Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's ProcuratorateJudicial Interpretation No. 5 [2025](Adopted at the 1947th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on April 7, 2025, and at the 51st meeting of the 14th Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on April 11, 2025, effective from April 26, 2025)In order to punish crimes of intellectual property rights infringement in accordance with the law and to safeguard the order of the socialist market economy, this interpretation is hereby provided on several issues concerning the application of law in handling criminal cases of intellectual property rights infringement, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and other laws, and in combination with judicial practice:Article 1Where a person uses a trademark identical to the registered trademark on the same kind of goods or services without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "the same kind of goods or services" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law:(1) The name of the goods actually produced and sold by the actor or the name of the services actually provided is the same as the name of the goods or services for which the registered trademark of the right holder is approved for use;(2) Although the names of the goods are different, they are the same or essentially the same in terms of function, purpose, main ingredients, consumer group, sales channels, etc., and the relevant public generally considers them to be the same kind of goods;(3) Although the names of the services are different, they are the same or essentially the same in terms of the purpose, content, manner, object, place of the services, etc., and the relevant public generally considers them to be the same kind of services.In determining "the same kind of goods or services," a comparison shall be made between the goods or services for which the registered trademark of the right holder is approved for use and the goods actually produced and sold or the services actually provided by the actor.Article 2 A trademark that is completely identical to the counterfeited registered trademark, or that is essentially indistinguishable from the counterfeited registered trademark and is sufficient to mislead the relevant public, shall be deemed as "a trademark identical to the registered trademark" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law. Any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as a trademark that is essentially indistinguishable from the counterfeited registered trademark and is sufficient to mislead the relevant public:(1) The font of the registered trademark, the case of the letters, or the horizontal or vertical arrangement of the characters is changed, and it is essentially indistinguishable from the registered trademark;(2) The spacing between the characters, letters, numbers, etc. of the registered trademark is changed, and it is essentially indistinguishable from the registered trademark;(3) The color of the registered trademark is changed, but it does not affect the manifestation of the distinctive features of the registered trademark;(4) Only the generic name or model number of the goods, which lacks distinctive features, is added to the registered trademark, and it does not affect the manifestation of the distinctive features of the registered trademark;(5) It is essentially indistinguishable from the 3D mark and the two-dimensional elements of the 3D registered trademark;(6) Other circumstances that are essentially indistinguishable from the registered trademark and are sufficient to mislead the relevant public.Article 3 Where a person uses a trademark identical to the registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law:(1) The amount of illegal gains is more than 30,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations is more than 50,000 yuan;(2) Counterfeiting two or more registered trademarks, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 20,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 30,000 yuan;(3) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 213 to 215 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 20,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 30,000 yuan;(4) Other circumstances that are considered serious.Where a person uses a trademark identical to the registered trademark on the same kind of services without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law:(1) The amount of illegal gains is more than 50,000 yuan;(2) Counterfeiting two or more registered trademarks, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 30,000 yuan;(3) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 213 to 215 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 30,000 yuan;(4) Other circumstances that are considered serious.If a person counterfeits both the registered trademarks of goods and services, and the amount of illegal gains from counterfeiting the registered trademarks of goods does not meet the standard stipulated in the first paragraph of this Article, but the combined amount of illegal gains from counterfeiting both the registered trademarks of goods and services reaches the standard stipulated in the second paragraph of this Article, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law.If the amount of illegal gains or the amount of illegal business operations reaches ten times or more of the corresponding standards stipulated in the first three paragraphs of this Article, it shall be deemed as "particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law.Article 4 Where a person sells goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, and any of the following circumstances exist, it may be deemed as "knowingly" as stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law, except when there is evidence proving that the person indeed did not know:(1) Knowing that the registered trademark on the goods being sold has been altered, replaced, or covered;(2) Forging or altering the authorization documents of the trademark registrant, or knowing that such documents have been forged or altered;(3) Having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, and again selling the same kind of goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks;(4) Purchasing or selling at a price that is significantly lower than the market price without a legitimate reason;(5) After being discovered by administrative law enforcement agencies or judicial authorities for selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, transferring, destroying evidence such as infringing goods, accounting vouchers, or providing false proof;(6) Other circumstances that can be deemed as knowingly selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks.Article 5 Where a person knowingly sells goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, and the amount of illegal gains is more than 30,000 yuan, it shall be deemed as "a relatively large amount of illegal gains" as stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law; and any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law:(1) The sales amount is more than 50,000 yuan;(2) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 213 to 215 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 20,000 yuan, or the sales amount being more than 30,000 yuan;(3) The counterfeit registered trademarks goods have not been sold, but the value of the goods reaches three times or more of the sales amount standards stipulated in the first two items of this paragraph, or the sales amount of the goods that have been sold is less than the standards stipulated in the first two items of this paragraph, but the combined value of the goods that have been sold and the goods that have not been sold reaches three times or more of the sales amount standards stipulated in the first two items of this paragraph.If the amount of illegal gains, sales amount, value of goods, or the combined amount of sales and value of goods reaches ten times or more of the corresponding standards stipulated in the preceding paragraph of this Article, it shall be deemed as "a huge amount of illegal gains or other particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 214 of the Criminal Law.Article 6 Where a person forges or manufactures without authorization the identification marks of another person's registered trademarks, or sells the forged or manufactured identification marks of registered trademarks, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 215 of the Criminal Law:(1) The number of identification marks is more than 10,000 pieces, or the amount of illegal gains is more than 20,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations is more than 30,000 yuan;(2) Forgery, unauthorized manufacture, or sale of forged or manufactured identification marks of two or more registered trademarks, with the number of identification marks being more than 5,000 pieces, or the amount of illegal gains being more than 10,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 20,000 yuan;(3) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 213 to 215 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the number of identification marks being more than 5,000 pieces, or the amount of illegal gains being more than 10,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 20,000 yuan;(4) Selling identification marks of registered trademarks manufactured illegally by others, where the number of identification marks that have not been sold reaches three times or more of the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph, or the number of identification marks that have been sold is less than the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph, but the combined number of identification marks that have been sold and those that have not been sold reaches three times or more of the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph;(5) Other circumstances that are considered serious.If the number of identification marks, the amount of illegal gains, or the amount of illegal business operations reaches five times or more of the corresponding standards stipulated in the preceding paragraph of this Article, it shall be deemed as "particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 215 of the Criminal Law.Article 7 The term "two or more registered trademarks" referred to in this interpretation means two or more registered trademarks that identify different sources of goods or services. If different registered trademarks are used on the same kind of goods or services but all point to the same source of goods or services, they shall not be deemed as "two or more registered trademarks."The term "piece" of registered trademark identification referred to in this interpretation generally means an identification mark with a complete trademark design. For identification marks printed on a single tangible carrier with multiple trademark designs that cannot be used separately from the carrier, they shall be deemed as one piece of identification mark.Article 8Where a person commits the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law, and also sells the goods bearing the counterfeited registered trademarks, constituting a crime, the person shall be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 213 of the Criminal Law for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks.Where a person commits