One Product, Multiple Patent Infringements: China’s Supreme Court Clarifies the Rules

27 May 2026

By Kira Xia

A recent judgment of the Supreme People’s Court offers important clarification on a question that frequently arises in patent enforcement.

When a single product is found to infringe more than one patent held by the same owner, can that owner file separate lawsuits based on each patent and obtain multiple awards of damages for the same product?

The Court’s answer is nuanced.

In principle, Chinese law does not allow a right holder to get compensation more than once for the same loss. However, whether additional claims are barred depends on how the earlier judgment assessed damages, the method used to calculate damages, and whether the patentee’s loss has already been fully compensated.

The following article provides a brief analysis of the relevant judicial reasoning with reference to case (2021) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 932.

Background of the Case

The case concerned a vacuum printing machine that allegedly infringed both an invention patent and a utility model patent owned by the same company. The patentee initiated two separate lawsuits based on each patent.

In the earlier case concerning the invention patent, the Court awarded damages calculated on the basis of the full market value of the infringing product, without apportioning value between different patented technologies. The judgment fully supported the claimed amount.

In the later case concerning the utility model patent, the Court again confirmed infringement. At that stage, the real dispute was no longer whether infringement had occurred, but rather whether additional damages should be awarded after full compensation had already been granted in the earlier case.

This issue is of considerable practical significance in patent enforcement. In industries such as high-end equipment manufacturing, telecommunications, electronics, and machinery, a single product is often covered by multiple patents.

If unlimited cumulative damages were allowed for the same product, the total compensation awarded could substantially exceed the actual loss suffered.

On the other hand, completely barring subsequent claims could undermine the value of multi-patent protection strategies.

The case therefore reflects the Court’s effort to strike a balance between strengthening intellectual property protection and preventing excessive compensation.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Court ultimately declined to grant further compensation, reasoning that the earlier judgment had already covered the entirety of the loss caused by the infringing product.

In particular, damages in the earlier case had been calculated based on the overall market value of the infringing product, without deducting or apportioning the contribution of other patented technologies.

Under such circumstances, allowing another award would effectively result in double recovery for the same harm.

This reasoning reflects the fundamental principle of compensation in Chinese intellectual property law, which is to make the right holder whole rather than to provide an opportunity for cumulative recovery. Once the economic harm linked to a specific infringing act has been fully remedied, further claims for damages based on overlapping rights will generally not be supported.

Distinction Between Damages and Costs

At the same time, the Court drew a clear distinction between damages and reasonable enforcement costs. Although it rejected additional compensation, it still awarded legal expenses incurred in the second action. These costs were considered independent and necessary for enforcing a separate patent right, and therefore not duplicative of the earlier case.

In other words, even where damages are no longer recoverable, enforcement costs separately incurred for different patents, such as notarization fees, attorneys’ fees, and travel expenses, may still be recoverable, provided sufficient supporting evidence is submitted.

When Additional Claims May Still Be Possible

The judgment does not mean that “the same product can only be compensated once.”

In fact, the judgment also implicitly sets out the conditions under which subsequent claims may still succeed. If the earlier decision did not fully compensate the right holder, for example because damages were calculated based on a licensing fee or a partial contribution of the patented technology, additional claims may be justified to cover the remaining loss.

Similarly, if the later case concerns different products or new acts of infringement occurring after the first judgment, the bar on double recovery would not apply.

Particular attention should be paid to continued acts of manufacture or sale occurring after the earlier judgment, as such conduct constitutes new acts of infringement for which separate claims may still be brought.

Implications for Patent Owners

For patent owners, the decision highlights the importance of litigation strategy. Where multiple patents cover the same product, it may be more effective to rely on the strongest right, particularly one with greater stability and clearer infringement comparison, and seek damages based on the overall value of the infringing product in a single action. Fragmented litigation may increase costs without yielding additional financial recovery.

Careful consideration should also be given to how damages are calculated, since a full value assessment in one case may preclude further claims.

Implications for Defendants

For defendants, the ruling provides a clear line of defence. If they have already satisfied a judgment that fully compensates the right holder for a specific infringing product, they may rely on that decision to resist subsequent claims for additional damages. Proper documentation of prior judgments and their execution will be essential in such cases.

Conclusion

From a broader perspective, the decision illustrates the Chinese courts’ commitment to balancing effective intellectual property protection with fairness in compensation.

By preventing duplicative recovery, the Court reinforces the principle that patent enforcement is designed to address real economic harm rather than to create overlapping layers of liability.

This approach is consistent with international practice and contributes to greater predictability for both domestic and foreign businesses operating in China.

For both patent owners and alleged infringers, the decision provides valuable practical guidance.