-
-
Services
-
-
23
2025-12
SPC Releases Draft Judicial Interpretation (III) on Patent Infringement Disputes for Public Consultation
On December 20, 2025, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China (SPC) released the Draft Judicial Interpretation (III) on the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (the "Draft Interpretation") for public consultation. The Draft Interpretation consists of 31 articles and provides detailed guidance on a wide range of procedural and substantive issues in patent infringement litigation.
The Draft Interpretation is intended to ensure the uniform and correct application of law, respond to emerging challenges in technology-intensive disputes, and further refine China's patent litigation framework. It reflects the SPC's continuing efforts to balance effective patent protection with procedural fairness and to curb abusive litigation practices.
I. Jurisdiction and Procedural Coordination
The Draft Interpretation tightens judicial scrutiny over manufactured jurisdictional connections, such as the artificial inclusion of defendants to create jurisdiction. Courts are required to examine whether the alleged defendant has a genuine connection with the disputed matter.
With respect to appeals against rulings on jurisdictional objections, the Draft Interpretation allows first-instance courts to proceed with preparatory steps—such as evidence exchange and pretrial conferences—while prohibiting substantive judgments before a final ruling on jurisdiction is rendered. This approach aims to enhance procedural efficiency without prejudicing jurisdictional determinations.
The concept of the “place of sale” is also clarified. Legitimate sales locations generally include the seller's principal place of business, storage locations, or places of seizure of the accused products, but exclude delivery locations arbitrarily chosen by the patentee or online shopping delivery addresses.
II. Standing to Sue and Litigation Parties
The Draft Interpretation elaborates on the scope of “interested parties” under the Patent Law. Exclusive licensees may independently initiate infringement actions, while sole licensees may sue jointly with the patentee or independently if the patentee declines to act. Non-exclusive licensees may sue only with explicit authorization from the patentee.
In addition, assignees may, upon authorization, bring infringement actions in their own name for acts occurring prior to the registration of patent assignment, subject to judicial review.
III. Patent Validity, Claim Amendments, and Coordination with Invalidity Proceedings
In disputes involving utility model or design patents, courts may require the patentee to submit a patent evaluation report. Failure to do so without justified reasons may result in dismissal of the action.
Where a patent claim is declared invalid or amended during the course of litigation, including at the appellate stage, the Draft Interpretation allows patentees to adjust the asserted claims accordingly before the close of court debate. Courts are required to conduct infringement analysis based on claims that remain valid and legally effective.
Patentees also bear an affirmative duty to timely inform courts of any invalidation or amendment decisions. Failure to do so may result in adverse procedural consequences.
IV. Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis
The Draft Interpretation further refines rules on claim interpretation, emphasizing prosecution history estoppel and the exclusion of technical solutions intentionally disclaimed during examination or invalidation proceedings.
It clarifies that technical features defined by function or effect do not constitute functional features where the claims implicitly or explicitly limit corresponding structures, components, steps, or relationships.
Importantly, if an accused technical solution adopts the same technical defect that the patented invention aims to overcome, courts should find that it falls outside the scope of patent protection.
Where technical terms remain indeterminate even after reference to claims, specification, prosecution history, and technical literature, courts are instructed to dismiss infringement claims based on such indeterminate claims.
V. Non-Infringement Defenses
The Draft Interpretation addresses several non-infringement defenses, including:
-
Prior art and prior design defenses, with specific rules on combinations of technical solutions disclosed in the same reference, and the combination of one document together with general common knowledge;
-
Prior application defense, where the accused solution is fully disclosed in an earlier application;
-
Legitimate source defense, under which sellers lacking required product identification are generally denied protection, and successful invocation of the defense may preclude claims for reasonable enforcement expenses.
Notably, while prior art defenses may be raised for the first time on appeal, they are excluded from review if raised only during retrial or adjudication supervision proceedings.
VI. Design Patent Infringement
For design patents, courts may determine the scope of protection by reference to brief descriptions and, where necessary, use-state reference images. Partial views of accused products may be used for comparison if an ordinary consumer can reasonably infer the remaining design features based on the product category.
VII. Malicious Patent Litigation and Liability
A significant highlight of the Draft Interpretation is its systematic treatment of malicious patent litigation. Filing infringement lawsuits with knowledge of lacking legal or factual basis, for the purpose of obtaining improper benefits, may give rise to tort liability.
The Draft Interpretation lists illustrative factors for determining malicious intent, including knowingly enforcing invalid patents, strategically filing lawsuits to disrupt financing or transactions, and other abusive practices. Courts are empowered to assess damages based on the degree of malice, causation, and actual harm.
VIII. Remedies, Damages, and Enforcement
The Draft Interpretation clarifies the retroactive effect of patent invalidation decisions and their impact on executed and unexecuted judgments. It also authorizes courts to impose delay performance penalties for non-monetary obligations, calculated flexibly based on time or quantity.
With respect to damages, courts are encouraged to support claims based on actual losses, infringer's profits, or reasonable multiples of licensing fees, provided that the patentee submits evidence allowing reasonable estimation.
Conclusion
Overall, the Draft Judicial Interpretation (III) represents a comprehensive and forward-looking refinement of China's patent infringement adjudication framework. It strengthens procedural discipline, enhances substantive predictability, and directly addresses strategic and abusive litigation behaviors. Once finalized, it is expected to have a significant impact on patent enforcement strategies for both domestic and international rights holders litigating in China.
Public comments on the Draft Interpretation are invited until February 2, 2026. For more information on the Draft Judicial Interpretation and instructions on how to submit public comments, please visit the Supreme People’s Court’s official website at:
https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/484511.html?sessionid=
undefined
Contact Us
No. 93, Ganjiang West Rd., Suzhou, 215002, P.R.C.
Business Area
Follow Us