the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks stipulated in Article 213 of the Criminal Law, and also sells goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks of others knowingly, constituting a crime, multiple crimes shall be punished concurrently.Article 9Any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "counterfeiting another person's patents" as stipulated in Article 216 of the Criminal Law:(1) Forgery or alteration of another person's patent certificate, patent documents, or patent application documents;(2) Without permission, marking another person's patent number on the products or product packaging that are manufactured or sold;(3) Without permission, using another person's patent number in contracts, product descriptions, or advertisements and other promotional materials, causing others to mistakenly believe that it is the invention, utility model, or design of the other person.Article 10 Where a person counterfeits another person's patents, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 216 of the Criminal Law:(1) The amount of illegal gains is more than 100,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations is more than 200,000 yuan;(2) Causing direct economic losses of more than 300,000 yuan to the patent holder;(3) Counterfeiting two or more patents of others, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 50,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 100,000 yuan;(4) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for counterfeiting another person's patents, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 50,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 100,000 yuan;(5) Other circumstances that are considered serious.Article 11 Where a person commits acts of infringing upon copyright or rights related to copyright without obtaining the authorization of the copyright holder, the producer of sound recordings or video recordings, or the performer, or forges or alters the authorization documents, or exceeds the scope of the authorization permit, it shall be deemed as "without the permission of the copyright holder," "without the permission of the producer of sound recordings or video recordings," or "without the permission of the performer" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law.A natural person, legal person, or non-legal person organization that is usually credited on the works or sound recordings or video recordings stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law shall be presumed to be the copyright holder or the producer of sound recordings or video recordings, and the corresponding rights exist on such works or sound recordings or video recordings, unless there is contrary evidence.In cases involving a large number of works or sound recordings or video recordings with dispersed right holders, if there is evidence proving that the involved works or sound recordings or video recordings are illegally published, reproduced, distributed, or disseminated to the public through information networks, and the publishers, reproducers, distributors, or disseminators through information networks cannot provide relevant evidence materials proving that they have obtained the permission of the copyright holder, the producer of sound recordings or video recordings, or the performer, it may be deemed as "without the permission of the copyright holder," "without the permission of the producer of sound recordings or video recordings," or "without the permission of the performer" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law. However, this does not apply if there is evidence proving that the right holder has abandoned the rights, the copyright of the involved works or the relevant rights of the sound recordings or video recordings or performers are not protected by the copyright law of our country, or the term of right protection has expired.Article 12Where a person, without the permission of the copyright holder or the holder of rights related to copyright, both reproduces and distributes, or reproduces for the purpose of distribution, the works or sound recordings or video recordings, it shall be deemed as "reproduction and distribution" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law.Where a person, without the permission of the copyright holder or the holder of rights related to copyright, provides to the public by wire or wireless means, enabling the public to obtain the works, sound recordings or video recordings, or performances at the time and place of their own choosing, it shall be deemed as "dissemination to the public through information networks" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law.Article 13 Where a person commits the acts of infringing upon copyright or rights related to copyright stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, and the amount of illegal gains is more than 30,000 yuan, it shall be deemed as "a relatively large amount of illegal gains" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law; and any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law:(1) The amount of illegal business operations is more than 50,000 yuan;(2) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 217 and 218 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 20,000 yuan, or the amount of illegal business operations being more than 30,000 yuan;(3) The combined number of copies (sheets) of reproducing and distributing others' works or sound recordings or video recordings is more than 500;(4) The combined number of works, sound recordings or video recordings, or performances disseminated to the public through information networks is more than 500 pieces (parts), or the number of downloads reaches more than 10,000 times, or the number of clicks reaches more than 100,000 times, or the dissemination is carried out through a membership system with the number of registered members reaching more than 1,000;(5) Although the amount or quantity does not reach the standards stipulated in items (1) to (4) of this paragraph, but reaches more than half of the standards of two or more items respectively.If a person knowingly provides devices or components mainly used to circumvent or destroy technical measures, or provides technical services for circumventing or destroying technical measures for others who commit the crime of copyright infringement, and the amount of illegal gains or the amount of illegal business operations reaches the standards stipulated in the preceding paragraph, criminal responsibility shall be pursued for the crime of copyright infringement.If the amount or quantity reaches ten times or more of the corresponding standards stipulated in the first two paragraphs of this Article, it shall be deemed as "a huge amount of illegal gains or other particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law.Article 14 Where a person knowingly sells infringing copies stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, and the amount of illegal gains is more than 50,000 yuan, it shall be deemed as "a huge amount of illegal gains" as stipulated in Article 218 of the Criminal Law; and any of the following circumstances shall be deemed as "other serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 218 of the Criminal Law:(1) The sales amount is more than 100,000 yuan;(2) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 217 and 218 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, with the amount of illegal gains being more than 30,000 yuan, or the sales amount being more than 50,000 yuan;(3) The combined number of copies (sheets) of selling others' works or sound recordings or video recordings is more than 1,000;(4) The infringing copies have not been sold, but the value of the goods or the number of infringing copies reaches three times or more of the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph, or the sales amount and quantity of the sold infringing copies are less than the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph, but the combined value of the sold infringing copies and the value or quantity of the unsold infringing copies reaches three times or more of the standards stipulated in the first three items of this paragraph.Article 15 Where a person commits the crime of copyright infringement stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, and also sells the infringing copies, constituting a crime, the person shall be convicted and punished in accordance with Article 217 of the Criminal Law for the crime of copyright infringement.Where a person commits the crime of copyright infringement stipulated in Article 217 of the Criminal Law, and also sells infringing copies of others knowingly, constituting a crime, multiple crimes shall be punished concurrently.Article 16 Where a person obtains trade secrets by means of illegal copying, it shall be deemed as "theft" as stipulated in the first item of Article 219 of the Criminal Law; obtaining trade secrets by using computer information systems without authorization or exceeding the scope of authorization shall be deemed as "electronic intrusion" as stipulated in the first item of Article 219 of the Criminal Law.Article 17 Where a person infringes upon trade secrets, and any of the following circumstances exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 219 of the Criminal Law:(1) Causing losses of more than 300,000 yuan to the holder of the trade secrets;(2) The amount of illegal gains from infringing upon trade secrets is more than 300,000 yuan;(3) Within two years, after having been subject to criminal or administrative punishment for acts stipulated in Articles 219 and 219-1 of the Criminal Law, the person commits the act again, causing losses or the amount of illegal gains of more than 100,000 yuan;(4) Other circumstances that are considered serious.If the infringement of trade secrets directly leads to the bankruptcy or closure of the holder of the trade secrets due to major operational difficulties, or the amount reaches ten times or more of the corresponding standards stipulated in the preceding paragraph of this Article, it shall be deemed as "particularly serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 219 of the Criminal Law.Article 18 The "amount of losses" caused by the infringement of trade secrets stipulated in this interpretation shall be determined in accordance with the following methods:(1) If trade secrets of the right holder are obtained by improper means and have not yet been disclosed, used, or allowed to be used by others, the amount of losses may be determined according to the reasonable licensing fee of the trade secrets;(2) If trade secrets of the right holder are obtained by improper means and then disclosed, used, or allowed to be used by others, the amount of losses may be determined according to the profit losses caused to the right holder by the infringement, but if the amount of losses is less than the reasonable licensing fee of the trade secrets, it shall be determined according to the reasonable licensing fee;(3) If trade secrets are disclosed, used, or allowed to be used by others in violation of the obligation of confidentiality or the requirements of the right holder regarding the protection of trade secrets, the amount of losses may be determined according to the profit losses caused to the right holder by the infringement;(4) If a person knowingly obtains, discloses, uses, or allows others to use trade secrets