Chinese companies may not have home-court advantage

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Chinese companies may not have home-court advantage

A new report suggests that foreign plaintiffs in IP cases are winning at higher rates in Chinese courts than Chinese rights holders, notwithstanding long-standing concerns about bias in favour of domestic enterprises

According to a study from Thomson Reuters, in cases since 2006 involving foreign plaintiffs and Chinese defendants, the plaintiff won approximately 75% of the time. Meanwhile, Chinese plaintiffs facing Chinese defendants only prevailed 63% of the time.

Foreign plaintiffs also generally received higher statutory compensation- the mean award was slightly over Rmb 200,000 ($32,300) in cases with foreign rights holders, as opposed to about Rmb 120,000 for Chinese patent holders.

Though this data does not conclusively refute concerns of domestic bias in Chinese courts (for example, the difference in quality in patents held by international versus domestic companies may help to explain the higher rates of success), it does demonstrate the complexity of the issue.

Other interesting tidbits from the report:

· While more Chinese patent applications are directed at data processing systems than any other category, inventors are also filing many patents in categories such as digital information transmission, pharmaceuticals, alkaloids/plant extracts and polymer applications. In fact, filings from Chinese inventors hold nearly 80% of global applications for inventions involving alkaloids and plant extracts, about 60% of applications for general pharmaceutical activities and more than half of all patents involving polymerisation and polymer chemical modification.

· The report noted that in 2008, each Chinese patent in the data processing category received on average 1.17 forward citations. Though this is notably lower than US patents in this field (6.72 forward citations per patent), it is comparable to Japanese patents (1.82 forward cites), Europe (1.31 forward cites) and South Korea (0.76 forward cites). Data processing is the most active field for Chinese patent filers, and forward citations is one metric that some use to evaluate patent quality.

· Patent applications in China increased by 16.3 percent between from 2012 to 2013, with similarly large increases each year since 2009. However, filings by foreign applicants stayed relatively flat during this period, and thus making up a smaller portion of total patent filings in China.

The full report, "China’s Innovation Quotient – Trends in Patenting and the Globalisation of Chinese Innovation", can be found here.



 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article