{"id":152032,"date":"2026-10-30T12:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T12:00:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=152032"},"modified":"2026-10-30T13:08:14","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T13:08:14","slug":"china-patent-litigation","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/china-patent-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"China: Patent Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-152032","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-patent-litigation","jurisdictions-china"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/07\/CCPIT.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2019\/07\/CCPIT.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Patent Litigation laws and regulations applicable in China<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the forum for the conduct of patent litigation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In 2025, the Supreme People&#8217;s Court (the SPC) readjusted the courts with jurisdiction over patent infringement litigation.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Cases concerning ownership of, and infringement of, invention patents, utility model patents, plant varieties, integrated circuit layout designs, technical secrets and computer software, as well as monopoly disputes, are heard at first instance by the intellectual property courts, the intermediate people&#8217;s courts at the seat of the provincial, autonomous-region or municipal government, and other intermediate courts designated by the SPC.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Cases concerning ownership of, and infringement of, design patents and cases involving the recognition of a well-known trademark are heard by the IP courts and intermediate courts; with the approval of the SPC they may also be heard by designated basic-level courts, except for design patent administrative cases.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; All other first-instance IP cases are heard by basic-level courts designated by the SPC (there were around 558 such courts as at 2025).<\/p>\n<p>Four specialised IP courts have been established \u2014 in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and the Hainan Free Trade Port. In addition, more than 30 specialised IP tribunals now sit within intermediate courts; the list continues to expand, for example with the establishment of a tribunal in Nanning.<\/p>\n<p>In practice, the plaintiff selects among the courts that have jurisdiction by reference to the place where the infringing acts occurred \u2014 manufacture, sale, offer for sale, import, or use of the patented process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the typical timeline and form of first instance patent litigation proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>When served with a complaint by the court, a defendant may challenge the validity of patent before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), which means the infringement and invalidity proceedings are bifurcated in China. It would take defendants about 6 months to receive a decision on validity. Also, the courts typically would wait for the outcome of invalidity proceeding, especially for invention patents. the The infringement action may take one to two years which means the patentee may have to face one or two invalidation proceedings before receiving the judgement of infringement actionwhich means. The patentee is bounded by the Doctrine of Estoppel, which means the claim construction made in the infringement litigation is limited by his interpretation to the claims during the invalidity proceeding. Whereas liability and damages used to be heard and decided together, Article 156 of the Civil Procedure Law now expressly provides for a partial judgment, under which the court may decide liability and the injunction first and reserve the quantification of damages for a supplemental judgment, so that the patentee can obtain an injunction at an earlier stage.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can interim and final decisions in patent cases be appealed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Final decisions can be appealed; interim decisions generally cannot, save for certain procedural rulings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u200cFinal judgments.\u200c<\/strong> A first-instance judgment \u2014 including a partial judgment on infringement or cessation \u2014 may be appealed as of right, with no leave required, within 15 days of service (10 days for a ruling). An appeal suspends the effectiveness of the judgment in its entirety: once any party appeals, the whole first-instance judgment ceases to be enforceable and the successful part cannot be enforced pending the appeal. A partial judgment is no exception: it is a judgment, appealable in the same way, but it remains in appeal status and therefore does not take effect while the appeal is pending, which is precisely why a separate application for behaviour preservation retains independent value even after a partial judgment on cessation has been obtained.<\/p>\n<p>\u200cInterim decisions.\u200c Interim injunctions in China take the form of a behaviour-preservation ruling. Such a ruling is \u200cnot appealable\u200c. On the other hand, three procedural rulings are appealable, within 10 days: refusal to accept the case, dismissal of the action, and rulings on jurisdiction objections.<\/p>\n<p>The appellate route depends on the type of case. According to the SPC:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; appeals in all patent (including design) grant and validity administrative cases are heard by the Intellectual Property Court of the SPC;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; appeals in cases concerning ownership of, and infringement of, invention patents, plant varieties and integrated circuit layout designs are heard by the IP Court of the SPC;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; appeals in utility model patent, technical secret and computer software cases in which the first instance was decided by a higher people&#8217;s court are heard by the IP Court of the SPC;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; appeals in monopoly cases are heard by the IP Court of the SPC;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; other appeals \u2014 in particular ordinary utility model and design patent infringement cases decided at first instance by an intermediate court \u2014 are heard by the higher people&#8217;s court of the province concerned.