China: Patentee’s Burden Of Proof In Infringement Case Involving Patented Process For Obtaining New Product 3M Company v. Zhejing Daoming Investment Co., Ltd.(Article No. 12 From "China Patent Case Review 2014" By Beijing East IP Ltd.)

Retroreflective Article and Method of Making the Retroreflective Article

3M Company v. Zhejing Daoming Investment Co., Ltd.- Patentee's Burden of Proof in Infringement Case Involving Patented Process for Obtaining New Product (Civil Judgment (2011) Hu Gao Min San (Zhi) Zhong Zi No.73 by Shanghai High People's Court on May 2, 2012)

According to Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Chinese Patent Law (2009), a patentee may choose to shift its burden of proof for infringing process to the defendant when the patented process is for obtaining new product. However, to take use of such convenience, the patentee has to satisfy some preconditions. This case illustrates that the patentee have to submit preliminary evidence regarding "new product." Based on this case, this article will discuss all the preconditions for application of Article 61, Paragraph 1 with an overview.

3M Company (hereinafter "3M") owns a Chinese invention patent (No. ZL95193042.7) named as "Retroreflective Article and Method of Making the Retroreflective Article". 3M sued Zhejing Daoming Investment Co., Ltd. (formerly Zehjiang Daoming Reflective Material Co., Ltd., hereinafter "Zhejinag Daoming" ) for its products infringing Claims 1, 17 and 19 and the manufacture process infringing Claim 10 of its patent.

Claim 10 is the method of making the retroflective article as claimed in the same patent. Regarding the infringement upon Claim 10, the Court requires 3M to provide evidence to prove that its patented process is for obtaining a new product. Since 3M petitions to shift the burden of proof to Zhejiang Daoming. 3M and the Court differs as follows:

3M argues that the No. 15959 Invalidation Decision of the Chinese Patent Review Board (the PRB) rendered on December 27, 2010 maintained the validity of the patent. Such decision has confirmed the novelty and inventiveness of the patent and fulfils the burden of proof regarding new product. Since Zhejiang Daoming does not furnish proof showing that its manufacture process is different from the patented process, the infringement should be established.

The Court of the first instance held that: to shift the burden of proof, the patentee has to satisfy some preconditions. In this case, the PRB's decision cannot waive the 3M's submission of such evidence. The patentee still needs to prove its product or the manufacture process has not been known by the public prior to the application date of the patent. Since 3M does not provide the evidence regarding its new product, the burden of proof for infringement cannot be shifted to Zhejiang Daoming. 3M should bear the unfavorable consequences of no infringement.

Thus, the Court of the first instance held that the infringement of Zhejiang Daoming based on claim 10 is not established due to lack of evidence. The court of the second instance affirmed.


First, according to Article 61, Paragraph 1, of the Chinese Patent Law (2009), where any infringement dispute relates to an invention patent for a manufacture process of a new product, the defendant manufacturing the identical product shall provide proof to show that the process of the product is different from the patented process. Based on this provision, there are two preconditions to the application of this Article: the infringement involves "new product," and the sued infringer manufactured the "identical product."

The first question is what kind of product should be deemed as "new"?

According to Rule 17 of Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent issued by the Supreme People's Court (SPC), if the product or the manufacture process thereof has been known to the public, the people's court should not deem such product as new product under Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Chinese Patent Law (2009). In view of this, the patentee must establish that the product or the manufacture process thereof has not been known to the public. Common practice tells us the proof of such non-occurrence is difficult to provide as there usually has no evidence left for submission. In light of the foregoing, the difficulty in proof of "new product" is obvious.

In 2012, the SPC's retrial case for Xi'an Qinbang v. Wuxi Longsheng has given more practical opinions.1 The SPC held that: if the manufacture process brings the resulted product's new structural feature(s) which is/are different from the similar product prior to the application date of the patent, the resulted product should be deemed as new product in Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the Chinese Patent Law (2001).2

In Guidelines for Judgment on Patent Infringement issued by the Beijing High People's Court in September, 2013 (hereinafter BHPC's Guideline), opinions are provided regarding "new product" which refers to the product first manufactured and has significant difference in terms of composition, structure, or quality, property and function from the similar products prior to the application date of the patent.

Regarding the "new product," we are of the view that some aspects below may deserve attention:

  1. "New product" does not share the same meaning of "novelty" of patentability. With reference to the Article 34, Paragraph 1 for shift of burden of proof and Article 27, Paragraph 1 for patentability of the Agreement On Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Right (TRIPS), both use "new" instead of different words.3 However, in a piece of document from the WIPO in 1986 regarding Article 24 of Patent Law Treaty (similar to Article 34, Paragraph 1 of TRIPS4), it indicates that "new product" means absolute (worldwide) sense but does not necessarily have the same meaning as the term 'new' in the context of novelty and in particular, the product pending but not yet published patent application should not be deemed as lacking novelty for the purpose of the "reversal of the burden of proof."5
  2. The comparison standard for novelty may be used as reference in judging "new product." Although, BHPC's Guideline sets forth that the difference between "new product" and the similar products prior to the application date of the patent should be "significant," in the retrial case of Xi'an Qinbang v. Wuxi Longsheng, the SPC held that "different" fulfils.

