The so-called "questionable patents" are defined by the US Federal Trade Commission in its report titled " To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy" as "the one that is likely invalid or contains claims that are likely overly broad". With regard to so-called "rubbish patents", there is no definition of them in either domestic or foreign formal documents or research reports. Based upon an analysis of those website reports, one could see that the "rubbish patents" actually refer to those without any innovation at all, and most of which are utility models and designs.

First of all, we must be aware that the "questionable patents" are not equivalent to the "rubbish patents". "Questionable patents" play an indispensable role in making certain contributions to technological development. One precondition for granting a patent requires an inventive step, while technological development is a cumulative process and development of any new technology can not be separated from existing technologies. For a majority of those patent applications that are not qualified for patents due to lack of patentability such as an inventive step, they reveal, more or less, some novel features of technologies, which constitute a component part of further technological development. Therefore, these "questionable patents" are in no way rubbish.

Secondly, we must realize that fierce arguments on websites are targeted at "rubbish patents" rather than "questionable patents". We should properly understand and handle the issue of "rubbish patents", emergence of which is due to some unavoidable reasons. In China, design and utility model patents are granted without substantive examination. This practice is considered the objective reason resulting in those low quality patents.

However, the practice of no substantive examination of design and utility model applications is adopted not only by China but also by many other countries. The main consideration behind is to save social costs. Innovations contained in utility models and designs are usually limited while investment in R&D of them is relatively low, but the number of filings is fairly large. If all these applications are subject to substantive examination, then enormous social and public resources will be exhausted. Logically and practically, we have had to adopt in stead the formality examination mechanism. As an unavoidable result, while social and public resources are saved, this practice gives rise to the possibility of unsatisfactory designs and utility models.

Moreover, in recent years, local governments across the nation promulgated a series of policies to encourage innovations and creations including providing financial support. These policies are surely conducive to booming creative activities and to promoting the whole nation's spirit of creativity. Nevertheless, these newly formulated policies are not flawless. For instance, because of too much emphasis placed by the said policies on the number of patent filings, a few patent applicants, for the purpose of winning financial support, file patent applications by wholly relying on existing technologies and making no innovations at all. This could be the subjective reason leading to these so-called "rubbish patents".　

With regard to the news reports that recently appeared on the Internet, such as "rubbish patents account for more than 50% of all patents in China", they are seriously against the truth. On the one hand, "questionable patents" cannot be simply considered equivalent to "rubbish patents". The two are different in nature. On the other hand, the percentage of actual invalidation (around 50%) out of all the invalidation requirements should not be taken as the percentage of "rubbish patents".　

This is because the patents required to be invalidated (less than 2,000 patents a year) are only one specific part of all patents and the ratio of actually invalidated ones is only minimal in comparison with the total number of patents, hence it is of no universal significance. The actually invalidated patents make up 50% of all invalidation requirements, but only account for a tiny proportion of granted patents (approximately 0.2%). Meanwhile, a majority of those invalidated patents is factually "questionable patents". Consequently, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that "rubbish patents" account for 50% of all patents in China.

It should be noted that in spite of the existence of a number of so-called "rubbish patents" among utility models and designs, the protection system for utility models and designs as well as the non-substantive-examination practice are still worthy of operation because they conform to China's national conditions and to international practice.

On the one hand, many manufacturing industries in China are engaged mainly in simple improvement and follow-on innovation of existing technologies. Apparently these technologies usually have a short life in the marketplace. The utility model and design system, which grants the right faster with lower patentability requirements on inventive step, lower costs and simpler procedures, is undoubtedly necessitated by encouraging creativity and protecting the interests of right holders. On the other hand, the exploitation of utility model and design system has promoted in China the establishment and growth of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and assisted them in obtaining their own intellectual property rights. Especially in recent years, the utility model and design system has been emerging as an important tool for SMEs to effectively implement the intellectual property strategy and to promote self-made innovations and creations.