that have been obtained by improper means or disclosed, used, or allowed to be used in violation of the obligation of confidentiality or the requirements of the right holder regarding the protection of trade secrets, the amount of losses may be determined according to the profit losses caused to the right holder by the infringement;(5) If the infringement of trade secrets leads to the trade secrets becoming known to the public or lost, the amount of losses may be determined according to the commercial value of the trade secrets. The commercial value of the trade secrets may be determined by taking into account factors such as the research and development costs of the trade secrets and the benefits obtained from implementing the trade secrets.The profit losses caused to the right holder by the infringement as stipulated in items (2) to (4) of the preceding paragraph may be determined by multiplying the total reduction number of products sold by the right holder due to the infringement by the reasonable profit per product of the right holder; if the total reduction number of products sold by the right holder cannot be determined, it may be determined by multiplying the number of infringing products sold by the reasonable profit per product of the right holder. If the trade secrets are used for services or other business activities, the amount of losses may be determined according to the reasonable profit losses caused to the right holder by the infringement.The remedial costs incurred by the holder of the trade secrets to mitigate the losses to business operations or business plans or to restore the security of computer information systems or other systems shall be included in the losses caused to the holder of the trade secrets.Article 19 The "amount of illegal gains" stipulated in this interpretation refers to the value of the property or other property interests obtained by disclosing or allowing others to use the trade secrets, or the profit obtained by using the trade secrets. The profit may be determined by multiplying the number of infringing products sold by the reasonable profit per infringing product.Article 20 Where a person steals, spies on, buys, or illegally provides trade secrets to foreign institutions, organizations, or individuals, and any of the circumstances stipulated in Article 17 of this interpretation exist, it shall be deemed as "serious circumstances" as stipulated in Article 219-1 of the Criminal Law.Article 21 In the process of criminal proceedings, if a party, defender, litigation agent, or person outside the case submits a written application for confidentiality measures to be taken for evidence or materials related to trade secrets or other business information that needs to be kept confidential, necessary confidentiality measures such as organizing the participants in the litigation to sign confidentiality commitment letters shall be taken according to the circumstances of the case.If a person violates the requirements of the confidentiality measures stipulated in the preceding paragraph or the confidentiality obligations stipulated by laws and regulations, he/she shall bear the corresponding legal responsibilities. If a person discloses, uses, or allows others to use trade secrets that he/she has come into contact with or obtained in the process of criminal proceedings, and a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility shall be pursued according to law.Article 22 If a person knowingly provides assistance in any of the following circumstances for another person who commits the crime of intellectual property rights infringement, he/she shall be treated as a co-offender, except as otherwise provided by law or judicial interpretation:(1) Providing main raw materials, auxiliary materials, semi-finished products, packaging materials, machinery and equipment, labels and identification marks, production technology, formulas, etc. for the production and manufacture of infringing products;(2) Providing services such as loans, funds, accounts, licenses, payment settlements, etc.;(3) Providing premises for production and business operations or services such as transportation, storage, custody, express delivery, mailing, etc.;(4) Providing technical support such as Internet access, server hosting, network storage, communication transmission, etc.;(5) Other circumstances of assisting in the crime of intellectual property rights infringement.Article 23 Where a person commits the crime of intellectual property rights infringement, and any of the following circumstances exist, he/she shall generally be punished more severely at the discretion of the court:(1) Mainly engaged in the crime of intellectual property rights infringement;(2) During major natural disasters, accidents, or public health events, counterfeiting trademarks of goods or services for disaster relief or epidemic prevention materials;(3) Refusing to hand over illegal gains.Article 24 Where a person commits the crime of intellectual property rights infringement, and any of the following circumstances exist, he/she may be punished leniently according to law:(1) Admitting guilt and accepting punishment;(2) Obtaining the forgiveness of the right holder;(3) Obtaining trade secrets of the right holder by improper means but not yet disclosing, using, or allowing others to use them.If the crime is minor, he/she may be exempted from prosecution or criminal punishment according to law. If the circumstances are significantly minor and the harm is not serious, it shall not be treated as a crime.Article 25 Where a person commits the crime of intellectual property rights infringement, the court shall take into account the amount of illegal gains, the amount of illegal business operations, the amount of losses caused to the right holder, the quantity of infringing and counterfeit goods, and the social hazard of the crime, and impose a fine according to law.The amount of the fine shall generally be determined within one to ten times the amount of illegal gains. If the amount of illegal gains cannot be ascertained, the amount of the fine shall generally be determined within fifty percent to one time the amount of illegal business operations. If neither the amount of illegal gains nor the amount of illegal business operations can be ascertained, and the sentence is less than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, or a fine alone, the amount of the fine shall generally be determined within three to one million yuan; if the sentence is more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, the amount of the fine shall generally be determined within fifteen to five million yuan.Article 26 Where a unit commits acts stipulated in Articles 213 to 219-1 of the Criminal Law, a fine shall be imposed on the unit, and the persons directly in charge and other persons directly responsible shall be punished according to the standards of conviction and sentencing stipulated in this interpretation.Article 27 Except in special circumstances, goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, identification marks of registered trademarks manufactured illegally, infringing copies of works, materials and tools mainly used for manufacturing goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, identification marks of registered trademarks, or infringing copies shall be confiscated and destroyed according to law.If the above-mentioned items need to be used as evidence in civil or administrative cases, upon application by the right holder, they may be destroyed after the conclusion of the civil or administrative cases or after the evidence is fixed by means of sampling, photographing, etc.Article 28 The "amount of illegal business operations" referred to in this interpretation means the value of infringing products manufactured, stored, transported, and sold by the actor in the process of committing the crime of intellectual property rights infringement. The value of infringing products that have been sold shall be calculated according to the actual selling price. The value of infringing products that have not been sold shall be calculated according to the average actual selling price of the infringing products that have been ascertained. If the actual average selling price cannot be ascertained, it shall be calculated according to the marked price of the infringing products. If the actual selling price cannot be ascertained or the infringing products are not marked with a price, it shall be calculated according to the market middle price of the infringed products.The "value of goods" referred to in this interpretation shall be determined in accordance with the value of the infringing intellectual property products that have not been sold as stipulated in the preceding paragraph.The "sales amount" referred to in this interpretation means the total illegal income obtained and due by the actor from selling infringing products in the process of committing the crime of intellectual property rights infringement.The "amount of illegal gains" referred to in this interpretation means the total illegal income obtained and due by the actor from selling products that infringe intellectual property rights, minus the cost of raw materials and the purchase price of the sold products; if the service is provided, the purchase price of the products used in the service shall be deducted. If the profit is obtained through charging service fees, membership fees, or advertising fees, the fees charged shall be deemed as "illegal gains."Article 29 If a person commits multiple acts of intellectual property rights infringement and has not been dealt with and should be prosecuted according to law, the amounts and quantities involved in the conviction and sentencing shall be calculated cumulatively respectively.For products that have been completed but have not yet been attached with or have not been fully attached with counterfeit registered trademarks, if there is evidence proving that the products will counterfeit the registered trademarks of others, their value shall be included in the amount of illegal business operations.Article 30 The people's courts shall accept criminal self-prosecution cases of intellectual property rights infringement according to law. If a party cannot obtain evidence due to objective reasons but can provide relevant clues and apply to the people's court for obtaining the evidence when initiating the self-prosecution, the people's court shall obtain the evidence according to law.Article 31This interpretation shall be effective from April 26, 2025.After the implementation of this interpretation, the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 19 [2004]), the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement (II) by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 6 [2007]), the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement (III) by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 10 [2020]), and the Reply on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases of Copyright Infringement Involving Sound and Video Products by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate (Judicial Interpretation No. 12 [2005]) shall be simultaneously abolished.After the implementation of this interpretation, if there are any inconsistencies between the judicial interpretations and normative documents issued previously and this interpretation, this interpretation shall prevail.

