Administrative adjudication for patent infringement in China: a practical overview

As a cornerstone of China’s distinctive intellectual property (IP) framework, the administrative adjudication system for patent infringement disputes has assumed an increasingly critical role in the protection of patent rights. In cases of patent infringement, rights holders may not only pursue civil litigation through the courts but also initiate administrative adjudication procedures before the competent local IP offices.

Statistical data released by the CNIPA indicates a substantial rise in the administrative adjudication approach: the number of administrative adjudication cases for patent infringement disputes increased from 49,480 in 2021 to 72,072 in 2024, a 45.66% increase. Cases resolved through this mechanism span a wide range of technical sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, consumer goods, and advanced manufacturing.

Administrative adjudication offers several distinct advantages over judicial proceedings, including:

• Greater efficiency, with cases typically concluded within three months;

• Lower costs, as no official fees are charged by administrative authorities;

• Procedural flexibility, allowing for oral hearings or written review, with flexible communication methods; and

• Technical expertise, through the appointment of technical investigation officers in complex cases to assist in determining technical facts.

For example, in a patent infringement case Liu, Shen & Associates handled on behalf of a multinational company, the local IP office concluded proceedings and issued a ruling of infringement against a local company within a mere 45 days. The case was also recognised as one of the top 10 most representative cases of patent administrative protection in China for 2021.

Although the statutory timeline for administrative adjudication is three months, this period may be extended by one to two months for particularly complex cases where a conclusion within the standard timeframe is not practicable.

It is essential to emphasise that any party dissatisfied with the administrative ruling retains the right to file an administrative lawsuit with the competent court within 15 days from the date of receiving the administrative decision. Crucially, the initiation of such litigation does not suspend the enforcement of the administrative ruling. Consequently, where a finding of infringement has been made, the respondent is precluded from filing an administrative appeal as a ‘delaying’ tactic to postpone enforcement.

Jurisdiction over administrative adjudication generally lies with the local IP office where the alleged infringer is located or where the infringing act occurred. However, where a case involves significant public interest, has a material impact on industry development, or constitutes a major cross-provincial dispute, patentees may petition the CNIPA to upgrade jurisdiction as a major patent infringement case. In technically complex matters, local offices may also seek expert assistance from the CNIPA or engage in cross-department collaboration.

In another case Liu, Shen & Associates handled through administrative adjudication involving a pharmaceutical patent, the local IP office adopted a multi-tiered approach. It not only appointed a technical investigation officer but also enlisted experts from the national office and consulted external advisers, thereby providing the collegiate panel with the comprehensive expertise needed to resolve the matter.

Additionally, the IP office is vested with broad authority to investigate and collect evidence. In cross-regional cases, it can formally seek assistance from other local IP offices to execute specific evidence-gathering measures.

It should be noted, however, that the authority of the IP office is circumscribed by its statutory powers. While it is empowered to investigate and rule on infringement, ordering the respondent to cease the infringing acts, it is not empowered to determine damages.

Thus, while the procedure is well suited for patentees seeking to swiftly halt infringing activities and protect market share, those pursuing financial compensation may need to subsequently initiate court proceedings.

As an alternative, parties may reach a mediated or amicable settlement during the administrative procedure, achieving both injunctive and compensatory relief. Furthermore, upon their mutual application, the local court may grant judicial confirmation to the mediation agreement reached under the auspices of the local IP office. This process endows the agreement with the same compulsory effect as a court judgment for enforcement purposes.

In a notable administrative adjudication case Liu, Shen & Associates handled for a multinational client against a chemical company and an internet technology firm, mediation facilitated by the Beijing Intellectual Property Office led to a highly favourable outcome: the respondents promptly ceased all infringing activities, paid full compensation, and issued a public apology through an official media outlet.

This outcome not only achieved the client’s objectives of rapid enforcement and financial recovery but also served as a strong deterrent to potential infringers. The case was recognised as a 2023 Beijing Representative Case for optimising the business environment in the IP field.

Given its efficiency and procedural advantages, administrative adjudication has quickly become a favoured option for both domestic and international patentees. With continued accumulation of experience and innovative practices by administrative authorities across regions, the administrative adjudication system is expected to provide even better and faster protection of IP rights, effectively safeguarding the legitimate interests of rights holders.