Can WeChat chat records, WeChat Moments, and WeChat official account articles be used as evidence of patent invalidation?
Author | Jiang Chunmei, Intern Lawyer
With the widespread adoption of mobile internet, WeChat has become a crucial platform for people’s daily communication, information acquisition, and business activities. Enterprises and individuals not only use WeChat for daily communication, but also frequently publish product information, technical solutions, and promotional content through channels such as Moments and Official Accounts. Meanwhile, WeChat chat records often involve business activities such as order negotiations, contract signing, and product shipments.
This means that content on WeChat often includes technical details, product design information, or sales activities, which directly affect the novelty and inventive step of patents. Accordingly, chat records, WeChat Moments posts, and official account articles frequently appear in various intellectual property litigation cases, particularly in patent invalidation proceedings, where they serve as a crucial source of evidence for determining whether the technology or design at issue constitutes prior art or a pre-existing design.
This article, from the perspective of evidence in patent invalidation proceedings, analyzes the admissibility of WeChat chat records, WeChat Moments posts, and articles from WeChat official accounts as prior art or existing designs, the required evidentiary standards, and emerging trends in judicial rulings. By examining typical cases, this paper explores the challenges that WeChat evidence faces in practice regarding its authenticity, relevance, and admissibility, and proposes practical recommendations for evidence collection, authentication, and utilization, with the aim of providing guidance to patent holders, parties filing requests for invalidation, as well as lawyers and patent agents.
Determining whether WeChat chat records, WeChat Moments posts, and articles from WeChat Official Accounts can be used as evidence of prior art or existing design in patent invalidation proceedings.，It is first necessary to clarify the legal meanings of “prior art” and “existing design,” as this serves both as a prerequisite for the admissibility of evidence and as the foundation for subsequent analysis.
According to Article 22, paragraph 5, and Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Patent Law, “prior art” and “prior designs” as referred to in the Patent Law mean the technologies and designs that were known to the public at home and abroad before the filing date.Prior art and prior designs are important legal concepts in the patent system; they serve as the foundation for determining whether a patent application meets the requirements for grant and also constitute a key basis for requests for patent invalidation.
To determine whether a technology or design constitutes prior art, two essential elements must be satisfied:
First, the technology or design is publicly known;
Secondly, it was known to the public prior to the filing date.
Below, we will examine these three aspects—WeChat Official Account articles, WeChat Moments, and WeChat chat logs—in turn.
01
Discussion of WeChat Official Account articles as prior art or existing designs
(I) From the perspective of whether it is "known to the public"
WeChat official accounts are open to the general public, and any content published on them is publicly accessible. The WeChat Official Account is a third-party operating platform managed by Tencent, a company known for its high level of trustworthiness. The platform’s system environment is relatively stable and reliable, and it features a stringent and standardized management framework. Therefore, in the absence of clear contrary evidence, the authenticity and public accessibility of articles posted there are generally accepted.
However, there are exceptions; in Invalidation Review Decision No. 35514:
The evidence consists of the web content from a WeChat official account, which can only be accessed via a specific URL. It cannot be found by browsing the official account’s historical messages, nor can it be retrieved through search engines, and there is no other evidence to prove that the WeChat official account ever published such content. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the content displayed on the webpage was in a state where the public could readily access it, and consequently, it cannot be demonstrated that this evidence was ever published to the public via the WeChat Official Account platform, thereby becoming publicly available. As a result, it ultimately fails to constitute prior art for the patent-in-suit.
(II) From the perspective of whether the time when it was "known to the public" is earlier than the filing date.
The publication date and the last modification date of a WeChat official account are definitive, and they can be used to determine whether the content predates the patent application date.
According to the WeChat platform’s management rules, once a WeChat Official Account is registered, its administrator is responsible for publishing content. The time of publication is automatically generated by Tencent’s servers and displayed at the top of each article. Once information is published on the platform, administrators may not modify it before February 8, 2018. After that date, administrators may delete it or make a single modification to the text and images; however, videos and hyperlinks cannot be modified. Any modifications are limited to the removal and/or replacement of a very small number of characters and/or images.
After an administrator modifies the publication date, it is updated to the current date, and the modification date is displayed at the bottom of the article. If an article published on a WeChat Official Account was modified on April 21, 2025—specifically by changing two characters and one image—a notice reading “Modified on April 21, 2025” will appear below the article.
However, official account subscribers and the general public typically cannot make any modifications, including deleting posts.
The invalidation review decisions No. 567461, No. 59495, and No. 53433 all confirm that the publication date of an article on a WeChat official account can be regarded as the date on which its content was made publicly available. However, the publication time of content on WeChat Official Account interaction interfaces remains uncertain.
