China

AFD China is thrilled to announce the official launch of its newly revamped website. Based on the original website, the new version has comprehensively optimized the page designs, functional layouts, and interactive experience. To keep up with the times and improve users’ experience and service quality, in the new version of the website, we have adopted a more modern and concise design style, with harmonious color matching and reasonable page layout, allowing users to have a more comfortable visual experience while browsing. In addition, the new version of the website has added a universal search function, further enhancing user convenience. We believe that the new version of the website will bring users a better and more efficient service experience. Welcome users to browse, and provide valuable feedback. website：www.afdip.com

Introduction In recent years, China has become an increasingly important jurisdiction for pharmaceutical patent protection, including patents covering the medical use of known substances. However, enforcement of medical-use patents in China presents unique legal challenges stemming from statutory exclusions and limited judicial practices. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Chinese legal framework governing medical-use patents, practical insights drawn from judicial decisions, and important considerations for pharmaceutical companies seeking to protect and enforce their medical-use patent rights in China. Background and Legal Context of Medical-Use Patents In many jurisdictions, including Europe, China, and Japan, methods of medical treatment on humans are explicitly excluded from patent protection for ethical and practical considerations.  Such methods act on living human bodies with inherent individual variabilities, limiting their applicability and industrial utility; and, more importantly, public policy favors ensuring unrestricted access to medical care and preserving the freedom of medical practice. International agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and the European Patent Convention (EPC), consistently uphold this exclusion. However, an important exception emerged in Europe through Article 54(5) of the EPC 1973[1], which permits patents on the first medical use of a known substance, expressed as: “Substance X for use in the treatment of disease Y.”[2]. To address subsequent medical-use innovations, the Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office introduced the Swiss-type claim format in 1984: “Use of compound X in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of condition Y.”[3] This approach enabled second medical uses to be patentable as industrial manufacturing processes. The European Patent Office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal endorsed this mechanism in the landmark 1984 EISAI/Second Medical Indication decision.   Medical-Use Patents in China Swiss-Type Claims: Drafting Medical-Use Claims Consistent with international norms, Article 25 of China’s Patent Law excludes methods for diagnosing or treating diseases from patent eligibility[4]. When China’s first Patent Law was enacted in 1984, it initially prohibited patenting pharmaceutical products and chemical substances entirely[5]. This changed in 1992, when China amended its law to allow pharmaceutical substances to be patented[6]. A key milestone came with China’s first Patent Examination Guidelines in 1993, which officially recognized Swiss-type claims as allowable for medical-use patents. Such claims are typically drafted as: “The use of compound X in the preparation of a drug for treating disease Y.”[7] Swiss-type claims have since become the standard legal mechanism for protecting medical-use inventions in China. Patent Application Statistics To gain insight into China’s medical patent practices, we analyzed medical-use patents using a third-party database compiled from publicly available information on patent applications filed in China[8][9][10]. Data from 1993 to 2024 reveals several notable trends in China’s medical-use patent landscape: Limited Valid Patents From January 1, 1993, to December 24, 2024, a total of 17,901 medical-use patent applications were filed. Among these, only 4,865 patents are currently valid, while 8,212 have been declared invalid, and 4,824 are still under examination. Rapid Growth since 2005 There has been a marked increase in medical-use patent filings since 2005, with a particularly sharp rise from 2020 onward. For instance, while only 244 applications were filed in 2005, the number jumped to 2,173 in 2023. Additionally, data from the CNKI literature database indicates increased academic discussion surrounding medical-use patents, underscoring their rising importance alongside global pharmaceutical market expansion. Declining Grant Rates The granting rate for medical-use patents has declined in recent years compared to the early 2000s. While the exact cause remains uncertain, some third-party analyses suggest that the decline may be attributable to heightened scrutiny regarding claim novelty and stricter patent examination standards[11]. A summary of the granting rate trends is illustrated in the figure below. Efficient Examination Timelines Over the past five years[12], the average time required for the granting of medical-use patents has ranged from one to three years. In 2023, most patents granted were originally filed in either 2022 (389 patents) or 2019 (276 patents), indicating a generally efficient examination process for this type of claim. Common Technical Features Data from the third-party database reveals that medical-use claims typically fall into three key technical categories[13]: 1) Therapeutic Target – e.g., specific diseases such as tumors or childhood leukemia; 2) Route of Administration – e.g., oral, intravenous, or intramuscular delivery; 3) Administration Method – e.g., dosage per use, frequency of administration. Additional Observation from CNIPA Data - Small Proportion of Medical-Use Patents in the Pharmaceutical Sector Additionally, according to the Statistical Monitoring Report released by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in July 2024[14], approximately 36,000 patents were granted in the pharmaceutical and medical fields from 2018 to 2022. Of these, only 2,183 were Swiss-type patents, accounting for roughly 6% of the total—confirming that Swiss-type claims remain a relatively small but significant subset of pharmaceutical patents.     