National Intellectual Property AdministrationIntellectual Property Bureaus of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps:The "2025 Intellectual Property Administrative Protection Work Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "Work Plan") is hereby issued to you. Please earnestly implement it in light of local realities.Each provincial intellectual property bureau should carefully organize and implement the tasks deployed in the Work Plan, and submit semi-annual and annual work summaries respectively by July 15, 2025, and January 15, 2026, through the comprehensive office system (OA) of the National Intellectual Property Administration. Electronic copies should be simultaneously sent to the contact email address. The statistical table of intellectual property law enforcement guidance cases should be submitted together with the summary.National Intellectual Property Administration March 17, 2025This Work Plan is formulated to thoroughly implement the important instructions and directives of General Secretary XI Jinping on comprehensively strengthening intellectual property protection work, resolutely implement the decision-making and deployment of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council, effectively promote the implementation of the "Outline for Building an Intellectual Property Power (2021-2035)", the "14th Five-Year Plan for Intellectual Property Protection and Utilization", and the "Opinions on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection", further improve the intellectual property protection system, strengthen the whole-chain protection of intellectual property, and help create a first-class business environment that is market-oriented, law-based, and internationalized.I. Promote the Implementation of Laws and Regulations. Implement and publicize the Patent Law and its implementing regulations. Cooperate with the revision of the Trademark Law and the Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits. Implement the "Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes", the "Provisions on Regulating Patent Application Behaviors", the "Provisions on the Registration and Administration of Collective Marks and Certification Marks", and the "Measures for the Protection of Geographical Indication Products". Implement law enforcement norms such as the "Provisions on Evidence in Trademark Administrative Law Enforcement", the "Calculation Method for the Illegal Business Volume of Trademark Infringement Cases", and the "Provisions on Case Causes of Intellectual Property Cases in the Market Regulation Field (for Trial Implementation)".II. Improve and Optimize the Protection System. Promote the implementation of the "Implementation Plan for the Intellectual Property Protection System Construction Project", and strengthen the construction of the intellectual property protection policy and standard system, management system, social co-governance system, security governance system, and support system. Conduct an assessment of the implementation of the intellectual property protection construction project in a timely manner. Establish a regular communication mechanism with private enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises, listen to their opinions and suggestions on intellectual property protection in a timely manner, and respond to their demands.III. Standardize the Application and Use of Patents and Trademarks. Continuously and severely crack down on abnormal patent applications, malicious trademark registrations, and hoarding through measures such as improving management systems, carrying out special campaigns, guiding industry self-discipline, and strengthening the supervision of agency institutions. Strengthen professional guidance on investigating and punishing the illegal use of prohibited trademarks that are deceptive or have an adverse impact. For trademarks that have already been registered, promptly report them to the National Intellectual Property Administration for ex officio invalidation in accordance with procedures, and intensify follow-up handling after the invalidation decision takes effect. Promote the implementation of the "Trial Standards for Government Procurement Requirements for Patent and Trademark Agency Services".IV. Strengthen Patent Protection. Improve the administrative adjudication review and reporting mechanism for major patent infringement disputes. Strictly review the facts and evidence that meet the case-filing conditions, and standardize the issuance of supporting materials. Promote the standardization of administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes, smooth the acceptance channels, optimize the trial model, intensify case handling efforts, and highlight the quality and efficiency of case handling. Accurately identify infringement facts, strictly determine infringement acts, and actively handle simple cases quickly and complex cases meticulously. Encourage localities to fully rely on professional forces such as technology investigation centers, technology investigator expert databases, and intellectual property appraisal institutions to provide technical support for case handling.V. Strengthen Trademark Protection. Strengthen the timely, key, and cited protection of well-known trademarks. Encourage localities to strengthen the protection of time-honored Chinese brand trademarks and well-known trademarks related to the inheritance and development of cultural heritage by carrying out special governance campaigns and establishing enterprise credit evaluation systems, and severely crack down on "brand-aping" and other infringement acts. Strengthen the supervision and professional guidance on concealed infringement acts in the Internet field, such as infringement through keywords, combined use of registered trademarks, and using design patents to infringe on others' prior registered trademarks.VI. Strengthen the Protection of Geographical Indications. Implement the "Implementation Plan for the Unified Geographical Indication Recognition System", and orderly promote the transformation of original agricultural geographical indications. Promote the construction of national geographical indication protection demonstration zones with high quality, and strengthen the supervision during the implementation of geographical indication protection projects. Conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the "14th Five-Year Plan for the Protection and Utilization of Geographical Indications". Encourage localities to use means such as origin traceability to improve the characteristic quality assurance system for geographical indications and the professional inspection and testing system for geographical indications. Establish and improve the work system for the approval, cancellation, and supervision of the use of the special mark for geographical indications, and standardize the use of the special mark.VII. Strengthen the Protection in New Fields and New Business Forms. Actively cooperate with the registration service of data intellectual property, organize and carry out publicity and promotion, policy interpretation, and registration guidance for the public in a timely manner, and guide and encourage the public to actively carry out registration. Strengthen intellectual property protection in the field of artificial intelligence, and publicize and implement the "Trial Guidelines for Patent Application Related to Artificial Intelligence". Increase the intensity of intellectual property protection for forward-looking and strategic emerging industries such as new energy vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and photovoltaics. Improve the working mechanism in combination with industry and regional characteristics, strengthen the handling of cases such as patent administrative adjudication, and provide precise guidance services.VIII. Strengthen Protection in People's Livelihood and Hot-spot Areas. Focus on fields related to public interests and the vital interests of the people, such as food and medicine, rehabilitation aids, children's toys, household appliances, and green and low-carbon technologies. Increase the intensity of daily supervision over intellectual property infringement and illegal acts and administrative law enforcement guidance on trademarks and patents. For areas where infringement occurs frequently, promptly carry out special governance of intellectual property. Increase the intensity of intellectual property protection in the seed industry, and strengthen professional guidance on investigating and punishing infringement acts such as counterfeiting and brand-faking.IX. Strengthen Protection during Major Events and Key Nodes. Do a good job in the intellectual property protection of large-scale events such as the 9th Asian Winter Games, the 12th World Games, and the 15th National Games. Severely crack down on infringement acts such as counterfeiting sports event souvenirs and cultural and creative products. Strengthen the intellectual property protection of large-scale exhibitions such as the China Import and Export Fair, the China International Import Expo, the China International Fair for Trade in Services, and the China International Consumer Products Expo. Strengthen pre-exhibition inspections, in-exhibition inspections, and post-exhibition follow-up, smooth the complaint channels, and quickly