China: Recent Court Decisions

In China, industrial design is governed by the patent law. The design patent system is popular in China mainly because a patent right can be granted quickly and at a relatively low cost, as design patents are not subjected to substantive examination. In 2011, over 522,000 applications for design patents were filed in China. That amounts to about one third of the total filings for all three types of invention-creations (i.e. inventions, utility models, and designs). At the same time, infringement and other contentious matters based on design patents are also on the rise, as people are increasingly using the court and administrative system to resolve their disputes. Accordingly, court proceedings in connection with design patents are becoming more numerous, including both patent infringement cases and administrative appeal actions challenging invalidation decisions made by the Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office. We will discuss some of the recently reported decisions to help give readers a better idea of recent developments in the Chinese design patent system.

1. Fen WU v. Zhejiang Wanfeng Ceramics

The decision on the infringing activity in Fen WU v. Zhejiang Wanfeng Ceramics was recently issued by the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province.In this case, the design at issue relates to a set of stackable cups. As can be seen from the pictures below, the patented design and the alleged infringing design are identical in shape, while the alleged infringing design also includes pattern and color.

Patented Design Alleged Infringing Design

According to the Chinese Patent Law, "the extent of protection of the patent right for design shall be determined by the design of the product as shown in the drawings or photographs". This means that all the elements of the design shall be considered when its scope of protection is determined. As can be seen from the above pictures, the alleged infringing design is obtained by adding pattern and color to the patented design. Although the difference in the overall visual effect of the two designs is remarkable, it would obviously be unfair to the patent owner and undermine the spirit and effectiveness of patent law if the defendant could escape liability by making such simple modifications to the patented design.

In order to properly apply the patent law and clarify how patent infringement should be determined, the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases" was released on December 28, 2009. Article 11 of the Interpretation confirms that "when determining whether designs are identical or similar, the people's court shall consider [...] the overall visual effect of the design to make a comprehensive judgment", and also emphasizes that "the overall visual effect of a design is usually more affected by technical features of a patented design which are distinct from those of the existing designs (i.e. "point of novelty") as opposed to other design features of the patented design".

The Supreme People's Court places heavy emphasis on the "point of novelty" because industrial design in the sense of patent law is regarded as intellectual property of an innovative type, and what is entitled to patent protection is the "design scheme" of the product, which may consist of several design features. Unless authorized by the patentee, others are prohibited by patent law from exploiting identical or similar design schemes for commercial purposes. For this reason, a patent is infringed if the alleged infringing product as a whole misappropriates (reproduces or imitates) the design scheme of the patent.

In this lawsuit, it was determined that the shape of the product should be preferentially considered in judging patent infringement because the design patent does not claim color protection and contains no pattern, and a regular consumer, based on his knowledge and cognitive ability, would realize with no doubt that the alleged infringing design misappropriated the design scheme, especially the shape (being one of the three basic elements of a design, the shape of a product is to some extent independent from the pattern and color of the product), of the patented design when the two designs are observed as a whole. Therefore, the court determined that the two designs are similar to each other and the defendant is liable for patent infringement.

As discussed above, the infringing design was obtained by making modifications and improvements on the patented design. Although the exploitation of the patented design is barred by the design patent, it is theoretically possible for the infringing design to apply for a patent and obtain protection, for example based the pattern and/or color of the design.

2. Kewan Ltd. v. the PRB

This administrative appeal case was finally decided by the Supreme People's Court in December of 2008. The facts of this case are as follows: on August 6, 2002, Kewan applied for five design patents entitled "Dyeing Machine (J, K, L, M, N)" before the Chinese Patent Office. The five designs are similar but not identical. The patents issued on these designs were later revoked by the PRB in accordance with Paragraph one, Rule 13 of the 2001 edition of the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law, which provides that "for any identical invention-creation, only one patent right shall be granted".

The issue of this case was how "identical invention-creation (identical design)" should be defined. The first-instance court upheld the invalidation decision of the PRB and elucidated in its ruling that "identical design" includes situations where two or more designs are either identical or similar. The second-instance court overturned the lower court's decision and concluded that for two or more patent applications filed by the same entity on the same day, "identical design" should not cover the situation where the two or more designs are similar. The Supreme People's Court decided to hear this case and found that under the then current legal framework, "identical design" should include situations where two or more designs are either identical or similar, regardless of who the applicant is. The invalidation decision of the PRB was eventually maintained.

The decision issued in Kewan Ltd. v. the PRB triggered many discussions in the profession and general public. Since it is common for applicants to develop a series of similar designs for the same product at the same time and put them into the market, law makers and practitioners realized that there is a need to establish a mechanism to protect these similar designs. Highly influenced by this case, in the 2009 edition of the Chinese Patent Law, Article 31 was amended to allow "two or more similar designs for the same product" to be filed as one application. This case is just one example of how decisions made in such cases have tremendous impact on legislation.