In Invalidation Review Decision No. 583022, the requester relied on the “electronic catalog in the sub-menu” of a WeChat official account as evidence. This electronic catalog originates from a specific web link; modifications to the sub-menu content leave no time‑related trace, and updating the link does not alter the version number.
The panel of experts considers that the existing evidence is insufficient to determine the date on which the submenu was linked to the electronic catalog, and therefore cannot confirm the date on which the electronic catalog was made publicly available on the official WeChat account. Consequently, the electronic catalog cannot be regarded as prior art.
Finally, during the notarization process for WeChat Official Account content, it is recommended to use the WeChat search function to locate and browse the relevant Official Accounts and articles, or to use the Sogou WeChat search function to do the same, in order to demonstrate that the articles are in a state where they can be accessed by any member of the public who wishes to view them. Additionally, timestamps can be used to preserve the content published on WeChat official accounts as evidence.
In Invalidation Review Decision No. 567588, the requestor secured evidence by applying a trusted timestamp to a video published on a WeChat official account, thereby preventing the loss of evidence due to the deletion of the video file.
An Examination of WeChat Moments Content as Prior Art or Prior Design
(I) Whether the information posted on WeChat Moments can meet the "known to the public" standard under patent law should be analyzed from three perspectives: the purpose of sale, the intent of dissemination, and the foreseeable scope of diffusion.
Whether information posted on WeChat Moments is in a state where the general public can readily access it and thus constitutes an “public disclosure” within the meaning of patent law requires a comprehensive assessment, taking into account factors such as the poster’s individual circumstances, the specific content of the post, the intent behind the posting, and the poster’s posting history.
If, based on publicly available content in a WeChat Moments feed and in conjunction with the user’s personal information, it is clearly evident that the user’s purpose in posting the information is to sell or promote a product, and that the user has either explicitly or implicitly expressed a desire for friends within their circle to share the post widely—consistent with the practical circumstances of product sales—and if, upon comprehensive consideration of the circumstances surrounding the user’s posting, there is a foreseeable likelihood of broad dissemination, then it can be determined with a high degree of probability that, from the date of publication, the product has been in a non‑private state and accessible to the general public.
In other words, WeChat Moments can constitute patent disclosure, and the core criteria for determining this can be summarized in three aspects:
1. Sales objective; 2. Communication intent; 3. Predictable scope of dissemination.
Regarding the sales intent, this includes content that explicitly mentions product specifications, prices, purchase links, or other sales-related information, as well as the use of marketing phrases such as “new product pre-sale,” “limited-time discount,” or “franchise opportunities.” Additionally, the identity of the publisher—such as an official corporate account, a distributor, or a micro-merchant—and their historical posting patterns—whether they have consistently used their platform for product promotion—should also be taken into consideration.
In terms of dissemination intent, this can be conveyed by posting messages such as “Please retweet,” “Help spread this,” or “Retweet for a chance to win.”
Regarding the foreseeable scope of dissemination, a comprehensive assessment is required, taking into account factors such as the number and composition of friends, as well as whether friend requests require identity verification.
1. Through case studies, this section illustrates the circumstances under which information posted on WeChat Moments is deemed to constitute public disclosure within the meaning of patent law.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 584441:
The panel finds that the invalidity evidence comprises multiple WeChat Moments posts showcasing product promotional information, which convey an intent to promote and sell the products. Some of these posts contain explicitly promotional sales language, while even those lacking such explicit language are accompanied by images of the promoted products. Taken together, this array of information clearly indicates that the WeChat Moments posts constitute promotional and marketing materials aimed at selling the products. The user’s purpose in posting such content is to promote and sell the products, and this activity represents a continuous process that aligns with the characteristics of online product promotion and commercial sales, thus constituting a clear case of product promotion.
Although WeChat Moments also contain content beyond product promotion and sales, considering the manner in which such information is presented—namely, that it predominantly consists of product-related promotional material rather than private content—it can be reasonably inferred that the intent is to make the product known to a broader audience, rather than to restrict its dissemination to a specific group or to keep it private.
Based on the principle of preponderance of evidence, it can be determined with a high degree of probability that the aforementioned WeChat Moments content has been in a publicly accessible state within the meaning of patent law since the date of its publication. In the absence of contrary evidence sufficient to rebut this finding, the relevant information should be deemed to constitute prior art for the patent-in-suit.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 580760:
The panel of experts finds that the nicknames of the relevant WeChat accounts are consistent with the products they promote and the industries in which they operate. Furthermore, over a certain period, their Moments posts frequently featured product images accompanied by sales-related text such as “Our company offers a one-year warranty,” “A new solution will soon enter mass production,” and “Subsequent shipments to all customers.” These characteristics align with the typical features of product promotion and sales.