handle intellectual property disputes. Do a good job in intellectual property protection during festivals such as May Day, the Mid-Autumn Festival, and National Day. Strengthen the supervision of e-commerce platforms, supermarkets, and professional markets to prevent the circulation of counterfeit and infringing goods. Conduct risk investigations and special rectifications at the time when seasonal geographical indication products are intensively launched on the market, and strictly regulate the illegal use of geographical indications.X. Strengthen Foreign-related Intellectual Property Protection. Promote the establishment of a foreign-related intellectual property protection working mechanism within the region. Improve the foreign-related intellectual property protection service system, handle various cases fairly and justly, and equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of foreign-invested enterprises. Strengthen the construction of local sub-centers for overseas intellectual property dispute response guidance, with a focus on strengthening guidance services for private enterprises in overseas disputes. Improve the overseas risk early-warning mechanism, strengthen the early-warning monitoring of disputes such as "Section 337 investigations", cross-border e-commerce litigation, and malicious trademark squatting, and enhance the timeliness and initiative of serving enterprises. Strengthen coordination and connection with the commerce department, and strictly manage the external transfer of intellectual property rights in technology exports in accordance with the law.XI. Deepen Rapid and Collaborative Protection. Further promote the high-quality work of rapid and collaborative intellectual property protection, strengthen the operation and management of national-level intellectual property protection centers and rapid rights protection centers, review and verify the pre-filing entities and agency institutions for patent pre-examination, and strengthen the management of pre-examination quality and public opinion monitoring. Aggregate various intellectual property resources, strengthen departmental communication and cooperation, standardize and smooth the connection procedures, and promote the rapid handling of intellectual property disputes. Encourage national-level intellectual property protection centers and rapid rights protection centers to provide assistance or technical support for administrative adjudication and administrative mediation. Encourage national-level intellectual property protection centers to carry out multi-mode trials of patent reexamination and invalidation cases, and promote the connection between patent right confirmation and administrative adjudication and administrative mediation of infringement disputes. Encourage national-level intellectual property protection centers to set up workstations in areas with concentrated original innovation, such as national laboratories and large-scale scientific facilities. Establish an intellectual property public service mechanism in science and technology parks and industrial parks, and support qualified intellectual property public service institutions to carry out information services such as overseas intellectual property rights protection and infringement early-warning.XII. Strengthen Cross-departmental and Cross-regional Collaboration. Strengthen cooperation with people's courts, procuratorial organs, and public security organs, establish a long-term liaison mechanism, and promote the unification of standards for administrative and judicial protection of intellectual property. Deepen cross-regional intellectual property administrative protection cooperation in regions such as Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, the Yangtze River Delta, the Pan-Pearl River Delta, and Chengdu-Chongqing. Do solid and detailed work in information sharing, joint evidence collection, mutual recognition of results, etc., strengthen the follow-up handling of transferred clues, strengthen the collaborative protection of key trademarks and geographical indications and the evaluation of protection effects, and solve new problems such as "concealed" infringement across regions.XIII. Promote the Resolution of Disputes through Social Co-governance. Strengthen the administrative mediation of patent ownership disputes, invention award and remuneration disputes, etc., strengthen case-handling guidance and linkage, and improve the quality and efficiency of mediation. Strengthen the professional construction of people's mediation organizations. Strengthen the construction of the mediation team by setting up full-time mediators and establishing expert databases, etc., and enhance the professionalism and credibility of mediation. Promote the online connection between litigation and mediation for intellectual property disputes. Strengthen intellectual property dispute arbitration, and expand the use of arbitration channels to resolve intellectual property disputes. Strengthen the construction of the credit system in the field of intellectual property, and strengthen the dishonesty punishment for trademark and patent infringement, malicious trademark squatting, abnormal patent applications, etc. Give full play to the role of typical cases of multiple mediation of intellectual property disputes, do a good job in case selection, promotion, and release, and intensify the experience exchange and promotion.XIV. Strengthen Professional Law Enforcement Guidance. Strengthen professional guidance on law enforcement in the field of intellectual property to effectively crack down on various infringement and illegal acts. Standardize the case request handling work system. For requests for instructions on difficult cases, conduct case situation research and legal analysis in a timely manner and give replies. Strictly implement the written reply and filing system for provincial intellectual property management departments. Increase the intensity of follow-up handling of replied cases, and improve the quality and efficiency of case handling. Do a good job in the review of case files. Strengthen the selection and submission of guiding cases.XV. Promote Intelligent Supervision and Protection. Continuously explore the application of new technologies such as the Internet, big data, cloud computing, and blockchain in intellectual property supervision. Promote the use of the National Intellectual Property Protection Information Platform, support localities in accelerating the construction of intellectual property public service platforms and independently controllable special databases, and strengthen data sharing and business collaboration. Steadily promote the implementation of national standards such as the "Specifications for Intellectual Property Protection in Commodity Trading Markets" and the "Intellectual Property Protection Management on E-commerce Platforms". Encourage regions with conditions to use big data technology to carry out infringement and illegal risk monitoring, and achieve real-time monitoring of clues of infringement and illegal acts on e-commerce platforms.XVI. Strengthen Publicity and Training. Coordinate traditional and emerging media, make good use of converged media, and publicize the measures and achievements of intellectual property protection work through multiple channels. Make full use of important opportunities such as the National Intellectual Property Publicity Week to carry out centralized publicity, release typical cases and experience, and create a good atmosphere for strengthening administrative protection. Strengthen the publicity and training of newly issued policies and regulations such as the "Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes" and the "Provisions on Evidence in Trademark Administrative Law Enforcement", and actively carry out activities such as business training, case discussions, and skills competitions to improve the administrative protection capabilities of grass-roots intellectual property departments.XVII. Strengthen Organizational Guarantee. Each provincial intellectual property bureau should earnestly organize and implement, clarify the division of responsibilities, refine work measures, and make targeted improvements in response to the shortcomings and deficiencies in intellectual property protection in the 2024 central quality, food safety, and intellectual property protection assessment. Strengthen supervision and guidance, commend units and individuals who are responsible for their work and have outstanding achievements, and criticize those where infringement occurs frequently and the protection effect is not good. Promptly urge rectification, report work progress to the National Intellectual Property Administration as required, and seek instructions and reports in a timely manner for important matters.Notice on Issuing the 2025 Intellectual Property Administrative Protection Work Plan (qq.com) (Source: China National Intellectual Property Administration WeChat)

