In a significant procedural ruling, China’s Supreme People's Court has overturned prior judgments in a case involving a prominent technology company, ordering the matter to be sent back to the first-instance court for continued trial. The case offers new and important judicial clarification on the evidentiary role of patent evaluation reports in utility model patent infringement litigation.
Background of the Case
The litigation involved a well-known Chinese laser radar (lidar) company alleging infringement of a utility model patent. The lower courts initially dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds, citing insufficient evidence—particularly the absence or perceived inadequacy of a patent evaluation report.
However, in a recent retrial decision, the Supreme People’s Court disagreed with the lower court rulings and reversed them. The case has now been sent back to the first-instance court for substantive examination.
Key Takeaway from the Supreme Court
The Supreme People’s Court clarified a critical point of law: a patent evaluation report is not a prerequisite for filing an infringement lawsuit based on a utility model patent.
“Where the patent is valid at the time of the alleged infringement, the patentee has the right to initiate a civil lawsuit. The outcome of the patent evaluation report has no bearing on this procedural right.”
This ruling underscores the non-mandatory nature of patent evaluation reports under Chinese law, reaffirming that:
A patent evaluation report is an evidentiary tool, not a condition for litigation;
Its function is limited to providing reference value regarding the presumed stability or vulnerability of a utility model patent;
It cannot replace a formal invalidation decision issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) or a relevant administrative judgment.
Legal Significance
Utility model patents in China are not subject to substantive examination before grant, which has historically led to questions about their enforceability. The patent evaluation report—an expert opinion issued by CNIPA on a utility model’s novelty, inventiveness, and utility—was often perceived as a quasi-threshold requirement for initiating litigation.
With this decision, the Supreme Court clearly repositions the report as supporting evidence, not a procedural gatekeeper, ensuring that patentees are not unduly barred from seeking judicial protection of valid rights.
This ruling is expected to reduce procedural challenges for utility model patent holders and clarify strategies for both patentees and defendants in litigation involving such patents.
Broader Implications
This decision strengthens procedural clarity and enhances confidence in China's judicial treatment of utility model rights. It reinforces that validity disputes should be resolved through the administrative invalidation system, rather than prematurely terminating civil claims due to procedural misunderstandings about evaluation reports.