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which acts constitute direct patent infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>With regard to an invention or a utility model patent, direct patent infringement includes, for production or business purpose, manufacturing, offering to sell, selling, or importing the patented products, using the patented method, or using, offering to sell, selling or importing the products that are developed directly through the use of the patented method. With regard to a design patent, any unit or individual may not, for production or business purposes, manufacture, offer to sell, sell or import the design patent products.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Do the concepts of indirect patent infringement or contributory infringement exist? If so, what are the elements of such forms of infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. If someone knows that the relevant product is a material, equipment, component, intermediate, etc., specially used for implementation of a patent, commercially exploiting that product will be deemed as indirect patent infringement. The key elements here are \u201cspecially used for\u201d. The plaintiff must prove that the product has no other reasonable use but specially used for implementation of the patent. In other words, the accused infringer knows or should have known that the product made is an essential part of a patented solution and the product will be a part of infringement to the patent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is the scope of protection of patent claims construed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Like many other countries, the protection scope of a patent claim is determined based on the claim language with reference to the description and drawings in a perspective of one skilled person in the art. The court will determine the meaning of a specific claim term based on the content of description, claims, drawings and prosecution history, i.e., the meaning of the term will be determined within the patent. The scope of the term is also bounded by the explanation made to the examiner during prosecution. If the meaning of the term cannot be determined within the patent, the term will be defined according to external evidence, such as a textbook, a dictionary and the understanding of a skilled person in the art. Doctrine of equivalents steps in when two features are not literally identical. Two features are deemed as equivalents if they are substantially similar measures with substantially similar functions and substantially similar effects and can be replaced by the skilled person in the art without creativity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key defences to patent infringement?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are various defences to patent infringement accuses, mainly including non-infringement defence, prior art defence, legitimate source defence, prior use defence. We believe the non-infringement defence and prior art defence are most common in our practice. A good-faith (abuse of rights) defence is also available now: where a patentee incorporates its own patent into a standard without honest disclosure and then sues an implementer, the claim may be rejected as an abuse of rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key grounds of patent invalidity?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Almost all the grounds for valid grant of a patent could also be available grounds of invalidity upon which the patent may be revoked, mainly including novelty, inventive steps, enablement, new matter issue, sufficient support of the description to the claims and definiteness. In practice, we believe the key grounds most of petitioners rely upon are novelty and inventiveness, i.e., those grounds based on one or more prior art references. From 1 January 2026, under the amended Guidelines, an invalidation request that does not reflect a genuine intention will not be accepted. The rule stems from a case where an IP firm filed invalidations against a group of patents but used a lawyer&#8217;s mother, who had no technical background at all, as the nominal petitioner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How is prior art considered in the context of an invalidity action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The prior art means the technologies known to the public both domestically and abroad before the date of application. The words \u201cknown to the public\u201d do not require the public actually know or get access to the technologies but refers to the availability to access the prior art. For example, even if no one actually knows or reads a book in a remote library, this book may constitute a valid prior art reference if this book is open for the public in that library. A prior art reference can be used for assessing novelty if it discloses each and every claim element of a single claim, belongs to a same technical field, proposes a same technical problem and achieves a same technical effect with the patent. Various embodiments of one reference or various references can be combined for assessing obviousness to see if these embodiments or references in combination have disclosed the patented solution. In the invalidity proceeding, typically the problem to be solved, the technical solution adopted and the technical effect achieved will be taken in to account in determining whether these prior art references can be combined or not.