Mason XiKai ChenDavid HuangLexField Law OfficesIn a patent invalidation action, the patentee may make multiple amendments to the granted claims.Among the amendments, some could be more likely to be accepted ("safe amendments"), and some may have a higher risk of being rejected ("risky amendments").At present, there is no clear procedural rule to specify how the other amendments should be handled when the patentee submits multiple amendments but one or more of them are deemed unacceptable.This poses a substantial risk to the patentee.Based on a case study on this issue, we have the following comments and recommendations:(1)In practice CNIPA’s acceptance or rejection of amendments is essentially toward the "full set" of all the amendments submitted by the patentee, rather than individual amendments or individual claims.Therefore, if an amendment is not accepted, it essentially means that the entire set of amendments will not be accepted.(2)Although the patentee can submit amendments after the oral hearing based on the opinions the examiners give during the hearing to abandon the unaccepted amendments and retain only the accepted amendments, the amendments submitted at this later timing could be rejected on the grounds that the applicable deadline has lapsed.(3)CNIPA and the courts have yet reached a consistent position on how to treat such amendments submitted after oral hearings, which aggravates the risks faced by patentees who adopt the approach mentioned in (2).(4)As alternatives, a patentee can try to submit amendments as early as possible, seek the examiner’s opinions and then submit updated amendments before the official deadline based on the examiner's feedback, or submit multiple sets of amendments at a time and then select one set based on the examiner's feedback.However, there is no guarantee that the patentee can eventually get the desired result.(5)There is an urgent need for CNIPA to clarify the procedural rules for handling this situation in the Patent Examination Guidelines (“Guidelines”), so as to provide better guidance for the relevant parties.Below are the detailed discussion of the relevant rules, cases and risks.1.The practical manner of filing claim amendments restricts patentees’ choicesUnder both the e-filing system and the traditional hard-copy system of CNIPA, the only manner for a patentee to file claim amends is to file the entire set of amendments in the form of "markup pages + replacement pages".If it is necessary to adjust the previous amendments (for example, to withdraw some of the amendments), the patentee has to resubmit a complete new set of "markup pages + replacement pages" for the entire set of claims.The patentee cannot adjust a single amendment or amendments to a single claim in an “individualized & targeted” manner.The above manner of submitting amendments is an important reason that restricts the flexibility the patentee has in adjusting the amendments.2.CNIPA and courts have disagreement in the application of relevant rulesCNIPA (particularly its Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Examination Department, "Invalidation Department") and courts in judicial review have disagreement on the rules by which to determine whether a claim amendment should be accepted.This disagreement is a major uncertainty a patentee faces when considering amendments to the claims.Article 33 of the Patent Law states that amendments shall not go beyond the “original disclosures” of the patent.Article 69 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law stipulates that amendments in an invalidation action “shall not broaden the scope of the original patent”.Based on these two articles, in the Guidelines CNIPA has made the following more detailed rules (Part IV, Chapter 3, Section 4.6):Amendments to invention or utility model patents are limited to the claims.The principles are: (1) the subject name of the original claim shall not be changed, (2) compared with the granted claims, the protection scope of the original patent shall not be broadened, (3) it shall not exceed the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and (4) generally, technical features not included in the granted claims shall not be added.In satisfying the above principles, the specific ways to amend claims are generally limited to deletion of a claim, deletion of a technical solution, further limitation to a claim, and correction of an obvious error.As can be seen from the above, some of rules in the Guidelines have no explicit basis in Article 33 or 69.The Invalidation Department has further developed some internal rules in its practice.For example, after the introduction of "further limitation" rule to the Guidelines in 2017, a large number of controversial amendments emerged.In view of this, the then Patent Reexamination Board (now the Invalidation Department) provided explanations on the literal meaning, context and purpose of this rule, published articles【1】and held seminars on it, all aimed to provide better guidance to patentees.To a certain extent, these internal rules of the Invalidation Department also lack an explicit basis in Article 33 and Article 69.The differences between the Guidelines (including CNIPA’s internal rules) and Articles 33 and 69 have led to inconsistencies in the application of law between CNIPA’s administrative actions and the courts’ judicial review.The administrative actions are usually directly based on the Guidelines and CNIPA’s internal rules, whereas the judicial review is in accordance only with Article 33 and Article 69 and the courts take the Guidelines and the CNIPA rules only for reference.In judicial practice, some cases have adopted the Guidelines and the CNIPA rules, but there were also cases that overlooked or even overruled the Guidelines and the rules.For example, in the invalidation action on patent ZL200610113717.2 case【2】, the court of the first instance adopted the Guidelines and the CNIPA internal rules, including a recognition of the position that "the scope of protection of the original patent shall not be broadened" should be judged by referring to the original scope of the very claim that was amended.However, the Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgement No. 2020 Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong 246 (“246 Judgment”), specifically pointed out that the CNIPA’s Guidelines and rules have no legal effect on its proceedings, and held that "the scope of the original patent shall not be broadened" should be judged with reference to the maximum protection scope of the independent claims of the original patent.This article does not intend to conduct an in-depth substantive analysis of the above-mentioned disagreement between CNIPA and the courts.From a procedural point of view, this disagreement undoubtedly increases the difficulty for the patentee to assess whether an amendment will be accepted e, thereby increasing the complexity of the patentee's planning of multiple amendments.When considering multiple amendments, the patentee may have one claim or multiple claims on mind.In doing so, the patentee may need to consider (1) the possibility for the amendments to be accepted, (2) infringement comparison with existing or hypothetical infringements, (3) impact on the strength of the claims to be amended, and (4) the value the claims to be amended for enforcement.This can be a complicated decision-making process. Therefore, when there are both safe amendments and risky amendments as candidates for amendments (corresponding to factor (1)), the patentee needs to consider other factors and decide whether to take the risk of packaging the safe amendments with the risky amendments, or just putting forward safe amendments only out of caution.The 246 Judgment made by the Supreme People’s Court is the latest example of the inconsistency between CNIPA and the courts.Under the spirit of this judgment, a large number of controversial amendments, including addition of new claims, may be considered acceptable under Article 69.However, based on our recent experience and knowledge, the Invalidation Department has not changed in practice to accept those controversial amendments that it previously would reject just because of the 246 Judgment.Therefore, if the patentee refers to the 246 Judgment and file risky amendments together with other amendments, it may result in all amendments not being accepted by the Invalidation Department, which in turn may cause the following problems.The first problem is loss of time.If the Invalidation Department rejects all the amendments and makes its decision toward the granted claims, important claims among the granted claims could be invalidated.In this case, if the patent is also used in an infringement lawsuit, then the infringement lawsuit is likely to be dismissed or requested to be withdrawn.Even if the patentee finally has the risky amendment accepted through judicial review, obtains a new favorable invalidation decision, and then re-files the infringement lawsuit, a large amount of time has been lost.The second problem is potential risk related to Article 33 of the Patent Law.The 246 Judgment did liberalize the application of Article 69, but there are indications that the court may meanwhile tighten the application of Article 33.In this situation, some amendments could still be held as new matter beyond the scope of the original disclosures, which would still return the claims to be examined to the granted claims.This situation is essentially a hidden, and thus riskier, "trap" for patentees.3.Risks reflected in actual casesWe searched for relevant cases and noticed one approach the patentees have adopted to amend the claims: to file both safe amendments and risky amendments in a