In light of the foregoing information, it can be confirmed that the WeChat user’s purpose in posting the information was to promote and sell products, and that the products depicted in their Moments have been publicly accessible since the date of publication with a high degree of probability.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 565452:
The panel finds that the WeChat Moments in question contain both personal information (such as holiday greetings and travel updates) and business-related information (such as displays and sales of mechanical equipment), as well as recruitment postings. Over a certain period, the WeChat user repeatedly posted multiple times about the manufacture and sale of equipment products; the photos displayed include the names of the equipment and contact telephone numbers, the videos feature the user’s Douyin account, and are accompanied by messages of gratitude to purchasers.
In light of the foregoing information and the manner in which it was published, it can be concluded that the user’s purpose in posting the information was to sell or promote products. There is a high probability that the information posted on their WeChat Moments has been in a non-private state since the date of publication, making it accessible to the general public. In the absence of contrary evidence or sufficient grounds for rebuttal, this constitutes “public disclosure” within the meaning of the Patent Law.
2. Through case studies, it is demonstrated that information posted on WeChat Moments is not considered to constitute public disclosure within the meaning of patent law, i.e., it has not been determined to be “known to the public.”
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 583192:
The panel finds that the relevant WeChat users only mentioned content related to vehicle promotion and sales in their Moments over a short period of just a few days (specifically, the past four days), which constitutes a temporary activity. There is a possibility that such posts were not publicly accessible at the time of publication, and it cannot be clearly determined whether the purpose of these Moments updates was to make the information public for the purpose of promoting goods to the general public, thereby demonstrating an intent to sell.
Moreover, the WeChat Moments post only reads: “xx product is in continuous rush production!” The WeChat Moments post does not contain any detailed product descriptions, sales contact information, or other specific textual content. Therefore, it does not constitute disclosure within the meaning of the Patent Law.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 56862:
The panel finds that, although the WeChat Moments in question contained work-related information, both the profile picture and the nickname were personal. In addition to work-related content, the Moments also included multiple posts pertaining to the individual’s personal life. By common sense, such content should be considered private to some extent. Therefore, it cannot be proven that the videos posted in those Moments were visible to all of the user’s WeChat friends, nor can it be demonstrated that the videos were publicly accessible to an indefinite audience for marketing purposes.
In the absence of corresponding evidence demonstrating that the videos posted in one’s WeChat Moments were intended for product marketing, used for the promotion and advertising of a product, or explicitly or implicitly solicited forwarding from friends within the circle, such videos should be regarded as accessible only to all or part of the individual’s WeChat friends, rather than to the general public. Therefore, they do not constitute “public disclosure” within the meaning of patent law.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 585571:
The panel of experts finds that the identity and occupation of the relevant WeChat user are unclear. The user does not frequently post updates in their Moments, and the content consists solely of the statement “The first masterpiece has been successfully completed and shipped; this is the only product specified by the client,” along with an accompanying image. There is no detailed product description or contact information for sales, nor is there any indication of a sustained intent to promote the product for sale, nor does it suggest an intention for friends in their Moments to share the post.
Moreover, the evidence shows that this user posted only four Moments updates throughout 2017; of the ten Moments updates documented in the evidence, only two mentioned products, while the remaining posts consisted of photos, videos, or shared content related to personal life. In summary, the WeChat user’s intention to use their Moments for the promotion and sale of goods is not readily apparent. Therefore, the available evidence is insufficient to establish that the relevant information posted in Moments was, at the time of publication, in a state where it could have been readily accessed by the public, and thus does not constitute “public disclosure” within the meaning of patent law.
03
A Feasibility Study on the Use of WeChat Chat Records as Supporting Evidence for Prior Art or Existing Designs
(I) From the perspective of whether it is "known to the public"
First, WeChat chat records are not publicly accessible.
“Known to the public” refers to a state in which the public can obtain the information if they so desire. WeChat group chats or one-on-one chat records between WeChat friends are private communications among WeChat users and are highly confidential. When the chat records do not involve the sale of the products in question or otherwise make the information publicly known, the WeChat chat records alone cannot prove that the designs or technologies shown therein have reached a state where they are readily accessible to the public upon request, and therefore do not constitute prior art or prior design.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Declaration of Invalidity No. 46977, the evidence submitted by the requester shows that photographs of the design in question were transmitted in WeChat chat records; however, as this communication occurred only among a specific group of individuals within a limited circle, it can only establish that the design was disclosed within that specific group, and is thus insufficient to prove that it has been made available to the general public.