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can a patentee seek to amend a patent that is in the midst of patent litigation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>A patentee cannot amend the patent within the infringement proceedings themselves: the court has no power to permit an amendment of the claims, and an amendment made outside the invalidation procedure has no effect in the litigation. The only route is an amendment requested in the invalidation proceedings before CNIPA, which is confined to (i) cancelling a claim, (ii) cancelling a technical solution, (iii) further limiting a claim, and (iv) correcting an obvious error. The request must be filed within the statutory time limit, normally the period for responding to the invalidation request.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is some form of patent term extension available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. With the fourth amendment to the Patent Law, now we have patent term extension available in China. Article 42 provides two kinds of patent term extension. One is that if there is unreasonable delay in the patenting process for the invention, that is, where a patent for an invention is granted four years from the date of filing of application and three years from the date of filing of request for substantial examination, which is not caused by the patentee, patent term extension is available at the request of the patentee. The request must be filed within three months of the grant publication date. The other is limited to the patentee owning new drug patent that the patentee may request patent term extension to make up the time required for the assessment and approval of the marketing of the new drug, while the extension may not exceed five years and the total effective term of the patent after the new drug is approved for marketing shall not exceed fourteen years. The request for this case must be filed within three months of the marketing approval.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are technical matters considered in patent litigation proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As mentioned, when reviewing technical cases, the court typically appoints technical investigator to assist the court in understanding the technical factors in the case. A report will be made to the judge and explain the technologies internal to the court. The technical investigator does not participate in the vote on the judgment, and the report is not itself a piece of evidence but advisory material. The court may also use external expert consultation or judicial appraisal. Of course, each party may have their own technical experts to illustrate to the court the technical issues. The experts can be cross-examined and must answer the questions from the court, for example, from the technical expert of the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is some form of discovery\/disclosure and\/or court-mandated evidence seizure\/protection (e.g. saisie-contrefa\u00e7on) available, either before the commencement of or during patent litigation proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Although we don\u2019t have discovery\/disclosure, but we do have something similar. When one party has proved that certain evidences are under the control of the other party, and it is very hard to access the evidences without the court\u2019s intervention, the party may request a court order with which the opposing party must disclose the evidences or bear any disadvantages if refuses to disclose. The court order may relate to both infringements and damages, like what exactly the technical solution is, the account book and so on. Also, the patentee may request evidence preservation either before the commencement of or during patent litigation proceedings so that the court may secure the evidence to ascertain the fact. Although the court order is becoming popular in patent litigations, each party must bear their own burden of proof first and must not rely on the court order to replace the duty of proof. The court order is available only for those evidences very hard or nearly impossible to access.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there procedures available which would assist a patentee to determine infringement of a process patent?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. If a dispute involves an invention patent for the method of manufacturing a new product, the entity or individual manufacturing the same product should provide evidence to show the manufacturing method of their own product is different from the patented method. Of course, it happens after the patentee has proved that the involved product is a new product thanks to the patent. Similar to our answer to question 13, the court order could be another way to assist the patentee in determining infringement. For example, for a computer program, when the patentee has made every effort to show the court that the appearance of the working program is very similar to the process recited in the patent and so does the working result, but the program is not accessible because it is stored in the server of the defendant, the plaintiff may request a court order and try to force the defendant to disclose the program. The court will decide whether to issue the order. But the court typically considers current evidences, accessibility of the evidences and the burden of proof in the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there established mechanisms to protect confidential information required to be disclosed\/exchanged in the course of patent litigation (e.g. confidentiality clubs)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Typically, each party may require that only the attorneys of the opposing party can access the confidential information in the course of patent litigation, while the attorneys are bounded by the lawyer guidelines. Confidentiality agreement is also a common mechanism to make sure that the confidential information of one party is limited within an authorized scope. A party may apply for access to specified materials to be limited to specified persons, for a closed hearing, and for a closed session for evidence examination.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there a system of post-grant opposition proceedings? If so, how does this system interact with the patent litigation system?