first submission, and then, if the Invalidation Department refuses to accept the risky amendments, to file a second submission deleting/withdrawing the risky amendments and only retaining the safe amendments.From the actual results, however, there is a risk that all amendments are rejected under this approach.Particularly, there is a notable inconsistency among CNIPA, the first-instance court and the second-instance court on whether to accept the second submission and why.Thus, the cases together fail to provide a reliable guidance for patentees in a similar situation.Case 1: invalidation action on patent ZL200920230829.5【3】The patentee submitted a first set of amendments containing three types of amendments A, B, and C within the specified deadline (“Submission 1”).During the oral hearing, the collegial panel held that amendments of type A did not comply with the Guidelines while amendments of types B and C were in compliance.After the oral hearing, the patentee made a new submission containing amendments of types B and C only (“Submission 2”), essentially withdrawing amendments of type A.The panel held that although the actual timing of Submission 2 did not comply with the Guidelines, the amendments it contains were already reflected in Submission 1, and Submission 2 therefore should be regarded as having actually being submitted within the original deadline.The panel then made its decision based on Submission 2.The court of the first instance held that Submission 1 contained amendments of type A that did not comply with the Guidelines and therefore should not be accepted, and the timing of Submission 2 did not comply with the Guidelines.The court then held that the collegial panel’s accepting Submission 2 based on Submission 1 which itself should not be accepted was wrong.The court thus ruled to revoke the invalidation decision.The court of the second instance held basically the same position as that of the collegial panel. It held that the amendments in Submission 2 were amendments of types B and C included in Submission 1, and thus Submission 2 was essentially submitted within the applicable deadline.The second-instance court then ruled to uphold the invalidation decision.Case 2: invalidation action of patent ZL200610113717.2【4】This is the case in which the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People's Court made the above-mentioned 246 Judgment.The patentee submitted within the specified deadline the first submission revising the 48 granted claims into 272 claims (“Submission 1”).During the oral hearing, the patentee tried to delete 196 of the 272 claims, and after the oral hearing, submitted the revised text containing the remaining 76 claims (“Submission 2”).The collegial panel considered that the further deletions reflected in Submission 2 are deletion of claims, and thus Submission 2 complied with the Guidelines regarding timing for deletions (which can be made any time before the Invalidation Department issues its decision).The panel thus made the invalidation decision based on Submission 2.Case 3: invalidation action on patent ZL200480009662.X【5】The patentee submitted a first set of amendments containing 38 claims within the specified deadline, which included further limitations to original granted claim 1 and new independent claims 16 and 28 which were formed by adding different features to original granted claim 1.The collegial panel held that the addition of new independent rights 16 and 28 did not comply with the Guidelines, and thus it did not accept Submission 1 but made its decision based on the granted claims.In the first instance of judicial review, the patentee argued that it attempted to delete the new claims including independent rights 16 and 28 during the oral hearing, and that at least the revised claims 1-15 complied with the Guidelines and should be accept.On this, the court of the first instance held that even if the aforementioned argument from the patentee were true, the amended claims 1-15 submitted during the oral hearing included amendments other than deletions, which thus had exceeded the applicable deadline and should not be accepted.The above three cases all involve a first submission of amendments and a second revised submission formed by deleting part of the amendments in the first submission.It can be seen that in all the three cases, the Invalidation Department and the courts regarded the second submission as a separate and newly submitted document.A question then is whether the new submission complies with the deadline and acceptable.Normally, the one-month deadline for the patentee to submit other-than-deletion amendments has gone before the oral hearing.In Case 1 and Case 2, the second submission was deemed to meet the deadline and should be accepted, but the authorities’ specific reasons for the acceptance were different.In Case 1 the second submissionwas regarded as having essentially been submitted within the original deadline and thus acceptable even if it contains amendments of the "consolidation" manner.In contrast, in Case 2, the second submission was regarded as “further deletions” on top of the first submission and thus it was accepted in line with the timing requirement for amendments of the “deletion” manner (which can be submitted before the invalidation decision is made).Case 2 has its further uniqueness.The invalidation decision in this case was made during the exploratory period after CNIPA introduced the "further limitation" rule to the Guidelines.On the one hand, the collegial panel lacked a clear legal basis to directly reject the patentee’s Submission 1 of drastically increasing the number of the claims.On the other hand, likely out of the purpose of reducing the workload for all, the panel had the motivation to ask the patentee to reduce the number of claims.Therefore, the panel finally accepted Submission 2 with some claims deleted, possibly as a compromise between these two considerations.However, the difference in the reasons for the acceptance of Submission 2 in the first and second cases still shows that even within the Invalidation Department, there may not be a unified practice on the acceptance.In Case 3, as an inference from the result of the case and the language in the judgment by the first-instance court, the Invalidation Department refused to accept Submission 2 the patentee attempted to submit.In addition, in both Case 1 and Case 3, the court of the first instance clearly pointed out that Submission 2 did not comply with the Guidelines on the deadline for claim amendments and therefore should not be accepted.Based on the above cases, it can be seen that if the patentee files both safe amendments and risky amendments in one submission, and then tries to delete the risky amendments and retain only the safe amendments when the Invalidation Department refuses to accept the risky amendments, there is risk that all amendments are eventually rejected.4.Possible alternatives have own uncertainties with no guarantee on resultsIt can be seen from the above cases that the key reason for the above risk is that Submission 2 was filed after the original deadline for amendments.This is also the primary consideration in search for possible alternatives under the current rules.A first possible alternative is that the patentee files Submission 1 as early as possible within the original deadline, and then try to liaise with the examiner to find out whether all the amendments are acceptable.If the examiner has an objection, the patentee may consider filing Submission 2 still within the deadline.However, this approach has its own uncertainty: before the oral hearing, the examiner may be unwilling to review the file in depth and communicate with the patentee on whether an amendment may be accepted.Another possible alternative is that the patentee can make two or even more submissions at the same time within the deadline, and make a choice based on the examiner's opinions in the subsequent proceedings.The patentee may try to communicate with the examiner before the oral hearing, or during the oral hearing, for this purpose.However, first, as mentioned above, the examiner may not be in a position for such a communication before the oral hearing.Second, even during the oral hearing, the examiner may refuse to have a detailed discussion on this issue but could simply ask the patentee to choose one of the submissions as the basis for examination (the invalidation requester is likely to push the examiner to ask the patentee for a choice first).Under the above two alternatives, Submission 2 is submitted within the specified deadline and thus can avoid the risk highlighted in the 3 cases we studied.However, procedural uncertainties associated with the alternatives also mean that in individual cases there is no guarantee for the desired result.5.CNIPA’s rules in the Guidelines need to be revisedIn sum, when the patentee makes multiple amendments in an invalidation action, it would face uncertainties and risks, regardless of whether the patentee adopts the approach reflected in previous cases or the alternatives we propose above.The inconsistency in the application of law between CNIPA and the courts involves basic concepts of the patent law and the balance between the patentee and the public interest, and thus the two authorities need to negotiate for appropriate revisions to Article 69 and relevant rules in the Guidelines.Besides this, CNIPA can greatly reduce the risks faced by patentees as shown in the above 3 cases by just revising the rules in the Guidelines.For example, CNIPA may consider one or both of the following rules:(1)It can be made clear, in terms of the legal status, that Submission 2 formed by withdrawing certain amendments in Submission 1 according to the patentee’s statements made during the oral hearing is not a fresh submission, but is a revision to Submission 1 and thus shall still enjoy the filing date of Submission 1.