AFD China Intellectual Property

24/12/2025

[Case] Judicial Determination of ＂Tolerance＂ Defense in Patent Infringement Litigation

In a judgment concerning a dispute over infringement of an invention patent, the Supreme People's Court held that the scope of protection of a patent claim shall be determined by the content of the claim. Where a numerical range feature is defined in the claim, if the corresponding numerical value of the alleged infringing product consistently falls within that range and essentially achieves the same technical effect as the patented invention, the alleged infringer's defense that the product is subject to manufacturing tolerances, and that such tolerances do not necessarily affect the numerical range feature defined in the claim, is generally not supported.

Read more:

In a judgment concerning a dispute over infringement of an invention patent, the Supreme People's Court held that the scope of protection of a patent claim shall be determined by the content of the claim. Where a numerical range feature is defined in the

24/12/2025

[Case] Identification of False Litigation and Judicial Measures for Its Punishment

During an appeal hearing of a patent ownership dispute, the Supreme People's Court identified a prior concluded copyright ownership and infringement case between two involved parties. The effective civil judgment from that copyright case had directly affected the outcome of the ongoing patent dispute, though evidence suggested the copyright ruling was erroneous. The Court therefore exercised its authority to review the copyright case. Upon retrial, the court ermined that the parties in the copyright case had colluded maliciously, fabricated infringement claims, and initiated false litigation with the aim of intervening with the patent dispute and unlawfully appropriating other party’s patents. This conduct seriously disrupted court proceedings and judicial order. Consequently, the Supreme People's Court revoked the original copyright judgment, imposed maximum judicial fines of 100,000 RMB on each party for false litigation, and referred criminal clues to the relevant authorities. Both fined parties have paid their penalties, and public security organs have initiated investigations. The retrial ruling elaborated on key factors for identifying false litigation and proposed judicial measures for penalizing such acts, offering significant guidance for handling similar cases in practice.

Read more:

During an appeal hearing of a patent ownership dispute, the Supreme People's Court identified a prior concluded copyright ownership and infringement case between two involved parties. The effective civil judgment from that copyright case had directly affe

24/12/2025

[Case] Determination on WeChat Moment Information as Prior Art in Patent Invalidation Proceedings

In an administrative appeal, the Supreme People’s Court clarified that determining whether content posted in a WeChat Moment (a semi-private social feed within the app where users share updates only with approved contacts) constitutes prior art or a prior design requires a comprehensive assessment of several factors. These include the platform’s posting mechanisms, the poster’s circumstances, the content and timing of the post, and the primary use of the poster’s account. The key criterion is whether the information was genuinely accessible to the general public before the patent application date, not merely being potentially accessible.

Read more:

In an administrative appeal, the Supreme Peoples Court clarified that determining whether content posted in a WeChat Moment (a semi-private social feed within the app where users share updates only with approved contacts) constitutes prior art or a prior

24/12/2025

[Case] Revocation of a Prior Patent Infringement Administrative Ruling due to Subsequent Effective Patent Invalidation Administrative Decision

The Supreme People's Court, in a second-instance judgment concerning a dispute over an administrative ruling on a utility model patent infringement, clarified that where if the patent on which the infringement claim is based is declared invalid in a subsequent administrative decision that has taken legal effect, the prior administrative ruling that affirmed patent infringement shall be revoked on the ground that the factual basis for the ruling no longer exists.

Read more:

The Supreme People's Court, in a second-instance judgment concerning a dispute over an administrative ruling on a utility model patent infringement, clarified that where if the patent on which the infringement claim is based is declared invalid in a subse

24/12/2025

[Case] Relative proportions in design patents can be used as a basis for design comparison

The Supreme Court, in its judgment of an administrative appellate case, clarified that the granted version of a design patent usually does not record or define specific length, width, or height values, so it is generally impossible to specifically compare the absolute values ​​of length, width, or height between the patent at issue and the reference design. However, where the drawings or photographs of the design patent can demonstrate the relative proportions between different parts of the design, these relative proportions can be used as a basis for determining the similarities or distinctions between the patent at issue and the reference design.

In this case, patentee A held a design patent. Company B filed an invalidation request with the CNIPA, mainly on the grounds that the patent at issue does not comply with the provisions of Article 23(2) of the Patent Law. The CNIPA made a decision to declare the patent entirely invalid. Patentee A was dissatisfied with the decision and instituted an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (the first instance court). The first instance court dismissed Patentee A's lawsuit. Patentee A was still dissatisfied and then appealed.

