By Royal Hu
Few patents in China’s history have been tested as relentlessly as the so-called magnetic repulsion suspension device owned by Hengyi Technology Co., Ltd. Over an extraordinary span of 11 years, this patent (ZL200610065336.1) was challenged for invalidation 12 times.
For the first ten rounds, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) upheld its validity. But in early 2025, the streak ended: two new invalidation decisions finally revoked the patent on the grounds of lack of inventiveness.
This story is more than a quirky legal statistic. It illustrates deeper issues at the intersection of innovation, mass enforcement, and abuse prevention in China’s evolving patent system.
What Was at Stake?
The patent covered a magnetic suspension device that used repelling ring magnets to keep objects afloat while enabling horizontal rotation without additional mechanisms. The invention was marketed as offering novel visual and decorative effects, with applications in toys, gifts, and advertising.
From a technical standpoint, CNIPA’s invalidation panels eventually concluded that although the device had distinguishing features compared to prior art, these differences were either disclosed in other technical documents or were common knowledge. Thus, the device was deemed “obvious” and lacking the “significant substantive features” required under Chinese patent law.
Litigation and Mass Enforcement
The administrative saga is only one side of the story. On the judicial front, this patent became the basis for dozens of infringement lawsuits. Public records reveal at least 81 published court judgments, many of which reached the Supreme People’s Court.
Hengyi Technology adopted what some observers call a “selfie stick” enforcement model: filing multiple lawsuits nationwide against manufacturers, distributors, and even small-scale retailers. In six Supreme Court cases alone, the company sued in courts across Fuzhou, Zhengzhou, Shenzhen, Shanghai, and beyond.
Patterns in litigation:
Nationwide reach: suits were filed in numerous jurisdictions, showing a strategy of widespread enforcement.
Infringement findings: most first-instance courts consistently found infringement. However, compensation outcomes varied.
Damages awarded: claims ranged from RMB 100,000 to 1 million. Courts sometimes granted modest compensation (e.g., litigation costs of RMB 1,500), while in one repeat infringement case, damages reached RMB 500,000, the full amount requested.
Defendants often argued that Hengyi targeted peripheral actors instead of pursuing the true manufacturing source, a strategy reminiscent of earlier “selfie stick patent” disputes that drew criticism for flooding courts with fragmented lawsuits.
Why This Case Matters
1. Testing the Boundaries of Patent Validity
Few patents survive so many invalidation attempts. The fact that this one was repeatedly upheld before eventually being overturned highlights the subjectivity and evolving standards in assessing inventiveness at CNIPA.
2. The Problem of Mass Enforcement
The litigation pattern raised concerns about strategic enforcement, where rights holders sue numerous small distributors rather than targeting upstream manufacturers. Courts have since emphasized “source-based enforcement” to reduce unnecessary litigation and judicial resource waste.
3. Balancing Protection and Abuse
This saga reflects the broader challenge China faces: encouraging innovation and rewarding patentees, while preventing over-enforcement or abusive litigation that undermines confidence in the system.
Lessons for Innovators and Businesses
For Patentees: Holding a patent is only half the battle. Enforcement strategies matter. Overly aggressive litigation may backfire, leading courts to emphasize proportionality and fairness.
For Businesses: Even patents that seem weak can be actively enforced for years. Companies should monitor high-volume litigants, prepare non-infringement and prior art defenses, and consider collective strategies to counter excessive lawsuits.
For Policymakers: This case illustrates why guidance encouraging enforcement against sources of infringement, rather than countless downstream players, is essential for efficiency and fairness.
Conclusion
The “magnetic suspension device” patent story shows how one piece of intellectual property can spark a decade-long tug of war across both administrative and judicial arenas. It reflects a transitional period in China’s IP enforcement landscape, where the system is simultaneously protecting innovation and refining mechanisms to curb abuse of rights.
As China continues to strengthen its patent system, the balance between encouraging innovation, ensuring fair competition, and preventing litigation abuse will remain a central theme, closely watched by both domestic innovators and international businesses alike.