    Considering the practicability, it may be easier to take use of the comparison standard regarding the examination of novelty. If the standard for "new product" was set higher than that for "novelty," it would be complicated to judge what kind of "significant difference" should be recognized and it may involve the examination of "inventiveness." However, we are of view that, the application of Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Chinese Patent Law (2009) should not be dependent on the "significance" of difference of the patented product from the similar products or the inventiveness thereof.
  3. What kind of evidence could serve as "preliminary evidence"? It is worth noting that the patent's validity in this case had been maintained by the PRB. However, the Court did not waive 3M's burden of proof for submission of "preliminary evidence."

According to the PRB's invalidation Decision No. 15959, it is Zhejiang Daoming filing the invalidation request based on the ground such as inventiveness, lack of clarity. Although novelty is not raised as an argument, a patent should have novelty if it is deemed as inventiveness. We are of the view that the burden to submit such "preliminary evidence" should not be too strict, because it is easier for the defendant to provide rebuttable evidence. Thus, to exclude the PRB from using the "preliminary evidence" in invalidation decision remains for the public's discussion.

In addition, a judge comments in his article (not regarding this case) that, a patentee could submit a Search Report, and the Court may judge based on preponderance of evidence in favor of the patentee.6 Besides, for a patent involving drug, the patentee could consider submitting the court documents and materials to China Food and Drug Administration for new drug approval.

Second, a patentee should notice the difficulty of proof for manufacture of "identical product" under some circumstances.

In the SPC retrial case of ZHANG Xitian v. Ouyi Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. in 2010,7 the SPC decides that: when deciding whether a process patent is the patent of manufacture process for new product, it should be based on "the product directly obtained by the patented process." "The product directly obtained by the patented process" is the original product obtained by the patented process and does not include the product obtained by further process of the original product.

In the case of ZHANG Xitian v. Ouyi Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., "D-Tartrate of S-(-)-Amlodipine in combination of one DMSO-d6" is the product directly obtained by the process of Claim 1. Although, ZHANG Xitian provides the evidence proving the defendants manufactured Amlodipine Maleate and its tablets with S-(-)-Amlodipine as raw material, he cannot submit the evidence that the defendants manufactured "D-Tartrate of S-(-)-Amlodipine in combination of one DMSO-d6" ("D-Tartrate of S-(-)-Amlodipine in combination of one DMSO-d6" is a kind of intermediate for manufacture of S-(-)-Amlodipine). Thus, the SPC rejected Zhang Xitian's petition for his failure to prove the defendants manufactured the identical product with the product directly obtained by the patented process. The burden of proof shall not be shifted to the defendants even if the defendant's process is different from the patented process.

From the retrial case above, we understand that the patentee needs not only to prove the product directly obtained by the patented process is a "new product," but also to prove that the defendant manufactured "identical products" instead of "the product using the identical products." Another article indicates that the case of ZHANG Xitian v. Ouyi Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. limited the application of Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Chinese Patent Law (2009).8 In accordance with this case, if the product directly obtained by the patented process ("original product") is the intermediate for a drug, it is hard to discover whether the sued infringing product contains the intermediate. Even if it is confirmed by technical analysis that the intermediate is contained, it is still hard to prove that the defendant manufactured the intermediate.

Based on the above, the convenience under Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the Chinese Patent Law (2009) is still open for observation in practice and the concepts and standard for this provision need to be further clarified. Patentee should not overlook its own burden of proof regarding "new product" and "manufacture of the identical product."


1.Xi'an Qinbang Telecom Material Co., Ltd. v. Wuxi Longsheng Cable Material Co., Ltd., SPC (2012) MinTi Zi No.3 (August 24, 2012).

2.The Chinese Patent Law (2001) applied in this retrial case has been amended in 2008 and Article 57, Paragraph 2 thereof corresponds to the Article 61, Paragraph 1 of the current Chinese Patent Law (2009).

3.Article 34, Paragraph 1:...Therefore, Members shall provide, in at least one of the following circumstances, that any identical product when produced without the consent of the parent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process: (a) if the product obtained by the patented process is new....

Article 27, Paragraph 1: Patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.

4.Nuno Pires de Carvalho, The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights, Kluwer Law International, 2005, P386.

5."It appears that the term 'new' is meant in the absolute (worldwide) sense but does not necessarily have the same meaning as the term 'new' in the context of novelty as a condition of patentability (see paragraph 52). In particular, products which are the subject of pending but not yet published patent applications and which therefore are considered as prior art in respect of subsequent patent applications (see document HL/CE/III/2 Supp. 3), do not seem to be treated as lacking novelty for the purposes of the reversal of the burden of proof.", WIPO document HL/CE/III 2 Supp. 4 of November 27, 1986, from Nuno Pires de Carvalho, The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights, Kluwer Law International, 2005, P386.

6.Jun TAO, The recognition of new product and allocation of burden of proof in infringement case of process patent. Intellectual Property Right Daily, 2013-09-11, Page 008.

7.ZHANG Xitian v. Ouyi Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., et. al., SPC (2009)Min Ti Zi No. 84 (September 9, 2010)

8.Huaiwen HE, "Extended protection" and reversal of burden of proof in respect of patented process for obtaining new product: comments on the Supreme People's Court's review of Zhang Xian Case, China Patents and Trademarks No.2, 2011, Page 3-10.

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.

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.