Read more:

The Supreme Court, in its judgment of an administrative appellate case, clarified that the granted version of a design patent usually does not record or define specific length, width, or height values, so it is generally impossible to specifically compare

24/12/2025

[Case] Products Solely Relating to Improvements to Computer Software Programs Do Not Fall Under Patentable Subject Matters of Utility Model Patents

The Supreme People's Court, in its second-instance judgment in an administrative appellate case concerning the invalidation of a utility model patent, held that where a claim is drafted in a form of a product claim but substantially belongs to a claim of computer program module framework, it does not fall under the patentable subject matters of utility model patents. For a product claim that includes both hardware improvements and computer program, where the improvement to the prior art lies in the hardware part and the involved computer program is known, it can be deemed as falling under the patentable subject matters of utility model patents; where the claim involves improvements both to the hardware part and to computer program per se, it generally does not fall under the subject matters of utility model patents. Where the claim solely involves improvements to the computer program per se, it generally does not fall under the patentable subject matters of utility model patents.

Read more:

The Supreme People's Court, in its second-instance judgment in an administrative appellate case concerning the invalidation of a utility model patent, held that where a claim is drafted in a form of a product claim but substantially belongs to a claim of

24/12/2025

A English translation of the CNIPA's recently issued Guide for Design Patent Applications for Products Involving Graphical User Interfaces

AFD is pleased to present a valuable resource for our international clients and applicants: a complete English translation of the recently issued China National Intellectual Property Administration’s official Guide for Design Patent Applications for Products Involving Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs).

This translation, carefully prepared by our intellectual property firm, is designed to help overseas innovators, designers, and legal professionals better understand and navigate China’s design patent system for GUI-related products.

To download:

A English translation of the CNIPA's recently issued Guide for Design Patent Applications for Products Involving Graphical User Interfaces

18/11/2025

Key Points of the Latest Amendments to Guidelines for Patent Examination

CNIPA has just released the updated Guidelines for Patent Examination, set to take effect on January 1, 2026. This is a key update for anyone in the IP field.

We've summarized the key revisions to help you stay ahead. What impact do you foresee these changes having on your filings?

Read more: https://www.afdip.com/insights/Articles/Patent/2025/1118/2177.html

hashtag hashtag hashtag hashtag hashtag

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently revised the Guidelines for Patent Examination (hereinafter referred to as

14/11/2025

Important Updates to China's Patent Examination Guidelines Effective January 1, 2026

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has recently officially released the newest revision on "Patent Examination Guidelines," which will come into effect on January 1, 2026. This revision represents a significant step in adapting China's patent system to the development of new technologies and will have a positive impact on patent applications and protection for innovation entities.

The revision primarily involves important changes in three key areas:

In terms of new technology protection, the new guidelines provide clear provisions for patent examination standards in emerging technological fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and streaming media, offering clear guidance for the patent protection of related innovations. Additionally, the new rules clarify the definition of plant varieties, expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and significantly strengthen intellectual property protection for innovations in the seed industry.

Regarding examination standards, the new Guidelines optimize multiple aspects of the patent application process, improving the handling methods for same-day applications. They also introduce clearer provisions for inventiveness assessment, which will help enhance the quality of patent applications.

In the area of supporting innovation, the new guidelines establish the concept of "on-demand examination" and refine the "Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)" mechanism to better meet the practical needs of innovation entities. At the same time, the guidelines clarify examination standards for divisional applications and priority claims, as well as the requirements for submitting priority transfer proofs, making the patent application process more standardized and transparent.

As a leading intellectual property service provider, AFD China will promptly follow up on the details of the new guidelines and continue to provide clients with professional patent agency services and strategic advice.

Stay tuned for our follow-up interpretive articles on the newly revised "Patent Examination Guidelines" to jointly seize the opportunities brought by the new patent examination rules.

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has recently officially released the newest revision on

25/07/2025

[Cases] Record-High Damages Awarded in Plant Variety Infringement Case; Conditions Clarified for Expanding Detection Sites in Variety Identity Determination

The Supreme People's Court issued a final judgment in a plant variety infringement case, clarifying that when determining variety identity using molecular marker methods, any expansion of detection sites must strictly follow relevant standards and protocols. Such expanded detection is only justified if the following conditions are met: 1) the number of different sites between the sample in question and the control sample must be fewer than, but close to, the critical value; 2) the additional detection sites must exhibit sufficient genetic polymorphism and stability; there must be a strong correlation between the associated genes and phenotypes; the reliability of such correlation must be scientifically evaluated and verified; and functional markers tightly linked to specific traits must have been developed.