Furthermore, the transfer time and amount in the chat records do not correspond to the content of the conversation, and this evidence cannot prove whether there has been any sale of the product featuring the design shown in the image. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the applicant is insufficient to prove that the design in question constitutes prior art.
(II) Although WeChat chat records are private, their private nature does not affect the public nature of the commercial transactions derived from them.
For example, in Review Decision No. 512001 on an invalidation request, the evidence submitted by the requester—WeChat chat records—demonstrates that the parties entered into a sales contract using their respective official seals, and that the sales contract did not stipulate any confidentiality obligations. The requester also provided evidence showing that the seller had already shipped the goods to the buyer and had issued a value-added tax invoice to the buyer. Ultimately, the panel concluded that the technical solution corresponding to the sold product had been in the public domain as of the date the invoice was issued.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Invalidation No. 583654, the WeChat chat records submitted by the requester clearly demonstrate the entire process of the parties’ negotiation regarding the purchase of the product, including price negotiations, contract signing, payment and purchase, shipment, receipt of goods, and subsequent communication concerning any issues—thus constituting a complete closed loop of the sales transaction. The various pieces of evidence corroborate one another, indicating a high degree of probability that the product was publicly sold prior to the filing date of the patent-in-suit. Ultimately, the panel concluded that the product’s design as depicted in the WeChat chat records constitutes prior art with respect to the patent-in-suit.
(III) Points to note when using it as supporting evidence
1. This shall be substantiated by relevant evidence, including the contract signed by both parties and the sales invoice.
Based solely on the images and text in the chat logs, it cannot be determined that there was any sales activity involving the promotion or advertising of products to the other party. To use WeChat chat records as evidence of a sales transaction, they must be corroborated by other relevant documentation, such as the contract signed by both parties and the sales invoice. Otherwise, it would be impossible to prove that the design or technology of the product in the chat records had already been made public prior to the filing date of the patent application in question.
2. It can be combined with exhibition materials and used as evidence for the public disclosure of the patents in question.
In the Examination Decision on Request for Invalidity No. 33974, the exhibition materials submitted by the requester, photographs allegedly taken at the exhibition and stored on a mobile phone, as well as photographs circulated in WeChat chat records, corroborate one another and demonstrate that the patentee had already exhibited the product claimed in this patent at a certain exhibition prior to the filing date of this patent application. Furthermore, based on the nature and purpose of the exhibition, it can be determined that the exhibition of the product at that event constitutes public use of the patent within the meaning of the Patent Law.
Although the patentee questioned the authenticity of the aforementioned photographs, as a party directly related to the aforementioned evidence and having failed to submit any counter-evidence to the contrary, and in the absence of any obvious signs of forgery in the photographs, the panel accepts their authenticity.
3. A complete chain of evidence can be established through notarization, timestamping, and other supporting evidence, thereby ensuring the authenticity, relevance, and legality of the evidence, and enhancing the admissibility and persuasiveness of WeChat evidence in patent invalidation proceedings.
Summary
Various types of content on the WeChat platform carry significant evidentiary value in patent invalidation proceedings; however, their admissibility is contingent upon meeting the statutory standard of “publicly known” under patent law, meaning that the information must have been accessible to the public prior to the filing date. WeChat official account articles, Moments posts, and chat records each exhibit distinct characteristics and are subject to different criteria when serving as prior art or existing designs. Consequently, in practice, patent holders, invalidity petitioners, attorneys, and patent agents should thoroughly understand the publication features of WeChat content and clearly define the principles for admitting such evidence, thereby enhancing its validity and persuasiveness.
Author
Introduction
Jiang Chunmei, Intern Lawyer and Patent Attorney
Guangdong Zhiheng (Foshan) Law Firm
Jiang Chunmei is a trainee lawyer and patent attorney, a member of the National Intellectual Property Center at Guangdong
. She holds a Master’s degree in Engineering from Shaanxi University of Science and Technology and is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Intellectual Property Law at East China University of Political Science and Law. She has previously worked as a patent attorney at a Fortune 500 company and a well-known patent agency in Guangdong Province.
With a background in corporate R&D, I have an in-depth understanding of the entire process from technology development to market implementation. I have been deeply engaged in the intellectual property field for five years, specializing in patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and the commercialization of scientific and technological achievements.
Past issuesRecommendation
Zhiheng’s 30th Anniversary | A Beacon of Honor Illuminating the Path of the Rule of Law
Zhiheng · Foshan