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Our laws provide that the court may or may not stay the infringement litigation because of the patent invalidity proceedings before the CNIPA. In practice, the court typically waits for the outcome of the latest invalidity proceedings not only because the outcome will greatly influence the litigation, but also because now the invalidity proceedings go really fast, typically about 6 months. The court need one or more years to hear the litigation case, but well before that the patent may have already undergone several rounds of invalidity proceedings. On the other hand, the court may continue the infringement case when the patent was proved to be reliable and stable, for example, survived from at least one challenge. Two mechanisms now manage the interaction. First, where the court decides to proceed without staying, the patentee may be required to give an undertaking to compensate the defendant if the patent is subsequently invalidated (an &#8220;interest compensation undertaking&#8221;). Second, the court may issue a conditional judgment whose enforcement is conditional on the validity outcome.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">To what extent are decisions from other fora\/jurisdictions relevant or influential, and if so, are there any particularly influential fora\/jurisdictions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>We think our courts typically make decisions based on our local practice. The judges might be interested in new theories, practices and interpretation of laws in foreign countries, but only for their references when they make the decisions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does a court determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear a patent action? And in what circumstances will a court anti-suit to preserve its jurisdiction.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Our laws are clear that only several courts designated by the SPC may hear patent actions,\u00a0 as explained in our answers to question 1. Those courts typically have good experiences in handling complicated patent litigations. If the court finds it has no jurisdiction, it will inform the parties of the courts having the jurisdiction. When issuing an anti-suit injunction, the focus is on examining whether failing to adopt this provisional measure would cause irreparable harm to the applicant&#8217;s lawful rights and interests, or make it difficult to enforce the final judgement. The court does not prioritise purely economic losses; instead, it places greater emphasis on non-economic losses, for example, the impairment of the parties&#8217; right to sue and the enforceability of Chinese judgments. Another factor to be considered when issuing an anti-suit injunction is international comity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the options for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in patent cases? Are they commonly used? Are there any mandatory ADR provisions in patent cases?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The patent dispute can also be heard by local administrative offices of patent. This administrative mechanism offers exceptionally swift proceedings, typically concluding within approximately six months. However, administrative rulings do not have the power to award monetary damages to right holders. This avenue is not mandatory. Patent holders can choose either the courts or administrative authorities to resolve their disputes. Mediation, including court-annexed mediation, and arbitration are also used, and the courts encourage mediated settlement of patent disputes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key procedural steps that must be satisfied before a patent action can be commenced? Are there any limitation periods for commencing an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Chinese law does not impose a mandatory pre-litigation procedure on a patent infringement action. What a plaintiff must satisfy are the general filing conditions of Article 122 of the Civil Procedure Law (2023 Amendment): (i) the plaintiff has a direct interest in the case, i.e. is the patentee or an interested party such as a licensee or successor in title; (ii) there is a clearly identified defendant; (iii) there are specific claims, facts and grounds; and (iv) the nature of the dispute falls within the scope of cases accepted by the court. The time limit for commencing the action is within three years from the time when the patentee knew or should have known the infringement. However, where more than twenty years have elapsed from the date on which the right was infringed\u200c and no action has been brought, the right shall no longer be protected. \u200cOf course, the above limitation periods are also subject to general rules, such as the interruption or suspension of limitation. Our advice is to well prepare any evidence you need before filing the action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which parties have standing to bring a patent infringement action? Under which circumstances will a patent licensee have standing to bring an action?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The patentee, of course, the sole patent licensee and the exclusive patent licensee can launch the patent infringement action. A patent licensee under a general license can bring the action along with the patentee or acquire the right to sue based on the license agreement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who has standing to bring an invalidity action against a patent? Is any particular connection to the patentee or patent required?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>As a general rule, anyone \u2014 any entity or individual \u2014 may file a request for invalidation with CNIPA, and no connection to the patentee or to the patent is required. The requester need not be an interested party, a licensee, an accused infringer, a competitor, or a person with any commercial or legal stake in the patent. A &#8220;straw man&#8221; request filed on behalf of an undisclosed real party is lawful, and there is no limitation period for filing.