Supreme People's Court's 2025 Judicial Interpretation Reshapes the Enforcement Landscape
In July 2025, the Supreme People's Court issued Judicial Interpretation No. 11 [2025] (https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4545.html) to guide local courts in handling patent disputes. This interpretation formally clarifies the legal status of patent evaluation reports and grants them nationwide binding effect. It states:
when a patent evaluation report concludes that the patent in question does not meet the statutory requirements for patentability, "the people's court shall not dismiss the case solely on that basis. The court must consider the specific circumstances of the case, provide clarification, and render judgment in accordance with the law".
Effective from August 1, 2025, this interpretation establishes that patent evaluation reports serve only as reference evidence in assessing patent validity and are not a prerequisite for filing or initiating litigation. The regulation clarifies how local courts should handle patent infringement cases involving the submission of patent evaluation reports and negative conclusions, thereby enhancing transparency and consistency in judicial applications.
1. Overview of the Patent Evaluation Report System
Under China's patent framework, utility model and design patents are granted without undergoing substantive examination, which often leads to questions about the stability and validity of the rights conferred. To address this structural challenge, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) established the patent evaluation report system. Upon request by the patent holder, an interested party, or the alleged infringer, CNIPA conducts a prior art search and in-depth analysis to issue a technical opinion on the validity of the patent.
In practice, patent evaluation reports are frequently misunderstood as binding legal judgments on patent validity. As the number of patent infringement cases continues to rise, the role of evaluation reports in judicial proceedings has become increasingly prominent, highlighting the need for clearer legal interpretation and guidance. In particular, when a report yields a negative conclusion, whether courts should still accept the case has become a focal point of legal debate.
2. Patent Evaluation Reports Are Not Administrative Decisions
Building on the previous discussion of the patent evaluation report system, it is important to further clarify the legal nature of these reports and their role within administrative and judicial proceedings.
Patent evaluation reports are issued by the CNIPA upon request. They are technical documents generated through prior art searches, analysis, and evaluation of utility model or design patents. Under the current Patent Law and its implementing regulations, these reports are neither administrative decisions nor judicial rulings. Their conclusions are not legally binding and cannot serve as direct grounds for invalidating a patent.
If a requester believes the report contains errors, they cannot seek relief through administrative reconsideration or litigation. However, CNIPA allows the requester to submit a correction request within two months of receiving the report, along with supporting evidence and explanatory materials. CNIPA may choose to correct or partially revise the report's conclusions or decline to make any changes. Notably, for patent holders, failure to clarify validity through this process means they must wait for a future invalidation proceeding initiated by a third party to present further arguments and evidence.
3. Patent Evaluation Reports Are Not Mandatory Submissions
According to the relevant provisions of the Patent Law, when a patent holder files an infringement lawsuit involving a utility model or design patent, the people's court or the administrative authority in charge of patent affairs may request the submission of a patent evaluation report. This wording confirms that the report is not mandatory. However, in earlier judicial practice, some courts interpreted "may" as "must," leading to situations where refusal to submit the report resulted in the court declining to docket the case or outright dismissing the lawsuit.
In practical application, the Guangdong High People's Court made a clear statement in the 2018 design patent infringement case (Yue Min Zhong No. 2282), made a clear statement in response to the accused infringer's claim that the first-instance court had violated procedural rules by not requiring the patentee to submit a patent evaluation report. The court held that when the patent holder has already submitted the patent certificate, proof of annuity payment, and other materials, which sufficiently demonstrating the patent's valid status, the court should grant legal protection in accordance with law without mandating the submission of the evaluation report. (https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=NFoBqWrxrKSmCsWN06lrMtc/fK+boJqkxz2yJfusprkbY5FqYWE5OZ/dgBYosE2gItm7+Mif3GsM+jkpDQOLXvsWX87jgw5u0DzKypYpmUwYW4TbO7OegtC83B2afXyI)
This case further confirms that such reports are not a prerequisite for initiating litigation or resolving infringement disputes, and courts may exercise discretion based on the specific circumstances.
To unify judicial standards, the Supreme People's Court issued the 2020 judicial interpretation titled Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases, which states:
"If the plaintiff fails to submit the patent evaluation report without justifiable reason, the people's court may rule to suspend the proceedings or order the plaintiff to bear potential adverse consequences."
