Patent infringement litigation in China: SPC rulings signal refined approach

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

Patent infringement litigation in China: SPC rulings signal refined approach

Sponsored by

Liu Shen logo.png
Themis statue

Hongbo Jia of Liu, Shen & Associates examines recent Supreme People’s Court cases that reshape Chinese patent litigation in addressing damages, patent validity, and pre-litigation injunctions, with important implications for multinational businesses

China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has recently issued a series of landmark patent decisions that reshape how infringement disputes are litigated and enforced. These rulings offer valuable insights for multinational businesses: they not only clarify damages calculation and the interplay between validity and infringement but also strengthen pre-litigation injunction practice.

Below, three representative cases illustrate these developments.

Evidence-based damages: the phytase enzyme case

Key takeaway: The SPC clarified that when the main facts and conditions for calculating infringement damages are already in place, the court should determine the amount of compensation by calculating the profits obtained by the infringer due to the infringement based on the evidence in the case, rather than applying statutory damages.

In Zhi Min Zhong No. 761 (2024), Nanjing Bestzyme sued Hunan Longsen and others for unauthorised production and sales of phytase, an enzyme used in animal feed. The first-instance court held that the plaintiff had not proved actual losses, the defendants’ profits, or licensing royalties. On this basis, it applied statutory damages, awarding CNY 1 million, after considering factors such as the patent’s status as an invention patent, the defendants’ acts of manufacturing and selling, the product’s pricing, the duration of infringement, and Bestzyme’s enforcement costs.

On appeal, the SPC upheld the CNY 1 million compensation but corrected the method of calculation. The SPC found that the sales volume and unit price of the infringing products had already been established, and although profit margin data was incomplete, it could be reasonably determined based on available evidence. Therefore, the case met the threshold for adopting an infringer’s profit-based approach. The SPC emphasised that even if the patentee agrees to statutory damages, courts should prioritise calculating damages based on actual losses or the infringer’s gains rather than mechanically applying statutory damages.

Patent validity and execution reversal: the foldable stand case

Key takeaway: The SPC confirmed that when a patent is later invalidated, damages already paid under an infringement ruling may be refunded through execution reversal. Importantly, even payments made before invalidation can be reversed – by applying Article 47(3) of the Patent Law in light of fairness principles – to ensure equal treatment of early and late payers.

The SPC provided groundbreaking guidance on how invalidation decisions interact with previously executed infringement rulings in Zhi Min Zai No. 1 (2024).

The dispute involved a utility model patent for foldable phone stands. In 2021, the lower court ordered two defendants to pay the following damages:

  • Company A (manufacturer) – CNY 30,000; and

  • Company B (dealer) – CNY 2,000.

In November 2022, the CNIPA declared the patent invalid for lack of novelty, and the decision became final. The key issue was whether funds already paid – or later paid – under the earlier judgment should be refunded.

Company A’s delayed payment (after invalidation)

Company A initially resisted enforcement but paid CNY 30,000 in October 2024 to lift a consumption restriction order that blocked loan applications. The SPC clarified that this situation does not fall under the exceptions in Article 47(2) of the Patent Law, which generally prevents the retroactive effect of invalidation on executed judgments.

Instead, under Article 244 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 65 of the SPC’s Provisions on Several Issues concerning Court Enforcement, the court may initiate an execution reversal. Accordingly, the patentee was ordered to return the funds already obtained, plus interest. This ensures that defendants forced to pay under an invalidated patent are not unfairly disadvantaged.

Company B’s early payment (before invalidation)

Company B voluntarily paid CNY 2,000 in March 2022, seven months before the invalidation decision. Traditionally, under Article 47(2) of the Patent Law, such payments would not be reversed, because invalidation was considered non-retroactive for judgments already executed. This rule often led to unfair outcomes: compliant defendants that paid early bore irreversible losses, while those that delayed payment could recover funds after invalidation.

In this case, however, the SPC highlighted the principle of fairness and chose to actively apply Article 47(3) to authorise execution reversal. The court reasoned that equal protection of the legitimate rights of early and late payers must prevail, and refusing reversal here would effectively “punish good faith compliance”.

Pre-litigation injunctions: the robot vacuum case

Key takeaway: The SPC adopted a cautious stance on pre-litigation injunctions in patent disputes, stressing that urgency, factual clarity, and proportionality must be strictly satisfied.

In June 2024, Dreame obtained a pre-litigation injunction from the Quanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, barring Roborock from selling two robot vacuum models during the “618” online shopping festival. The court found a high likelihood of infringement and an urgent need to prevent irreparable harm.

Roborock sought reconsideration before the SPC, which overturned the injunction within ten days – the first decision under a new review mechanism. The SPC held that Dreame’s application did not meet the “urgency” requirement, since the alleged infringement had existed for months and damages could be compensated monetarily. The court also emphasised that the likelihood of infringement was not sufficiently clear, and the balance of interests did not favour granting the injunction.

This ruling not only clarified the strict criteria for pre-litigation injunctions in patent cases but also showcased the SPC’s ability to deliver swift relief through the new reconsideration procedure.

Key takeaways from the rulings

These three rulings reveal a common theme: the SPC is clarifying the evidentiary and procedural framework of patent litigation. Courts now favour concrete market data over discretionary statutory damages, integrate validity outcomes into enforcement with an eye to fairness, and conduct stricter scrutiny of pre-litigation injunctions with expedited review, balancing innovation protection against business continuity.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new foundation in Chile is giving women in the IP community the mentorship, and visibility they’ve long lacked
The EUIPO is keen to stress the benefits of mediation as a means of resolving IP disputes, but do roadblocks remain?
Åsa Gustafson, global patent paralegal manager at Zacco, provides insight into the world of a paralegal, explains how she keeps abreast of legal developments, and reveals a passion for weaving
Alif Gultom and Andrew Diamond of Januar Jahja and Partners explain why Indonesia must adopt reforms against bad-faith filings and safeguard its trademark system for the future
In the third episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the ‘Women in IP’ network and the current state of diversity within the profession
Practitioners, including two ex USPTO directors, say the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act could restore clarity and predictability to US patent law, though concerns remain
News of an alliance between two Malaysian law firms and the launch of a self-help video aimed at supporting IP professionals through menopause were also among the top talking points
Speakers at the EUIPO’s IP Mediation Conference discussed how lawyers can act in tandem with clients during mediation, and the importance of showing a united front
A report that revealed top legal LinkedIn influencers are generating hundreds of thousands in advertising value is the push lawyers need to up their social media presence
Speakers at the EUIPO’s Mediation Conference say mediation can offer a ‘cathartic’ and effective alternative to litigation that IP owners should consider
Gift this article