Number of Medical-use Patent Applications[15]   Enforcement Insights: Legal and Practical Considerations Moreover, based on publicly available case information, we identified seven medical-use patent infringement cases adjudicated by Chinese courts. Key details of these cases are summarized in the Appendix. The analysis of these cases provides valuable insights into the enforcement landscape for medical-use patents in China. Favorable Outcome Where Patent Validity Upheld Out of the seven cases reviewed, courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in four cases, while the remaining three cases were dismissed. In the successful cases, the courts found that the labels of the accused drugs disclosed the patented medical indications, thus supporting the infringement claims. In contrast, the dismissed cases were primarily due to the invalidity of the asserted patents. Modest Damages Awards In the four cases where infringement was established, the average statutory damages awarded were approximately RMB 262,500. The relatively low damage amounts stemmed from limited evidence regarding the defendants’ profits or the plaintiffs’ actual losses. As a result, the courts applied statutory damages, reflecting the generally low sales volumes of the infringing products. Experienced Courts Handling These Disputes Of the seven cases: Two were reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court (second instance) and Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (first instance) One was heard by the Beijing High Court (second instance) and Beijing Second Intermediate Court, and Four were adjudicated by the Nanning Intermediate Court, Beijing Intellectual Property Court and Shanghai IP Court (first instance). All these cases were handled by specialised IP courts or courts experienced in adjudicating patent cases. Product Labeling as Key Infringement Evidence Patent infringement analysis in China applies the comprehensive coverage principle, which requires that the allegedly infringing product or method correspond to each and every technical feature of the asserted patent claim. If even one essential element is missing, the claim of infringement cannot be sustained. In the context of medical-use patents, this principle places particular emphasis on the product labeling of the accused drug. Courts carefully examine whether the label—explicitly or implicitly—discloses all elements of the asserted claim, especially the indicated therapeutic use. If the court finds that the labeling aligns with the patented indication, it will likely rule in favor of the patentee. A clear example of this can be seen in the two related cases: Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin (respectively referred to as “No.1156 Case” and “No. 1158 Case”), which involved same parties and product but different patents. The asserted claims were as follows: Claim 1 in No. 1158 Case: “Use of L-ornidazole in the preparation of drugs against parasitic infections”; and Claim 1 in No. 1156 Case: “Use of L-ornidazole in the preparation of drugs against anaerobic bacterial infections.” The label of the accused drug stated: “Indication: According to the clinical trial data, L-ornidazole is used to treat infectious diseases caused by sensitive anaerobic bacteria and trichomonas urogenital tract infection.” The Supreme People’s Court held that this indication fell within the scope of both asserted patents, as it covered both parasitic and anaerobic bacterial infections, thereby meeting the required mapping under the comprehensive coverage principle. Consequently, the court found that the accused product infringed the medical-use patents. Similarly, in the case of Wuhan Conform Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Company Y Group Co., Ltd., the asserted patent’s Claim 1 stated: “Use of a β-blocker in the preparation of a drug for the treatment of capillary infantile hemangioma, wherein the β-blocker is naphthol or its medicinal salts.” The label of the accused drug described its indication as: “The main component is propranolol hydrochloride, ...for the treatment of proliferative infantile hemangioma requiring systemic treatment.” The propranolol hydrochloride is medicinal salt of naphthol, which belongs to B-blocker. The Beijing IP Court held that this indication aligned with the patented use. As such, the therapeutic use disclosed in the label was found to fall within the scope of the asserted claim, thereby supporting a finding of infringement. In addition to product labels, advertising and promotional materials—such as product brochures—may also serve as critical evidence in infringement cases involving medical-use patents. This was evident in Nanning Yongjiang Pharmaceutical v. Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical. In that case, the asserted patent claimed: “Application of L-lysine hydrochloride in the preparation of drugs for the treatment of craniocerebral injury.” The label of the accused drug indicated that it could be used as an “adjunct therapy for encephalopathy.” Furthermore, the product brochure, published on the website of the defendant Wuhan Tongyuan, explicitly stated that the drug could be used for craniocerebral trauma and its associated syndromes. The Nanning Intermediate Court found that craniocerebral injury is a form of encephalopathy, and that the brochure made direct reference to the patented indication. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the accused product infringed the asserted medical-use patent. Joint Liability of Manufacturers and Sellers In these decisions, courts consistently imposed joint liability on both manufacturers and distributors involved in commercializing infringing drugs. For instance, in Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin, the defendant Company S was responsible for manufacturing the accused drugs, while both defendants were involved in selling and offering the products for sale. The Supreme Court found that all parties were jointly liable for patent infringement due to their respective roles in the commercialization of the infringing products. Similarly, in Wuhan Conform Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Company Y Group Co., Ltd., although the plaintiff could not prove that the accused drugs were manufactured by the defendants, the Beijing IP Court found that the defendant Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. had listed the drugs on a government procurement platform. The court held that this conduct constituted an offer for sale, which is sufficient to establish infringement under Chinese patent law. In Nanning Yongjiang Pharmaceutical v. Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical, the court found that Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical manufactured the infringing drug, while Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Shenzhou Pharmaceutical Company were responsible for distributing it. Based on these facts, the Nanning Intermediate Court ruled that all three defendants were liable for direct and joint patent infringement. Injunctive Relief Available Under Chinese law, a plaintiff may request a permanent injunction to halt ongoing patent infringement. In cases involving process patents, the court may order the defendant to cease using the patented process, as well as to stop using, offering for sale, selling or importing any product directly obtained from that process. In these medical-use patent cases where infringement was found, courts ordered manufacturers and sellers to cease manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling the infringing drugs. Additionally, courts ordered the destruction of infringing inventory. For example, in the two cases of Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin, the Supreme People’s Court ordered the defendants to stop manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling the infringing drugs. Moreover, the Court ordered the destruction of 300 infringing products, which were proven to be part of the defendants’ inventory. In Wuhan Conform Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Company Y Group Co., Ltd., the infringing act consisted of listing the infringing drug on a government-run pharmaceutical procurement platform. The court ruled that this act constituted an infringing “offer for sale” and ordered the defendant Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to delist the product from the platform. In certain cases where the label of the accused drug includes both infringing and non-infringing indications, courts may opt for a more tailored remedy. In Nanning Yongjiang Pharmaceutical v. Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical, the court held that since the accused drug could be lawfully used for other indications not covered by the asserted patent, the defendants were ordered to remove the patented indication from all product labels and promotional materials. Damages Calculation   Under Chinese patent law, the calculation of damages in an infringement case follows a tiered framework: 1) Actual loss suffered by the patentee or 2) Illegal gains obtained by the infringer, or 3) Reasonable royalties, if the first two cannot be established, or 4) Statutory damages, if none of the above are ascertainable. In cases of willful infringement under serious circumstances, courts may apply punitive damages, which can be one to five times the base amount of damages. However, punitive damages do not apply in cases where statutory damages are awarded in lieu of actual or estimated losses. Statutory damages in China range from RMB 30,000 to RMB 5 million. In practice, an infringer’s illegal gains are typically calculated by multiplying the number of infringing products sold by the profit per unit. This is usually based on the infringer’s operating profit. If the infringer’s business is primarily centered around the infringing activity, sales profit may be used instead. Plaintiffs typically present a variety of financial and commercial documents to substantiate claims regarding the revenue and profits derived from the infringing products. These may include financial reports, sales contracts, government procurement announcements, and invoices. For instance, in the case of EIKEN v. DEAOU[16], the plaintiff submitted government procurement records to demonstrate the revenue generated by the allegedly infringing detection kits. Additionally, the plaintiff introduced industry financial reports from comparable companies to establish a reasonable profit margin attributable to the products. The Supreme People’s Court accepted this evidence and ultimately awarded RMB 2,247,547.24 in damages, calculated based on the defendant’s illegal gains from the infringement. In medical-use patent infringement cases, the scope of damages may depend on the overlap between the product label and the asserted patent claims: If all labeled indications of the accused product fall within the scope of the asserted patent, damages may be calculated based on the total profit from sales of the infringing product to all patients. If the product label includes both infringing and non-infringing indications, damages may be apportioned based on the estimated profit attributable to sales for the patented indication only. Nonetheless, in the medical-use patent cases we surveyed, plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual losses or the defendants’ unlawful gains. As a result, courts defaulted to awarding statutory damages instead. In the two cases—Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence regarding the actual losses suffered due to the infringement or the profits gained by the defendants.  