By Linna Song
The Supreme People's Court of China has ruled against a patent holder who failed to disclose key developments during parallel administrative invalidation proceedings, calling the conduct a violation of litigation integrity and refusing to allow the case to be withdrawn.
Case Overview
The dispute concerned a folding fan patent. While pursuing infringement litigation in court, the patent owner (Company A) was also defending the patent in a CNIPA invalidation case.
During the CNIPA process, Company A amended its claims significantly narrowing the scope of the patent and the amended claims were approved. Crucially, Company A did not inform the trial court of these amendments, even though it had ample opportunity to do so before judgment.
The trial court decided the case based on the original claims. On appeal, the discrepancy came to light. The SPC viewed this as serious procedural misconduct.
Court’s Findings
The Supreme People's Court determined that Company A’s omission constituted a form of false representation that obstructed the judicial process. The Court cited both the Civil Procedure Law and the Patent Law, which require litigants to act in good faith and prohibit the abuse of rights, particularly when it may harm public interest or third-party rights.
Key points from the ruling include:
Failure to disclose revised claims: Company A’s submission of amended claims during the CNIPA proceedings substantially altered the legal basis of its infringement claims. Not reporting these changes misled the lower court and resulted in an erroneous judgment.
Pattern of behavior: Between 2020 and mid-2024, Company A had filed over 460 similar lawsuits across China, many targeting small online resellers rather than manufacturers. This litigious pattern raised concerns about possible over-enforcement or strategic abuse of patent rights.
Rejection of withdrawal requests: During appeal, both parties attempted to withdraw the lawsuit, citing a settlement. However, the Supreme Court refused, noting that the dispute raised issues of public interest and legal integrity that could not be resolved solely by the parties’ private agreement.
Sanctions forthcoming: The Court signaled that it would impose legal sanctions on Company A for intentionally misleading the court, citing it as a textbook example of “false statements that hindered judicial proceedings.”
Broader Implications
This case sets an important precedent for patent litigation conduct in China, especially in an era of increasingly complex parallel administrative and judicial proceedings.
The ruling clarifies that:
Patent owners must proactively update courts on relevant developments in parallel invalidation actions;
Failure to do so can not only undermine the validity of the case, but also expose the litigant to penalties;
Courts will take a more active role in ensuring patent rights are exercised fairly and transparently, especially when enforcement tactics appear excessive or abusive.
Practical Takeaways for Enforcement Teams
Implement Cross-Case Coordination Protocols: Litigation and administrative teams should share updates in real time.
Audit High-Volume Enforcement Campaigns: Ensure target selection and strategy can withstand scrutiny for proportionality and good faith.
Document all Procedural Communications: Maintain a clear record of all filings, amendments, and court notifications to demonstrate compliance.
Prioritize Good Faith Engagement: Avoid enforcement tactics that can be construed as “rights abuse,” especially when dealing with smaller market players.
Bottom line: The SPC has reinforced that rights enforcement in China must be both lawful and procedurally honest. For IP enforcement teams, this is a call to strengthen compliance frameworks and internal coordination to ensure enforcement campaigns survive both legal and reputational scrutiny.