China: Three Supreme Court Cases On Pharmaceutical Patents

S Sam Li and Honghui Hu of Wan Hui Da – Peksung IP Group explain three important Supreme Court cases on pharmaceutical patents.

With some ten thousand cases a year, Chinese law on patent litigation is dynamic. Courts, particularly the Supreme People's Court (the Court), lead the advancement of the law. This article seeks to convey a sense of these developments through three key decisions.

The Simcere Case – amendment of patent claims

The Patent Law Article 33 limits amendments of patent claims to the original disclosure and scope of protection. The Patent Examination Guideline (the Guideline) only permits amendments if they can be directly and unambiguously determined from the original disclosure. It further limits the types of amendment to: deletion of claims, combination of claims and deletion of technical solutions within a claim. The Guideline's restrictive prescriptions and rigid applications give rise to broad dissatisfaction. From 2010, the Court has taken up eleven cases addressing issues involving amendments of claims to remedy the situation. The Simcere case is an example of their efforts.

Simcere Pharmaceutical held a patent for anti-high blood pressure formulations of amlodipine and irbesartan. In an invalidation proceeding, Simcere proposed to amend a claim establishing its formulation of "a pharmaceutical composition comprising a weight ratio of 1:10-30 of active ingredients amlodipine or its physiologically acceptable salt and irbesartan." The proposed amendment narrowed the ratio to simply 1:30. The Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) rejected the amendment because the ratio 1:30 cannot be directly and unambiguously determined from the original disclosure. The PRB's decision was maintained by the court of first instance but overturned by the court of second instance. The PRB petitioned the Court to review the case.

The Court permitted the amendment. It found the amended content in the original disclosure without applying the direct and unambiguous standard. Specifically, the Court opined that the ratio of 1:30 was disclosed in examples in the patent specification. The examples included an optimal combination of amlodipine over irbesartan as l:30 mg/kg, a dosage range of 2-10:50-300 mg and preparations with the two ingredients in weight relationships of 2.500:75.000 mg and 5:150 mg. The examples did not give an explicit description of a generally applicable ratio of 1:30. But examples could only describe specific weights. These weights are all consistent with the claimed ratio. To a person skilled in the art, the ratio is disclosed. The Court also stated that an inquiry into whether all weights corresponding to the ratio can fulfill the inventive purpose should be made under Article 26.4 instead of Article 33.

The Court recognized that the amendment was not a typical deletion of technical solutions. It however noted that the justification for limiting the types of amendments is to protect public reliance on claims and to prevent broadening of their scope, not to punish imperfect claim drafting. In this case, the amendment did not broaden the scope of the claim, it clarified it. The Court also stated that the list of permitted amendments in the Guideline is not exhaustive.

The Court's efforts have advanced rationales for practice concerning claim amendments. A newly released Guideline last month also reflects a more flexible approach. It states that "the specific types of amendments are generally limited to deletion of a claim, deletion of a technical solution, further limitation to a claim [by reciting features in other claims] and correction of an apparent error".

The Telier case – close-end claims

The Guideline allows two types of claims for compositions: open-end claims, typically with claim language like "comprising," and close-end claims, typically with claim language like "consisting of".

An open-end claim would cover a composition with the claimed components regardless of whether the composition also has other components, while a close-end claim would cover a composition with the claimed components only. The Guideline however does not bind courts and had not been expounded in the context of an infringement case. The Telier case for the first time construed a close-end claim in the context of a pharmaceutical composition – whether the addition of pharmaceutically inactive excipients would place a composition outside the scope of a close-end claim.

The case involved a patent covering a composition of lyophilized powder for injection consisting of adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride. The defendant's product had the two claimed ingredients but with an added inactive excipient of arginine, known to increase composition stability. It was added together with sodium carbonate in the formulation process and retained in the final product. Adding ingredients in the formulation process is common. The issue was whether such routinely added ingredients in the formulation process would place the resulting composition outside the scope of a close-end claim. The courts of the first and second instances both found infringement because the defendant failed to prove that the added excipient substantially affected the pharmaceutical function of the composition.

Before the Court, the patentee argued for infringement either because the accused product bore the essential features of the claim – containing the two active ingredients, or because it was equivalent to the claimed composition as the addition of arginine is routine in formulation processing.

Because the patentee's claim for the formulation was drafted as a close-end one, which did not include the added arginine, the Court took issue with it. It held that the practice of drafting close-end claims had been around since 1993, with consistent directives from the Guideline. It held that there was a public expectation that such a claim would not cover a composition with additional components. The patentee thus had a duty to know the terms of the art and should bear losses resulting from inappropriate claim drafting. Moreover, the doctrine of equivalence should not apply as it would defeat the purpose of close-end claims.

The decision in the Telier case holds a strict but clear construction of close-end claims for compositions. The case led to a provision in the Court's judicial interpretation of March 2016, directing courts not to find infringement of a close-end claim "unless the additional features are unavoidable impurities" and making the holding generally applicable.

The Lilly case

Low damages for infringement have been a perennial problem. The Patent Law prescribes four methods for damage determination: patentee's loss, infringer's gain, multiples of royalties and discretionary damages capped at Rmb1,000,000. Most cases use the last option due to lack of evidence and the underdevelopment of the other methods. Damages are critical to the pharmaceutical industry for sustaining innovation.

The Court has been leading efforts to increase damages by encouraging exploratory practices, such as imposing damages above the statutory cap and demanding production of financial information held by defendants, coupled with aggressive adverse inference. Consequently, sporadic large damage awards have appeared but reasoned guidance is wanting.

In this case, Lilly sued Watson for infringing its patented manufacturing process for olanzapine, an antipsychotic drug. The Jiangsu Higher People's Court found Watson infringing and ordered it to pay damages of Rmb500,000 for the period of infringement up to 2003. The decision was based on the fact that olanzapine was a "new product," and that Watson had failed to prove the difference of its manufacturing process. Although Watson asserted the use of its own process as filed with the regulatory authority, the court found that, according to a technical appraisal, the process did not work.

With infringement confirmed, Lilly then sued for damages resulting from Watson's use of the process between 2003 and 2011. Lilly gathered evidence from two sources. Based on a report assessing Watson's potential losses if it stopped manufacturing, Watson's monthly profit for selling olanzapine was about Rmb1,660,000 and the total profit for the relevant period was Rmb151,060,000. An extensive market investigation indicated that for the relevant period Watson had hospital sales of Rmb186,914,143, retail sales of Rmb64,975,343. Subtracting the cost of materials (Rmb86,522,830), the gross profit was Rmb165,366,656. Picking the lower of the two profit numbers, Lilly claimed damages of Rmb151,060,000.

The Jiangsu Higher People's Court awarded Lilly damages of Rmb3,500,000. Both parties appealed to the Court. Unfortunately, the Court did not address the damage issue. Instead, it re-opened the issue of infringement. Taking in new trade secret evidence submitted by Watson, the Court declared itself satisfied with Watson's assertion of using its own manufacturing process, different from the claimed process. We'll have to wait for another case for the Court's guidance on damage determination.

Courts are expected to play a leading role in IP protection. Future decisions will give further guidance as they provide specific context for the application of the statutory laws, which inevitably fall behind facts. The precedential value of cases is gaining recognition in China. The Court has required all decisions be made public promptly and encouraged the use of cases in judicial decision making. We expect more illuminating cases from courts, particularly the Court.

Originally published by Managing Intellectual Property.

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”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (please 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