It only showed that the accused drugs were launched in four big cities and submitted a new on a defendant’s website providing that “...The company has planned and constructed a dedicated production line for 30-ton levornidazole raw materials and a tablet production line with an annual output of 100 million tablets…”. The Supreme Court held that, since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of actual losses resulting from the infringement or profits gained by the defendants, statutory damages should be applied. In determining the amount of statutory damages, the courts took into account the specific circumstances of each case, including the type of patent asserted and the nature and context of the defendants’ infringing acts. Ultimately, the courts awarded statutory damages of RMB 300,000 in each case, without providing a detailed analysis or explanation of the calculation. In Wuhan Conform Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Company Y Group Co., Ltd., the plaintiff only provided evidence that the accused products were listed on some government medical insurance procurement and that the defendant had offered the drugs for sale. Since the plaintiff did not show either its actual loss or the defendants’ profits, the Beijing IP Court awarded statutory damages of RMB 50,000, noting that the defendants’ infringing activity was limited to offering the drugs for sale. In Nanning Yongjiang Pharmaceutical v. Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical, the plaintiff presented limited evidence showing that the accused products had been launched in certain cities. However, the plaintiff failed to show the actual losses suffered or the profits earned by the defendants. The Nanning Intermediate Court stated that it conducted a comprehensive assessment of factors including the defendants’ level of fault, the duration of infringement, production volumes, and the scope of the sales market. Based on this assessment, the court awarded statutory damages of RMB 400,000, though it did not provide a detailed breakdown or reasoning for the damages amount. Absence of Indirect Infringement Precedents Under Chinese law, defendants in patent infringement cases may be held liable for indirect infringement, which includes both contributory infringement and induced infringement. This implies that drug manufacturers or sellers could face liability if they knowingly assist healthcare professionals or independent clinical laboratories (ICLs) in practicing a medical use patent. The meet the requirement of indirect infringement, one must 1) have intention to induce or incite others to infringe upon the patent rights, and 2) actually provides the necessary conditions to facilitate others’ direct infringement. To date, there have been no reported cases involving medical-use patents where manufacturers or sellers were found liable specifically for indirect infringement.  In the existing cases, because the labels of the accused drugs explicitly disclose the patented indications, Chinese courts have generally held these parties directly liable for infringement based on their own actions, thereby obviating the need to analyze indirect infringement. However, indirect infringement issues may arise in situations where the drug manufacturer does not include the patented medical use in the drug label or product information—such as in cases of off-label use. If off-label use falls within the scope of a patented indication, Chinese courts may in the future need to consider the potential liability of drug manufacturers under the doctrine of indirect infringement. Such cases may emerge as the enforcement of medical-use patents continues to evolve.   Conclusion Swiss-type claims are the standard mechanism for securing medical-use patent protection in China. Although the number of valid patents remains limited and recent years have seen a decline in grant rates, the continued growth in application filings reflects the increasing importance of this type of patent protection. To date, relatively few judicial decisions have addressed infringement of Swiss-type claims, but the existing cases provide valuable insight into how Chinese courts approach issues such as claim interpretation, infringement analysis, and damages assessment. As judicial practice continues to develop, pharmaceutical companies should closely monitor these cases and take proactive measures when drafting claims and preparing enforcement strategies. A clear understanding of current enforcement trends will be essential for effective protection of medical-use patents in China’s evolving patent system.     Dr. Gordon Gao is an International Partner at King & Wood Mallesons. He specializes in intellectual property litigation involving patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, patent right abuse, end-of-patent-life litigation for pharmaceutical products, and appeals to the PRC Supreme Court for the above types of cases. Dr. Gao advises multinational technology companies on intellectual property protection and enforcement strategies and has handled many famous cases, including more than 10 groups of cases (a total of over 80 cases) on appeal to the PRC Supreme Court. Dr. Xiaoyi (Sherry) Yao is an International Partner at King & Woods Mallesons. Dr. Yao specializes in intellectual property litigation, with a focus on patent invalidation and patent litigation. Dr. Yao is also proficient in advising on IP-related transactions. Her clients include well-known domestic and foreign companies across fields such as pharmaceutical, medical devices, and electronic communications.     Appendix: Summary of Medical-Use Patent Infringement Cases in China No. Case Name Case Numbers Patent Numbers Damage Award (RMB) Summary of Judgment Court of Trial Level of Trial 1. Nanning Yongjiang Pharmaceutical v. Wuhan Tongshi Pharmaceutical and Yichang Sanxia Pharmaceutical (2003) Nan Shi Min San Chu No. 75 [(2003)南市民三初字第75号] ZL93102915.5 400,000 The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Nanning Intermediate People's Court First Instance 2. Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1158 [(2020)最高法知民终1158号]   CN200510068478.9 300,000 The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Supreme People's Court Second Instance 3. Huana v. Company S and Dalian Zhongxin (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1156 [(2020)最高法知民终1156号]   CN200510083517.2 300,000 The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Supreme People's Court Second Instance 4. Wuhan Conform Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Company Y Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Company Y Group Co., Ltd. (2023) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 836 [ (2023)京73民初836号] CN200880111892.5 50,000 The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Beijing Intellectual Property Court First Instance 5. Shijiazhuang Development Zone Boxin Pharmaceutical Technology Development Co., Ltd., etc. v.Alcon Laboratories, Inc, etc. (2010) Gao Min Zhong Zi No. 1647 [(2010)高民终字第1647号] ZL96190605.7 NA The court dismissed the case (the patent is invalided) Beijing Higher People's Court Second Instance 6. Astra Zeneca (Sweden) Co., Ltd. v. Company R Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Qinmin Pharmacy Co., Ltd. (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu No. 340 [(2020)沪73知民初340号] Not Disclosed NA The court dismissed the case (the patent is invalided) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court First Instance 7. Astra Zeneca (Sweden) Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Zhengzhou Pingchang Pharmacy Co., Ltd., etc. (2020) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu No. 341 [(2020)沪73知民初341号] Not Disclosed NA The court dismissed the case (the patent is invalided) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court First Instance   [1] Article 54(5) of the EPC 1973 provides that “[t]he provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not exclude the patentability of any substance or composition, comprised in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in Article 52, paragraph 4, provided that its use for any method referred to in that paragraph is not comprised in the state of the art.” [2] In HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE/Pyrrolidine Derivatives case, the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office held that the second medical use lacked novelty and should not be granted patent, and that the inventor who discovered a new medical use of a known compound “should be rewarded with a purpose-limited substance claim under Article 54(5) EPC to cover the whole field of therapy” [3] “A claim for the ‘use of compound X to treat … (indication) …’ is inadmissible under Swiss Law. Limited claims directed to the ‘use of a compound … to produce agents against …’ are admissible even where they relate to a second (or subsequent) medical use of a known medicament. Details concerning the formulation of a medicament (e.g. labelling, packaging or dosage) may be included in a patent application’s description.” [4] Article 25 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that, “[f]or any of the following, no patent right shall be granted: (1) scientific discoveries; (2) rules and methods for mental activities; (3) methods for the diagnosis or for the treatment of diseases; (4) animal and plant varieties; (5) nuclear transformation methods and substances obtained in the method of nuclear transformation; and (6) the design, which is used primarily for the identification of pattern, color or the combination of the two on printed flat works. For processes used in producing products referred to in items (4) of the preceding paragraph, a patent may be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Law.” [5] Article 25, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Patent Law (1984, expired) [6] Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law (1992, expired) [7] Article 4.5.2 of the Section X in Second Part of Patent Examination Guidelines provides that, “[i]f the medical use of a substance is applied for a patent with such claims as “for treatment of diseases”, “for diagnosis of diseases” or “for use as a drug”, it belongs to the “methods for the diagnosis or for the treatment of diseases” in section (3) in first paragraph of Article 25 of the Patent Law and therefore cannot be granted a patent.  However, since the drug and its preparation method can be granted patent rights according to law, the invention of the substance for medical use shall be patented by the claims of the drug, or claims of use claims belonging to the type of pharmaceutical process such as “application in the pharmaceutical process,” “application in the preparation of drugs for the treatment of a disease” and other use claims belonging to the type of pharmaceutical method.  It does not fall under the circumstances provided in section (3) in first paragraph of Article 25.  