3.Honda v. the PRB

4.Wanfeng Motorcycle Wheel Ltd. v. the PRB

There are many similarities between these two cases. They are both administrative appeal cases concerning design patents and they were both heard by the Supreme People's Court in 2010. More importantly, they both raised the question as to how the judgment of identity or similarity between two designs is affected by the "degree of freedom" in creating the design. Despite the similarities between these two cases, their outcomes were very different: the court reversed the invalidation decision in Honda v. the PRB but sustained the invalidation decision in Wanfeng Motorcycle Wheel Ltd. v. the PRB.

By analyzing these two cases together, one can see that the "degree of freedom" is influential on the similarity judgment and affected by the following factors: limitations on the function of the product, limitations on the manufacturing process, difficulties in creating the design, and state of the prior designs.

In addition to addressing the "degree of freedom" issue, the decision of Honda v. the PRB also specified the basic principle of "holistic observation and comprehensive determination". More specifically, the expression "holistic observation" is not equivalent to "approximate observation" or "observation of contour". Instead, it means that all elements in a design should be considered. The judgment should be a comprehensive determination based on the observation.

5. Yingde WEI v. the PRB

Yingde brought an administrative lawsuit against the PRB before the Beijing Intermediate People's Court after receiving an invalidation decision from the PRB declaring Yingde's design patent invalid in view of the disclosures in a Chinese utility model patent. As shown in the below table, Figs. 18A and 18B of the utility model patent displayed a floating member 72 used in an infusion device, the floating member comprising a cylindrical body and two bosses 723 formed at the opposite ends surrounding the body. In addition, the written description of the utility model mentions that "six bosses may be symmetrically provided at the periphery of the cylindrical body of the floating member". The court confirmed the PRB's decision and held that the drawings in the utility model patent, together with the text in the description thereof, have disclosed a design that is similar to the patented design. It can be concluded from this case that not only drawings or photographs but also a written description of a technical solution can depict the content of a design.

6.Gaohua ZHANG v. the PRB

The subject matter of this administrative lawsuit is actually not a design patent, but a Chinese utility model patent. However, a design patent was cited by the PRB as a "prior art" against the inventiveness of a claim in the subject utility model patent, which directs to a wall-mounted fold out chair. In this case, the court ruled that based on the drawings (shown below) of the design patent, a person skilled in the art cannot determine directly and unambiguously that "grooves are provided on the wall fixture" and "one end of each supporting rod is connected with the wall fixture by being inserted into the grooves, the upper surface of which braces the supporting rods", as recited in the utility model claim. The court therefore overturned the PRB's decision.

Prior art (a published design)

Based on the decision in this case, it seems that, at least in theory, a design can be cited as "prior art" against a utility model or even an invention patent. In other words, a technical solution can be disclosed by drawings or photographs without any description. However, according to the decision, the contents of disclosure of a design only include the technical features which can be derived directly and unambiguously from the drawings or photographs of the design, but not contents inferred therefrom.

Other notable decisions

In many recently reported decisions, such as Ping CHEN v. the PRB, Foshan Nanhai Carlos Integrated Electrics Ltd. v. the PRB, and Guangdong Zhenghan Pharmacy Ltd. v. the PRB, the long recognized principle that "the presence of a minute and partial difference between two designs will not have a substantial influence on the overall visual effect of the designs" is confirmed. However, in Jinhua Yahu Tools Ltd. v. the PRB, the aforementioned principle was proven to not always be true. In the decision of this case, the court held that "the change in the shape of the upper part of the handles of the telescopic rods in a foldable cart only creates a minute and partial difference in the overall appearance. However, as this part is very easily observed and noticed by consumers when the cart is in use, it should not be concluded that said difference has no substantial influence on the overall visual effect of the design".

Qingsong ZENG v. the PRB case is also notable because in this case the Beijing Intermediate People's Court confirmed in its decision that "an evidence showing the existence and effectiveness of a prior right is sufficient to satisfy Paragraph three, Rule 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law, which requires submission of evidence showing conflicts between the patent right at issue and the prior right". That is to say that the party requesting for patent invalidation only needs to demonstrate the existence and effectiveness of a prior right and is free from the responsibility of proving the conflicts.

Although the patent law is still a relatively new concept in China, with a history of less than 30 years, the Chinese people are embracing the concept and actively participating in the system, as can be seen from the increased amount of patent filings and court proceedings. Industrial designs are a very active part of the Chinese patent system. Although China does not have a case law system and the above-mentioned decisions are not binding, these decisions may be of great influence and value as reference for future cases. The decisions made in these cases may also lead to amendments of relevant laws and regulations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
Beijing Lantai Partners
Chofn Intellectual Property
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
Beijing Lantai Partners
Chofn Intellectual Property
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions