical parameters that directly reflect the patented technical solution.

3. Retain internal records such as R&D logs, design drafts, and experimental data to demonstrate the completion date of the technical solution and confirm that it was not publicly disclosed prior to filing.

4. Establish an internal intellectual property confidentiality system and standardize WeChat communications and file transfers involving patented technologies.

Conclusion

The admissibility of WeChat evidence in patent cases fundamentally represents a modern interpretation of the concept of "disclosure" under patent law. While social media has transformed how information spreads, it has not altered the core logic of the patent system: disclosure is determined by whether the information was accessible to an unspecified public.

For patentees, the safest strategy is to strictly keep technical solutions confidential before the filing date and avoid disclosing any information that could undermine novelty on public or semi-public platforms. For agencies, accurately understanding and applying these determination rules is essential for safeguarding clients' legal rights and enhancing the quality of representation.

This content is for reference in intellectual property practice only and does not constitute formal legal advice.

Fuzhou Mingzhi Trademark and Patent Agency

Fuzhou Mingzhi Trademark & Patent Office (Institution Code: 35307)

Fuzhou Mingzhi Trademark and Patent Firm

URL: www.fzipa.com

Contact: Huang Canlin 13305000901   Email: huangcanlin@fzipa.com

Fujian's premier specialized intellectual property firm, with core members boasting 10+ years of experience. We specialize in high-value services including cross-border patents, patent invalidation proceedings, and patent infringement litigation. Our firm upholds the highest standards of professional practice, strictly conducts cross-referencing via Incopat and PatSeas, maintains a rigorous case selection process, and firmly rejects abnormal patent applications involving mere drafting. We deliver strong IP protection and a high success rate to "Specialized, Refined, Differential, and Innovative" enterprises and innovation entities.