The use method claims belonging to the type of pharmaceutical process described above may be written as an examples of “The application of compound X in the preparation of a drug for treating disease Y” or a similar form.” [8] Search Formula: TTL: (for preparation OR for production OR for synthesis OR for manufacturing) AND TTL: (treatment OR cure OR medical treatment OR prevention OR diagnosis OR therapy) AND TTL: (use OR application OR apply ) AND IPC: (A61 OR C01 OR C07 OR C08 OR C12) AND PN: (CN) AND APD:[19930101 TO 20241224] [9] Explanation of search terms: Based on the typical expression of a Swiss-type claim, “use of compound X for manufacturing a medicament for the treatment of disease Y,” (1) the keyword “for” is added before keywords such as “preparation” to exclude patents for pharmaceutical preparation methods alone; (2) keywords such as “use” are used to define a use patent; (3) the IPC classification number is used to define the field of medicine. [10] Data source: Patsnap Database [11] Gao, F. P.: An Entitlement of Clinical Data: the Lega Framework of Clinical Data Sharing[J]. Modern Law Science,2020, 42(4), 52-68 [12] Statistics are based on valid patents granted from 2019 to 2023 in the Patsnap database. [13] See: “Challenges and strategies for patent protection of new pharmaceutical uses (1) – Swiss-type claims” https://www.tip-lab.com/article/?uuid=6dc64ffae8594db8ab56f9b91059c3e2 [14] Statistical Monitoring Report on China’s Patent-Intensive Industries, published on the website of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, July 2024, https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/downfile.jsp?classid=0&showname=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%B8%93%E5%88%A9%E5%AF%86%E9%9B%86%E5%9E%8B%E4%BA%A7%E4%B8%9A%E7%BB%9F%E8%AE%A1%E7%9B%91%E6%B5%8B%E6%8A%A5%E5%91%8A.pdf&filename=f22e3c03ffc94bb09be8133f1bbb73bc.pdf [15] Due to an 18-month delay between the application and publication of invention patents, current statistics will not reflect the volume of patent applications that have not been published. [16] EIKEN v. DEAOU, the case numbers in the first instance: (2021) Yue 73 Zhi Min Chu No. 355

Appleby is pleased to welcome seasoned litigator Alvin Sin, who will be joining our Shanghai office as Partner and our Hong Kong office as Legal Manager, effective 30 June 2025. This key appointment underscores Appleby’s commitment to strengthening our presence in Greater China, enabling us to offer an even broader range of commercial dispute resolution services tailored to meet the evolving needs of our clients, and deepening our capabilities in handling complex cross-border disputes. Alvin brings over a decade of experience in corporate, commercial, and regulatory disputes across Asia. He has a track record representing clients in high-value arbitration, litigation, regulatory matters and corporate investigations, with a particular focus on the financial services, biopharmaceuticals, technology, professional services and real estate sectors. Alvin regularly advises investment banks, multinational corporations and professional services firms on regulatory and compliance matters. Prior to joining Appleby, Alvin spent more than 10 years at a leading US law firm in Hong Kong and several years at a leading Chinese-Australian law firm. Fluent in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin, Alvin offers deep regional market expertise, helping clients navigate cross-border disputes involving offshore jurisdictions. David Bulley, Appleby’s Hong Kong and Mainland China Managing Partner, commented, "We are delighted to welcome Alvin as we continue to expand Appleby’s dispute resolution practice in Greater China. With every change that we make to the Hong Kong and Shanghai teams we are looking to continue to improve our offering for clients. Alvin’s combination of legal expertise and Chinese language and commercial insight significantly enhances our offering for Mandarin and Cantonese speaking Hong Kong and Mainland China clients and positions us to better support clients facing complex cross-border disputes." Eliot Simpson, Appleby’s Hong Kong Head of Dispute Resolution, added, "With Alvin’s arrival, Appleby enhances its ability to provide comprehensive dispute resolution services, spanning high-stakes litigation across multiple offshore finance jurisdictions. Our team remains dedicated to delivering strategic, commercially driven solutions for financial institutions, professional services firms, and multinational corporations operating across Asia and beyond." Reflecting on his new role at Appleby, Alvin said, “I am excited to be joining Appleby and to play a part in the firm’s continued growth across the region. I’m looking forward to collaborating with my colleagues to help clients navigate legal complexities and find effective solutions to their disputes.” With this appointment, Appleby reaffirms its dedication to providing comprehensive, client-centric solutions for complex disputes throughout Asia and beyond. _________________________________________________________________ 毅柏律师事务所任命冼雋杰为上海办公室合伙人，进一步增强大中华区争议解决业务实力 毅柏欣然宣布，资深诉讼律师冼雋杰（Alvin Sin）将于 2025 年 6 月 30 日正式加入本所，出任上海办公室合伙人及香港办公室法律经理。此项重要任命彰显了毅柏持续拓展大中华区业务版图的承诺，进一步巩固了我们为客户提供量身定制商事争议解决方案的能力，并强化了本所应对复杂跨境争议的专业实力。 冼律师在亚洲拥有逾十年处理公司、商事及监管争议的丰富经验，在高额仲裁、诉讼、监管事务及企业调查方面屡获佳绩，尤为专注于金融服务、生物医药、科技、专业服务及房地产等行业。他长期为投行、跨国企业及专业服务机构提供有关监管与合规的法律建议。 在加入毅柏之前，冼律师曾于香港一家知名美国律所服务逾十年，并曾任职于一家享有盛誉的中澳合资律所。他精通英语、粤语及普通话，熟悉亚洲法律市场，为客户处理涉及离岸司法管辖区的跨境争议提供独到见解。 毅柏香港及中国大陆区管理合伙人布泰玮（David Bulley）表示：“我们非常欢迎冼律师的加入，他的加入标志了毅柏持续深耕大中华区争议解决业务的决心。毅柏在香港及上海走过的每一步脚印，都是为了进一步提升我们为客户提供的专业服务。冼律师能够结合法律专业、中文语言能力及商业洞察，加强我们为普通话及粤语客户提供服务的能力，也让我们在应对复杂跨境争议时更具优势。” 毅柏香港争议解决业务主管冼耀仁（ Eliot Simpson） 补充道：“冼律师的加入，使我们在多个离岸金融法域提供高端诉讼服务的能力更上一层楼。我们的团队将继续致力于为金融机构、专业服务公司及跨国企业提供战略性与商业导向兼备的争议解决方案，覆盖亚洲及更广泛地区。” 谈及加入毅柏，冼律师表示：“我非常高兴能够加入毅柏，并参与毅柏在亚太地区的持续拓展。我期待与同事们携手合作，协助客户应对法律挑战，并为其争议提供高效务实的解决方案。” 此次任命再次印证了 毅柏致力于在亚洲及更广泛地区提供全方位、以客户为中心的复杂争议解决方案的承诺。

Enforcement mechanisms are particularly complicated in a multi-jurisdiction context. Different jurisdictions have distinct legal systems, principles of law and enforcement rules, leading to legal conflicts and uncertainties in the enforcement process. This article introduces the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and court judgments in the People’s Republic of China (“China”), analyzes the interaction among domestic law, foreign law and international law, and proposes suggestions for facilitating cross-border enforcement. I. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Arbitration is a method of dispute resolution, where parties voluntarily submit their disputes to an independent arbitral tribunal for adjudication in accordance with an arbitration Thanks to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as New York Convention), arbitration has become a mainstream way to resolve cross-border disputes. Since the contracting parties to New York Convention cover most countries and regions, foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforced in China mainly relying on New York Convention.1 Chinese courts once reviewed foreign arbitral awards by reference to the legislative notions of Chinese Arbitration Law, such as determining the nationality of an award based on the location of the arbitration institution that made the award2, and applying Chinese Arbitration Law to deny the validity of an ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) arbitration clause3. With the adoption and deepening of the concept of "facilitating awards enforcement", Chinese courts actively follow the evolution trend of international commercial arbitration and fill the gaps in domestic arbitration legislation. More and more foreign awards have been recognized and enforced in China. According to the Annual Report on Judicial Review of Commercial Arbitration by the Supreme People's Court (2023), Chinese courts recognized and enforced 69 foreign awards during the year of 2023, a year-on-year increase of 16.9%, and the arbitration-friendly judicial environment is highly appreciated. In practice, recognition and enforcement of foreign awards still confront some challenges. For example, the importance of preservation measures is self-evident as it can prevent the respondent from dissipating assets to evade an unfavorable award. However, as for foreign arbitration proceedings, only in those seated in Hong Kong or Macau can parties apply to mainland courts for preservation measures. Besides, parties to foreign-seated arbitrations often apply to the arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures, requiring the respondent to perform or refrain from specific actions. At present, there are no relevant legislation and judicial practice on whether such interim measures can be recognized and enforced in China. It is worthy of expectation that Chinese Arbitration Law is under the process of amendment. According to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (Revision) (Draft for Comments) released by the Ministry of Justice, this revision will summarize previous successful experience, deal with practical problems, keep in line with international best practices, optimize arbitration procedures, and enhance the international credibility and competitiveness of arbitration in China. It can be foreseen that China will deepen international cooperation with a more open and inclusive attitude and strive to build a more just, efficient and convenient system for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards. II. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments Due to the lack of judicial mutual assistance arrangements between China and most countries, foreign court judgments are recognized and enforced in China mainly based on the principle of reciprocity. 4When applying this principle, Chinese courts need to determine whether there is a reciprocal relationship between China and the country where the judgment was Regarding this issue, Chinese judicial practice undergone a shift from "examining whether Chinese court judgements have been recognized and enforced in this foreign country before"5 to "examining whether Chinese court judgments could be recognized and enforced under the law of this foreign country" 6. This shift has increased the possibility of foreign judgments to be recognized and enforced in China. Chinese courts also need to consider whether recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment matches Chinese legal principles and public interests, as well as whether there  are fraud, false litigation and other irregularities.7In judicial practice, judgment debtors rarely invoked such requirements to persuade the court to refuse recognition and enforcement. However, in the case of (2019) Yue 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, a local court in Guangzhou province denied the punitive damages awarded in a U.S. judgment that largely exceeded the actual losses. The reason for this refusal is generally considered to be that punitive damages violate a basic principle of Chinese law, i.e., civil and commercial damages are usually limited to actual   losses. In brief, when recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, China strives to balance efficiency and fairness by many means, such as clarifying review standards, standardizing application processes, reasonably determining reciprocal relationships, and strictly applying the causes for non-recognition and non- enforcement. This contributes to promoting international judicial cooperation while resolutely safeguarding China's judicial sovereignty, the legitimate rights and interests of parties and public interest. III. Interaction among Domestic law, Foreign Law and International Law Two cases are briefly summarized below to illustrate how Chinese courts review the application for recognizing and enforcing foreign arbitral awards and judgments: In the case of (2018) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 23, the court first found that the arbitral award in question was made in Singapore and therefore applied New York Convention to review the recognition and enforcement issues. Regarding the respondent's objection to validity of the arbitration clause, the court applied the judicial precedent of the Court of Appeal of Singapore and ruled that the