Supreme Court: After First-Instance Infringement Finding, Preliminary Injunction Generally Should Be Maintained

The Supreme People's Court has issued rulings in two cases concerning applications for reconsideration of preliminary injunctions in patent infringement disputes, clarifying an important legal standard:

When a court, after trial, issues both a first-instance judgment ordering the defendant to cease infringement and a preliminary injunction ordering immediate cessation of the infringing acts, the factual and legal basis for the injunction is relatively strong because the case has already been subject to substantive hearings. At the reconsideration stage, the preliminary injunction should generally be maintained unless the respondent provides countervailing evidence or sufficiently strong reasons demonstrating that the conditions for granting the injunction are not met.

Two companies based in Suzhou (the plaintiffs), holders of two invention patents, filed lawsuits against two other companies (the defendants) for selling products that allegedly infringed their patents. The plaintiffs also applied for preliminary injunctions during the proceedings.

After trial, the court of first instance found infringement and ordered the defendants to immediately stop the infringing acts, awarding the plaintiffs a total of CNY 5 million in damages and reasonable enforcement costs. On the same day, the court issued preliminary injunctions ordering the defendants to immediately cease offering for sale, selling, and importing the accused infringing products, with the injunctions to remain in effect until the first-instance judgment became final. The plaintiffs provided CNY 10 million in cash security for each case. The defendants, dissatisfied with the preliminary injunctions, applied to the Supreme People's Court for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court, after trail, held that although the first-instance court had found infringement and ruled that the defendants should bear civil liability for cessation of infringement, the judgment would not take effect immediately, leaving the defendants free to continue the infringing acts. To promptly stop the ongoing harm to the right holders' legitimate interests, the court may, upon the parties' application or on its own initiative where necessary, take separate preliminary injunction measures.

Where the court issues a judgment ordering cessation of infringement and a preliminary injunction ordering immediate cessation simultaneously, the case has already undergone substantive hearings, giving the injunction a relatively strong factual and legal basis. At the reconsideration stage, the preliminary injunction should generally be maintained unless the respondent produces countervailing evidence or sufficiently strong reasons demonstrating that the conditions for the injunction are not met.

First, the preliminary injunction has a factual and legal basis. The patents in question are invention patents that have been upheld through invalidation proceedings, demonstrating their stability. At the preliminary injunction stage, it is not necessary to establish with certainty that the accused technical solutions fall within the scope of the patent claims. The defendants' objections were insufficient to show that the accused products clearly fell outside the patent scope. Given that the first-instance court had already found infringement, the injunction application could be considered to have a factual and legal basis.

Second, failure to grant the preliminary injunction would cause irreparable harm. The accused products directly compete with the patented products. Continued infringement would not only erode market share and depress prices but also undermine the plaintiffs' exclusive rights and first‑mover advantage. In addition, if the infringing acts continue, the flow of infringing products becomes difficult to trace, especially when they are used as intermediate components in end products, making enforcement of the final judgment harder and potentially requiring separate litigation for new acts of infringement. Furthermore, the products in question have a short technology lifecycle. If the court waits until a final appellate ruling, the accused products may already have exited the market, rendering the cessation order meaningless.

Third, regarding the balance of harms favors, the first-instance court had already ordered the defendants to cease infringement. As honest market participants, the defendants should respect the judgment and the plaintiffs' patents. Continuing infringement would only enlarge the plaintiffs' losses. The harm to the plaintiffs from not granting the injunction clearly outweighs the harm to the defendants from granting it.

Fourth, public interest and security. The accused products are not public goods and do not involve public health, environmental protection, or other significant public interests. Alternative products are available on the market for consumers to choose. Therefore, granting the preliminary injunction does not harm the public interest. Moreover, the plaintiffs have provided sufficient cash security.

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendants' reconsideration applications and affirmed the preliminary injunctions issued by the court of first instance.

This ruling reflects the judiciary's commitment to strengthening intellectual property protection and supporting the development of new quality productive forces. It underscores the practical value of preliminary injunctions in promptly stopping infringement after first-instance judgments and effectively safeguarding right holders' legitimate interests.