<\/p>\n<p>A small number of situations fall outside the above rules and will not be accepted by CNIPA. For instance, a request filed in another person&#8217;s name by means of a fabricated request form or a forged power of attorney will not be accepted by CNIPA. A patent agent or a patent agency is prohibited from filing an invalidation request in its own name. A patentee&#8217;s ability to file an invalidation request against its own patent is subject to certain restrictions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are interim injunctions available in patent litigation proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. Preliminary injunctions are available in our practice. The key factors considered by a court in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction are: (i) whether the request has a factual and legal basis, including whether the asserted patent is stable in validity; (ii) whether the damages are irreparable if the injunction is not granted, or whether the judgment would otherwise be difficult to enforce; (iii) whether the harm to the patentee from refusing relief outweighs the harm to the defendant from granting it; (iv) whether the injunction would conflict with the public interest; and (v) other relevant factors.<\/p>\n<p>For pre-litigation\u200b injunctions, after accepting the application the court must make a ruling within 48 hours; if the measure is granted, it shall be executed immediately. For pending-litigation injunctions, the same 48-hour limit applies where the case is urgent. Before ruling, the court shall, in principle, question both parties; only where the situation is urgent or questioning would defeat the purpose of the injunction may it rule ex parte. For pre-litigation injunctions, the applicant shall provide security; otherwise the application is rejected. The applicant must file the infringement lawsuit within 30 days\u200b after the measure is taken; otherwise the court shall revoke\u200b the preservation. A party dissatisfied with the ruling may apply for reconsideration once; reconsideration does not stay execution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What final remedies, both monetary and non-monetary, are available for patent infringement? Of these, which are most commonly sought and which are typically ordered?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The patentee may receive monetary and non-monetary remedies if the infringement is confirmed by the court. The non-monetary remedies include cessation of infringement, like selling, importing or offering to sell. Cessation, damages and reasonable expenses are pleaded together in practically every case, and courts order cessation as a matter of course once infringement is found.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">On what basis are damages for patent infringement calculated? Is it possible to obtain additional or exemplary damages?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Damages for patent infringement are calculated on four bases, in the following order. First, the patentee&#8217;s actual loss caused by the infringement, which may be measured by the reduction in sales of the patented product multiplied by the reasonable per-unit profit. Second, the infringer&#8217;s gain from the infringement, calculated by the sales volume of the infringing product multiplied by reasonable per-unit profit. Under the current Patent Law, the patentee may choose whichever of these first two bases yields a more favorable result.<\/p>\n<p>Where neither the patentee&#8217;s loss nor the infringer&#8217;s gain can be determined, damages may be calculated with reference to a reasonable multiple of the applicable patent royalty. Where no royalty is available, the court may award statutory damages in the range of RMB 30,000 to RMB 5,000,000, depending on factors such as the type of patent, the nature of the infringement, and the overall gravity of the case.<\/p>\n<p>Where the infringer controls relevant account books and refuses to produce them despite a court order, the court may determine the amount of damages based on the patentee&#8217;s claims and available evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Exemplary (punitive) damages are available under the Patent Law. Where the infringement is deliberate and the circumstances are serious, the patentee may receive up to five times the base damages calculated under the above methods. Additionally, reasonable expenses incurred by the patentee in stopping the infringement \u2014 such as attorney fees, notarisation costs, and investigation expenses \u2014 may be recovered separately from the damages award.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How readily are final injunctions granted in patent litigation proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Very readily. In China a final injunction takes the form of an order in the judgment that the defendant cease the infringing act. It is granted almost as a matter of course: where infringement is established, the patent is still in force and the patentee asks for it, the court will order cessation. However, in some cases the judge may not grant the injunction because of national or public interest. For example, if a dam infringes a patent, the judge probably will not issue a final injunction by bombing out the dam. In such a case, the owner of the dam must pay reasonable royalties as a price of continuous use of the patented technology. Proportionality of injunctive relief is not a statutory principle in China, but it is usually reflected in the judgment, which shows up in practice, most visibly in the way the court frames and scopes the relief. For example, in deciding whether to order \u200cdestruction of the remaining infringing stock and of the moulds and other tooling dedicated to making the infringing product\u200c, the court weighs whether destruction is necessary and proportionate to the purpose of stopping the infringement. At least we have not observed any recall of infringing products sold to the common customers. The final injunction is a part of the sentence in China. Therefore, the injunction continuously exists unless the court\u2019s decision is reversed, the patent expires or the patent is invalidated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there provisions for obtaining declaratory relief, and if so, what are the legal and procedural requirements for obtaining such relief?