China patent: China begins to establish state-level Patent Appellate Court

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

China patent: China begins to establish state-level Patent Appellate Court

On October 26 2018, the Sixth Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China passed the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Several Issues Concerning the Proceedings of Intellectual Property Rights and Other Intellectual Property Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the Decision), which made major adjustments to the current appeal mechanism for cases concerning patents and technical secrets. The Decision will take effect on January 1 2019. It will definitely have a significant and far-reaching impact on the trials of China's burgeoning number of technical cases.

Intellectual property cases before Chinese courts concern patents, trade marks, copyrights, trade secrets, computer software, layout design of integrated circuits, new varieties of plants, and unfair competition. These cases comprise both civil and administrative cases, and they could be further classified as technical cases and non-technical cases according to current Chinese judicial practices. They are currently handled differently. As far as civil cases are concerned, the first instances of technical cases are mainly tried by the three special IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the 16 IP tribunals in Shenzhen, Suzhou, Changsha, Tianjin, Xi'an and other main cities across the country, as well as IP divisions of other intermediate courts. The appellate cases arising therefrom would then be tried by high courts (the IP divisions of those high courts). Administrative cases, which are cases concerning the grant and validity of patents, new plant varieties and integrated circuit layout designs, are heard by the Beijing IP Court and then the second instances go to Beijing High Court.

The Decision will greatly change the above-mentioned trial regime concerning technical cases. The regime will change in the following ways:

1) Civil cases appealed by parties who are not satisfied with the first instance judgment concerning patents (including patent invention and utility model, but not design), new plant varieties, integrated circuit layout designs, technical secrets, computer software and antitrust matters shall be tried by the IP tribunal of the Supreme People's Court.

2) Administrative cases appealed by parties who are not satisfied with the first instance judgment made by the Beijing IP court concerning the administrative decision on patents (including patent invention, utility model and design), new plant varieties and integrated circuit layout designs shall be tried by the Supreme People's Court.

3) The retrial of judgments, rulings, and mediations of the above-mentioned cases that have already taken legal effect shall be conducted by the IP division of the Supreme People's Court.

4) In order to meet the needs of this new trial mechanism, it is said that the Supreme People's Court shall establish a new trial department, the IP tribunal, within it.

In sum, this new trial mechanism will change the trial mechanism of technical cases from a decentralised mode to a centralised mode. It is worth noting that the Decision has not made any changes to the trial mechanism for civil cases concerning designs, probably due to the sheer number of such cases and because they are not of significant technical nature.

The new trial mechanism will have the following major and positive effects.

Firstly, it is conducive to unifying and standardising the scale of refereeing. Moving from a decentralised trial mode to a centralised trial mode means it is possible to better unify the scale of case refereeing and achieve similar results in similar cases. Moreover, having the same court hear administrative cases and civil cases involving particular patents, the two major procedures concerning patent rights and their enforcement, can be well coordinated, which is conducive to solving the long existing inconsistency in patent validity procedure and patent infringement procedure, improving the quality and efficiency of IP trials, and effectively improving judicial credibility.

Secondly, it helps to create a good business environment. Such a unified trial mechanism for technical cases is conducive to strengthening the equal protection of IPRs of Chinese and foreign companies, promoting a friendly business environment, which emphasises openness, transparency, and the rule of law.

Thirdly, it is conducive to stimulating and protecting technological innovation. Such a unified trial mechanism for technical cases can give full play to the role of IP trials, providing incentives and protections to innovations, promoting scientific and technological progress and social development, optimising the rule of law for technological innovations, and helping the implementation of innovation-driven development strategies.

According to the relevant provisions of the Decision, the new mechanism will be implemented on January 1 2019. After implementation for three years, the Supreme People's Court shall report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the experience and problems of implementing this new mechanism, and suggest improvements for the mechanism. We do not rule out the possibility that the Supreme People's Court will then propose to establish an independent IP appellate court. Let's wait and see.

liu

wu

Nick Liu

Li Wu


AnJie Law Firm26/F, Tower D, Central International Trade Center6A Jianguomenwai Avenue, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022, PR ChinaTel: +86 10 8567 5988Fax: +86 10 8567 5999wuli@anjielaw.comwww.anjielaw.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article