arbitration clause was valid. The court then decided to recognize and enforce the arbitral award. In the case of (2018) Hu 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1, the court first found that China and the UK had not concluded or participated in any international convention on mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial court judgments. The principle of reciprocity was thus used as the legal basis. The court considered the possibility of Chinese judgments being recognized and enforced under English law and accepted the existence of a reciprocal relationship between China and the UK. Finally, the court rejected the grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement raised by the respondent, and recognized and enforced the UK judgement. From the above examples, it can be seen that cross-border enforcement involves complex interactions among domestic law, foreign law and international law. Domestic law provides a basic legal framework and rules for the enforcement process. When reviewing the application for recognition and enforcement, Chinese courts may need to ascertain and apply foreign laws. International law stipulates the rights and obligations of different countries towards each other in the context of cross-border enforcement. Understanding and mastering these three different legal systems poses huge challenges to all parties involved. Facing this reality, the applicant for enforcement should consider enforcement issues from the beginning of cross- border transactions to reduce risks by good preparation. Critical issues include: shall the parties choose arbitration or litigation as the dispute resolution method? If arbitration is preferred, which country should be chosen as the seat of arbitration? Is the country where the counterparty's assets are located a contracting party to New York Convention? If litigation is selected, which court shall be chosen to hear the dispute? Has the country where the counterparty's assets are located signed a mutual legal assistance treaty or established a "reciprocal relationship" with China? Author: Zongnan Wu Footnotes 1  At the 18th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Sixth National   People's Congress on December 2, 1986, it was decided that the People's Republic of China should accede to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and declared at the same time that: (1) the People's Republic of China should apply the Convention only on the basis of reciprocity to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made within the territory of another contracting country; and (2)the People's Republic of China only applies this convention to disputes arising from commercial legal relationships that are deemed contractual or non-contractual under the laws of the People's Republic of China. 2. In 2004, the Supreme People's Court replied to the Shanxi Provincial High Peo- ple's Court regarding the application of the parties to recognize and enforce the arbitral award made by the International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Court in Hong Kong, stating that the International Chamber of Commerce Arbi- tration Court is a French arbitration institution so that such award shall be made in 3. Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement between Zublin International GmbH and Wuxi Woke General Engineering Rubber , Ltd. [(2003) Min Si Ta Zi No. 23]. 4. Article 299 of the Civil Procedure Law: Having received an application or a request for recognition and execution of a legally effective judgment or ruling of a foreign court, a people's court shall review such judgment or ruling pursuant to international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. If, upon such review, the people's court considers that such judgment or ruling neither contradicts the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China nor violates State sovereignty, security and the public interest, it shall rule to recognize its effec-tiveness. If execution is necessary, it shall issue an order of execution, which shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law. If such judgment or ruling contradicts the basic principles of the law of the People's Republic of China or violates State sovereignty, security or the public interest, the people's court shall refuse to recognize and execute the judgment or ruling. 5 In the Civil Ruling (2016) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3, Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province recognized and enforced the civil judgment of the Singapore court because the Singapore High Court had previously enforced the civil judgment of the Chinese court. 6 In the Civil Ruling (2018) Hu 72 Xie Wai Ren No. 1, Shanghai Maritime Court pointed out that if civil and commercial judgments made by Chinese courts can be recognized and enforced by courts of a foreign country, it can be determined that there exists a reciprocal relationship between China and that country. 7 Article 300 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that in any of the following circumstances, a ruling shall be made not to recognize and enforce a judgment made by a foreign court: (1) According to Article 301 of this Law, the foreign court has no jurisdiction over the case; (2) The respondent has not been lawfully sum- moned, or although lawfully summoned, has not been given a reasonable op- portunity to present or argue, or the party without legal capacity for litigation has not been properly represented; (3) Judgments and rulings were obtained through fraudulent means; (4) The people's court has already made a judgment or ruling on the same dispute, or has recognized a judgment or ruling made by a third country court on the same dispute; (5) There is violation of the basic principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China or harming national sov- ereignty, security, and public interests.