On July 30, 2025, the Supreme People's Court of the P.R.C issued a Reply on the Application of Law in Cases Involving Patent Evaluation Reports (Fa Shi [2025] No. 25, hereinafter referred to as “the Reply”), which will be effective from August 1, 2025.
I. Nature and Content of the Reply
The Reply belongs to the judicial explanation by the Supreme People's Court of the P.R.C, which will take effective among all levels of Chinese courts from the date of effective. In the Reply, the Supreme People's Court indicated that:
“According to Article 66, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the patent evaluation report issued by the State Council's patent administration department serves as evidence in patent infringement dispute cases handled by the people's courts. If the patent evaluation report concludes that the patent in question does not meet the conditions for granting patent rights as stipulated by the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall not dismiss the lawsuit solely based on this conclusion. Instead, it should explain the matter in light of the specific circumstances of the case and render a judgment in accordance with the law.”
II. Similar Judicial Opinion by the Supreme Court in Recent Years
In the 2020 Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases, the case (2020) Supreme Court Min Zai 383 was cited to indicate a judicial opinion regarding the position of patent evaluation report in a civil lawsuit regarding infringement of utility model patent. In this case, the Supreme People's Court ruled that, “The patent evaluation report is "evidence for adjudicating or handling patent infringement disputes" and is not a mandatory document that the plaintiff must submit when filing a civil lawsuit for design patent infringement. Regarding whether the asserted patent should be invalidated, the patent evaluation report is only a reference and cannot replace the determinations of an administrative invalidation decision or related administrative rulings. Therefore, if the plaintiff fails to submit the patent evaluation report as required by the court but submits an administrative decision from the CNIPA affirming the validity of the asserted patent, the court should not dismiss the lawsuit solely on the grounds of the plaintiff's refusal to submit the patent evaluation report.”
In the 2024 Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases, the case (2024) Supreme Court Min Zai 244 was cited to indicate a judicial opinion regarding the position of patent evaluation report in a civil lawsuit regarding infringement of design patent. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, “In patent infringement dispute cases, the patent evaluation report can be used as one of the pieces of evidence in the trial. However, the validity of the involved patent should still be judged based on the patent grant documents and the effective decisions of the administrative department. In cases where the patent holder files an infringement lawsuit based on a valid patent, the mere negative conclusion of the patent evaluation report regarding the patent's non-compliance with statutory grant conditions should not be used to determine that the holder lacks the basis to exercise their right to sue, nor should it lead to the dismissal of their lawsuit.”
III. Conclusion
In China, since design patents and utility model patents are not subject to substantive examination, evidence proving the stability of a design patent or utility model patent is required before taking enforcement actions against infringement. Article 60, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law stipulates: "In patent infringement disputes involving utility model patents or design patents, the people's court or the patent administration department may require the patent holder or interested party to provide a patent evaluation report issued by the patent administrative department under the State Council, which includes retrieval, analysis, and evaluation of the relevant utility model or design, as evidence for trial or handling of patent infringement disputes."
In practice, some local courts have taken the positive results of patent evaluation reports as a prerequisite for accepting cases, leading to situations where lawsuits are not accepted by the court if the evaluation report yields negative results. Although the Supreme Court addressed this issue in its Annual Reports on Intellectual Property Cases in 2020 and 2024 by citing cases to correct such practices, some courts still fail to handle cases in accordance with the adjudication rules established by the Supreme Court.
The issuance of this judicial interpretation is of great significance for unifying the adjudication rules of courts at various levels across the country. It also helps ensure that holders of utility model and design patents can take civil litigation measures to protect their rights against infringement.
Annex: Full Content of Supreme People's Court Reply on the Application of Law in Cases Involving Patent Evaluation Reports (Fa Shi [2025] No. 11)
Fa Shi [2025] No. 11
Supreme People's Court
Reply on the Application of Law in Cases Involving Patent Evaluation Reports
(Adopted at the 1953rd meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on July 18, 2025, and effective as of August 1, 2025)
To the Guizhou High People's Court:
We have received your request for instructions on the application of law regarding patent evaluation reports (Qian Gao Fa Qing [2024] No. 1). After research, the reply is as follows:
According to Article 66, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the patent evaluation report issued by the State Council's patent administration department serves as evidence in patent infringement dispute cases handled by the people's courts. If the patent evaluation report concludes that the patent in question does not meet the conditions for granting patent rights as stipulated by the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall not dismiss the lawsuit solely based on this conclusion. Instead, it should explain the matter in light of the specific circumstances of the case and render a judgment in accordance with the law.
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.