This provision emphasizes the court's discretionary power to impose consequences for non-submission, rather than establishing a mandatory requirement.
Additionally, to improve the system and expand the scope of applicability, the fourth amendment to the Patent Law in 2020 formally included alleged infringers as eligible parties to request a patent evaluation report. This revision fills a procedural gap in adversarial litigation, allowing defendants in utility model or design patent cases to proactively request technical assessments to support their defense.
4. The Multifaceted Influence of Patent Evaluation Reports
As a bridge between patent validity assessment and infringement dispute resolution, the patent evaluation report plays a pivotal role in enforcement practice. Although its conclusions are not legally binding, the report holds significant reference value across multiple domains, including judicial adjudication, administrative enforcement, commercial operations, and public perception.
(1) Judicial enforcement impact
In patent infringement litigation, courts may refer to the contents of evaluation reports but must not base their judgment solely on the conclusions. Even if the conclusion is unfavourable, the patent holder retains the right to pursue legal action. However, if the patent holder fails to respond proactively, the court may suspend proceedings pending the outcome of a patent invalidation process. In some specific scenarios, the plaintiff may be deemed to have engaged in malicious litigations.
(2) Administrative enforcement impact
In cases handled by local intellectual property offices involving utility models or design patents, the evaluation report is often treated as core evidence, influencing whether a case is accepted and how efficiently it is processed. Similarly, when applying to customs for recordation of intellectual property rights, the submission of such reports with a positive conclusion is typically required to facilitate successful recordation and enable the subsequent seizure of suspected infringing goods.
On e-commerce platforms such as Taobao, JD.com, and Pinduoduo, patent holders initiating infringement complaints are generally required to submit a patent evaluation report to prove the validity of their rights. A positive conclusion in the report is often a prerequisite for launching such complaints.
(3) Commercial operations impact
In the process of registering for open patent licensing, patent holders must submit a patent evaluation report with a positive conclusion to signal that the patent is stable and safe for implementation.
Moreover, in patent pledge financing or mergers and acquisitions, banks and investment institutions routinely request patent evaluation reports. A negative conclusion may significantly reduce the patent's valuation or even cause the transaction to fail.
(4) Public perception impact
As a publicly available technical document issued by CNIPA, a patent evaluation report can be accessed and copied by anyone. Its conclusions carry social influence, potentially shaping public perception of the patent's stability and the credibility of the patent holder. This impact should not be underestimated.
In summary, while a patent evaluation report is not legally decisive, it remains a key reference across judicial, administrative, and commercial contexts.
5. Patent Holders Should Be Well-Prepared and Proactive
Given the multifaceted influence of patent evaluation reports, it is recommended that holders of utility model or design patents take the following measures before requesting a patent evaluation report or initiating enforcement actions, in order to reduce the risk of receiving a negative conclusion:
- Engage professional firms to conduct a patent stability assessment and anticipate the likely outcome of the evaluation report.
- If the report contains obvious errors or flawed conclusions, submit a correction request within two months of receipt, accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence and legal arguments.
- Proactively submit the evaluation report during enforcement or litigation to avoid adverse presumptions by the court due to non-submission.
- Even if the report is unfavorable, patent holders may still lawfully initiate infringement proceedings and should not abandon enforcement efforts.
- In cases of negative conclusions, supplement the record with expert opinions, validity statements, and other supporting materials to enhance the credibility of the patent's stability.
Conclusion
While patent evaluation reports are not legally binding, they remain a critical technical reference issued by CNIPA and play an indispensable role in patent enforcement. Before requesting such a report, patent holders should conduct a thorough internal assessment and prepare for the possibility of an unfavorable outcome.
Furthermore, future legislative reforms should consider enhancing procedural safeguards by allowing greater interaction between patent holders and CNIPA. For example, once a preliminary analysis is formed, patent holders should be given the opportunity to respond and provide supplementary explanations regarding the scope of protection. This would help ensure procedural fairness, strengthen the credibility of the report's conclusions, and uphold the rights of patent holders and other stakeholders.
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.