The case involved the maize plant variety "NP01154," owned by a French company. Company A, an affiliate of the French company, holds the exclusive license to the variety. Company A alleged that seven approved hybrid maize varieties produced and sold by Company B were derived from "NP01154" as a parent variety without authorization. It sought an injunction against further infringement, punitive damages of CNY 160 million, and reimbursement of CNY 200,000 in reasonable legal expenses.During the first instance, Company A submitted four detection reports showing that the parent variety "YZ320" of the accused infringing varieties differed from "NP01154" by only one site, arguing that this supported a finding of infringement. In response, Company B submitted detection reports claiming that four out of five additional sites showed differences, contending that the two varieties were distinct.

The first-instance court accepted Company B’s detection report, concluding that “YZ320” and the authorized variety “NP01154” were not the same, and dismissed all of Company A’s claims. Company A appealed, seeking a full reversal and support for its original claims.

Read more:

25/07/2025

[Cases] Determination of ＂Related Patents＂ in Article 76(1) of the Patent Law; the Way for Generic Drugs Applicants to Make a Declaration When the Product Only Differs from the Registered Original Drugs in Specifications

In drug patent linkage dispute cases, when the parties concerned have a disagreement over whether the patent in question falls within the types of patents that can be registered, the people’s court shall examine the issue. The lawsuit filed by a party pursuant to Article 76(1) of the Patent Law must be a lawsuit arising from a dispute related to a patent concerning the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. If the patent claimed by a party does not fall within the types of patents eligible for registration as provided in the Implementation Measures for the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes, the people’s court shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to the Implementation Measures for the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes, the types of patents that can be registered for chemical medicinal products are: pharmaceutical active ingredient compound patents, patents for pharmaceutical composition containing active ingredients, and patents for medical use of the foregoing two types. Patents for crystalline compounds characterized by crystal cell parameters, which are based on a prior disclosed compound defined by its molecular structure; composition patents containing such crystalline compounds; and medical use patents for these two categories, do not yet fall within the types of patents eligible for registration under the Measures.

Company A filed a lawsuit, claiming to be the holder of an invention patent for a certain drug used to treat diabetes (hereinafter referred to as the patent-in-suit). It has registered Claim 9 as published on the grant announcement on the Patent Information Registration Platform for Medicinal Products Marketed in China (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Information Registration Platform), and this claim was linked to its approved original drug (hereinafter referred to as the original drug). Company B submitted an application to the National Medical Products Administration for marketing authorization of a generic drug referencing the original drug as the reference registered drug, and made a Type 4.1 declaration, i.e. the patent linked to the original drug that had been registered on the Patent Information Registration Platform should be announced invalid; the application has been accepted. Company A believed that the generic drug fell within the scope of protection of Claim 9 of the patent-in-suit, and requested the court to confirm such.

Read more:

25/07/2025

[Cases] Balancing Interests in Cases of Questionable Patent Validity

In an appeal case concerning a utility model patent infringement dispute, the Supreme People’s Court clarified that for patents with questionable stability, courts may adopt interest-balancing measures, such as appropriately extending the enforcement period of an effective infringement judgment or requiring a compensation commitment for future benefits, so as to reconcile procedural justice with substantive fairness and promote genuinely valuable invention creations.

Company A is the patentee of a utility model patent entitled “A Sound-Absorbing and Sound-Insulating Barrier Board” (hereinafter referred to as the patent). It claimed that an insulation and protection facility for a certain highway section (hereinafter referred to as the accused infringing products) manufactured and sold by Company B fell within the protection scope of the patent. Company A filed a lawsuit demanding that Company B ceases the infringement and compensates for economic losses of CNY 1 million and reasonable enforcement expenses of more than CNY 50,000.

Upon trial, the court found that the CNIPA had issued a “Utility Model Patent Evaluation Report” on the patent in question, with a preliminary conclusion that none of the claims of the patent possessed inventiveness and thus did not meet the conditions for patent grant. After comparison, the court of first instance determined that the technical solution of the accused infringing products fell within the protection scope of the patent in question, and that Company B had manufactured and sold the accused infringing products. Accordingly, the first-instance judgment ordered Company B to immediately cease its infringing acts and to compensate Company A for economic losses and reasonable enforcement expenses totaling more than CNY 250,000.

Company B, dissatisfied with the decision, filed an appeal.

Read more: