Suzhou Goldengreen cited "negligence in work" as the reason for the omissions, according to National Business Daily.
Half of the company's products continue to use the lapsed patents, China Business News reports.
On the night before its original first trading of March 19, Goldengreen announced that regulators required an investigation before it could take the final step as a publicly traded company.
Goldengreen then filed a second application for listing on the Shenzhen exchange on June 11.
Two days later, the CSRC ruled that because the five patents and two patent applications described in the prospectus and other documents were invalid, the company's IPO could not proceed.
The IPO's sponsoring underwriter and a law firm involved in the case were also been punished for their misrepresentation and failure to act with due diligence.
Those who verified related documents, including two representatives of the securities underwriter and three lawyers, were disqualified from signing documents related to securities for one year.