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. An interested party may file a lawsuit to obtain declaratory relief. Three factors are required for obtaining such a relief \u2013 a warning letter or equivalent warning act (for example, administrative complaints, platform complaints and infringement notices to customers, tender authorities or investors) received from the patentee, a written letter to the patentee to urge a further action and no action taken within one month from the written letter received by the patentee or within two months from sending the written letter. If the patentee sues in time, or has already initiated a dispute-resolution procedure open to the claimant, the action will be dismissed. Jurisdiction follows the patent infringement rules.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the costs typically incurred by each party to patent litigation proceedings at first instance? What are the typical costs of an appeal at each appellate level?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Typically, the cost incurred by each party to patent litigation proceedings at first instance is about RMB 300,000 to RMB 1,000,000, including attorney fee and other costs for the litigation. Attorney fees are closely tied to the complexity of the case, whereas court fees depend on the amount in dispute (e.g. on a claim of RMB 1 million the court fee is roughly RMB 13,800; on RMB 10 million, about RMB 81,800). For second instance, the typical cost is bit lower, about RMB 300,000 to RMB 800,000.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Can the successful party to a patent litigation action recover its costs?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. If the infringement is established before the court, the plaintiff may recover reasonable expense for stopping the infringement. Recoverable items typically include attorney fees, notarisation, investigation and appraisal costs. Recovery is never automatic and rarely full: expenses must be pleaded separately from damages, evidenced by retainer and invoice, and pass the court&#8217;s review of reasonableness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest patent litigation growth areas in your jurisdiction in terms of industry sector?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Our view is that the fastest-growing sectors are smart terminals and communications (including standard-essential patents), semiconductors and power devices, and new energy (batteries, photovoltaics and storage). Consumer electronics remains the largest single area, but growth within it is increasingly concentrated in the communications and SEP layer.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What do you predict will be the most contentious patent litigation issues in your jurisdiction over the next twelve months?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Standard-essential patents will remain the most contentious field, but the centre of gravity has moved from rate-setting to a contest over extraterritorial jurisdiction \u2014 anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions, interim licences and the WTO dimension \u2014 while a second front has opened in the automotive and battery sectors. Chinese courts have accepted jurisdiction to determine global FRAND conditions since the SPC&#8217;s rulings in OPPO v Sharp (2021) and OPPO v InterDigital (2023), and in November 2023 the Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People&#8217;s Court handed down the first global 5G aggregate rate judgment. The SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal issued its annual report showing that it had continued to explore jurisdiction, anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctions, permanent injunctions and rate-setting. On the other hand, licensing has moved decisively into the new-energy sector. Avanci, which marked its tenth anniversary in 2026, had concluded seventeen licence agreements with eleven Chinese automakers across its 4G and 5G vehicle programmes by early June 2026. In the battery sector, Tulip Innovation \u2014 a pool built on LG Energy Solution and Panasonic portfolios \u2014has already brought actions against several Chinese automobile manufacturers in Europe, signalling that the standard-essential patent disputes have now spread to the new energy vehicle sector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the biggest challenges and opportunities confronting the international patent system?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Artificial intelligence and geopolitical fragmentation over extraterritorial jurisdiction are the two most prominent challenges now confronting the international patent system. On AI, the IP5 offices have made it a core item of their cooperation and adopted a roadmap; China&#8217;s amended Guidelines for Patent Examination confirm that the inventor must be a natural person and that an AI name may not be entered as inventor; and the Supreme People&#8217;s Court issued China&#8217;s first judicial rule document on AI disputes in 2026. The difficulty no longer lies in whether a human inventor is required, but in how novelty and inventiveness apply to machine-learning inventions, and whether training on protected data infringes. On extraterritorial jurisdiction, the contest over SEP global rate-setting and anti-suit injunctions has escalated from individual disputes into a rule-based contest between states, with the issues reaching WTO dispute settlement; the Unified Patent Court offers a single pan-European forum covering eighteen member states, and anti-anti-suit injunctions are now issued in both directions. Territoriality \u2014 the traditional anchor of predictability \u2014 is being tested as never before.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">5150<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/152032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}