(2)In line with the basic principle that an invalidation action on a patent is toward each of the claims of the patent individually, it can be made clear that that the “unit” of the examination on whether amendments are acceptable is the individual claims, in that even if an amendment to one claim is not accepted, it does not affect the status of amendments to other claims in the same submission.The implementation of this rule (2) may require CNIPA to also adjust its IT system so that amendments to different claims can be made separately, rather than being restricted by the current "full set of claims" manner.We believe that these two rules do not affect the balance of interests between patentees, invalidation requesters and the public, nor do they compromise the value of published patent documents as a “public notice” on the scope/boundary of patent rights, but can provide the patentees with the much-needed certainty.[1]"Understanding and Application of "Further Limitation of Claims"", Liu Ming, Liu Yang.[2]Invalidation decision: No. 35611 (made in April 2018);The judgment of the first instance: (2018) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6316 (made in December 2019);Second-instance judgment: (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 246 (made in December 2020).[3]Invalidation decision: No. 24085 (made in September 2014);Judgment of first instance: (2014) Jing Zhi Xing Chu Zi No. 71 (made in February 2017);Judgment of second instance: (2018) Jing Xing Zhong No. 77 (made in April 2019).[4]Invalidation decision: No. 35611 (made in April 2018);Judgment of first instance: (2018) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6316 (made in December 2019);Judgment of second instance: (2020) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 246 (made in December 2020).[5]Invalidation decision: No. 34891 (made in January 2018);Judgment of first instance: (2018) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 7914 (made in November 2020)

By David HuangChina’s national Congress just approved new revisions to the Patent Law on October 17, 2020, and the revisions will take effect on June 1, 2021.This is a summary of revisions that reflect new legal positions.Revisions that merely reflect general policy encouragement or codify current judicial practice are not discussed.1. Design patentsArticle 29: Domestic priority will be broadened to design patent applications.Article 24: The first disclosure for the public interests in case of national emergency or unusual circumstances (e.g. use of a new drug to treat COVID-19 virus) is added to the scenarios that are protected by the 6-month grace period.3. Ineligible mattersArticle 66: In case of a civil or administrative enforcement action, the accused infringer can also request the patent office to issue this report.8. Powers of administrative enforcement authorityArticle 70: CNIPA as the national patent office now has the administrative enforcement authority for “nationally influential” patent infringement cases.9. Punitive damages

Qishan Zhao, Zhe Lu (Lexfield Law Offices)•On June 9, 2020, Xiaomi sued IDC in the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to determine global FRAND rates for the SEPs involved in the negotiation between the two parties.This is the first case over global FRAND rates accepted by a Chinese court.•On July 29, 2020, after learning the Wuhan lawsuit, IDC filed two patent infringement actions against Xiaomi based on its eight SEPs before the Delhi High Court in India, applying for preliminary and permanent injunctions and requesting the India court to determine the relevant FRAND rates.•On August 4, 2020, Xiaomi filed an application of anti-suit injunction against IDC in the Wuhan court and the court granted the injunction on September 23, 2020.This is the second anti-suit injunction issued by a Chinese court this year for SEP disputes involving parallel litigations in another jurisdiction.•On September 29, 2020, after learning the anti-suit injunction from Wuhan, IDC applied to the India court for an anti-anti-suit injunction against Xiaomi, which was granted on October 9.BackgroundThe negotiation between IDC and Xiaomi over the license of wireless communications SEPs started in 2015.In May 2017, IDC made a verbal offer to Xiaomi and then on June 15, 2019, IDC made a written offer to Xiaomi covering 3G, 4G, 5G, 802.11, and HEVC SEPs and provided the relevant royalty rates.As a response Xiaomi requested IDC to further provide the rate calculation methodology and comparable licenses.On July 30, 2019, Xiaomi made a counter offer to IDC, which was however rejected by IDC.In February 2020, IDC made its second offer to Xiaomi, which in Xiaomi's view did not materially differ from the one IDC made in 2019.On June 9, 2020, Xiaomi sued IDC before the Wuhan Intermediate People's Court and requested the court to determine the global FRAND rate of the SEP portfolios involved in the negotiation.Litigation ProgressAfter accepting the case, the Wuhan court started the service process to IDC.On July 28, 2020, Xiaomi informed IDC of the Chinese proceedings.On the following day, July 29, IDC filed two patent infringement actions before the Delhi High Court against Xiaomi.In one of the cases (Case No. CS. COMM. 295/2020), IDC claimed that Xiaomi infringed its five 3G and 4G SEPs (Patent Nos. 262910, 295912, 298719, 313036, and 320182); and in the other one (Case No. CS. COMM. 296/2020), IDC sued Xiaomi for infringement of three SEPs relevant to the H.265 or HEVC standard (Patent Nos. 242248, 299448, and 308108).In both cases, IDC sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a "FRAND injunction" under which Xiaomi would face an injunction from the Indian court when infringement is founded unless it enters into a license agreement on terms determined as FRAND by the Indian court.On August 4, 2020, Xiaomi filed an application for an anti-suit injunction with the Wuhan court, with the following claims for IDC's 3G and 4G SEPs involved in the Wuhan case:(1)to order IDC to immediately withdraw or stay the preliminary and permanent injunctions that IDC applied in the Indian court against Xiaomi;(2)to enjoin IDC from filing for preliminary and permanent injunctions in China or other jurisdictions;(3)to enjoin IDC from enforcing any already existing or possible preliminary and permanent injunctions in China or other jurisdictions;(4)to enjoin IDC from requesting a court in China or other jurisdictions to hear disputes between the parties over the royalty rates or royalties; and(5)to enjoin IDC from initiating any form of legal proceedings in China or other jurisdictions.Xiaomi provided a bond of RMB 10 million for the application.The Wuhan court held that:(1)since IDC filed a lawsuit in India and applied for injunctions immediately after learning about the Wuhan case, IDC's intention to circumvent this Wuhan court's jurisdiction and to interfere with the adjudication of this Wuhan case is obvious;(2)IDC's filing of the Indian cases is an abuse of judicial remedy procedures since injunctions by the Indian court against Xiaomi, if issued, might lead to conflicts with decisions by this Wuhan court;(3)IDC's application for preliminary and permanent injunctions in India would necessarily affect Xiaomi's operations in India and thereby significantly harm Xiaomi's interests; and(4)except a delay for IDC to pursue legal protection of its rights after the breakdown of negotiation, the issuance of an anti-suit injunction would not cause any other material injury to SEPs held by IDC, and nor would it affect or harm the public interests.On September 23, 2020, the Wuhan court ruled that IDC shall immediately withdraw or stay the preliminary and permanent injunctions it sought in the Indian court.Besides, the Wuhan court ruled that while the case is pending before it, IDC shall not, based on its 3G and 4G SEPs involved in this case, seek preliminary or permanent injunctions against Xiaomi in or out of China, enforce such injunctions that it already obtained or might obtain, or require another court to determine the FRAND royalties.If IDC did not comply with the anti-suit injunction, it would be fined RMB 1 million for each day of incompliance.IDC may apply for a reconsideration of this ruling, but its enforcement would not be stayed during the reconsideration.Following the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People’s Court, this is the second time for a Chinese court to issue an anti-suit injunction for a SEP dispute involving parallel litigations in another jurisdiction.On September 29, 2020, after learning the anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan court, IDC applied for an anti-anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court of India, seeking to enjoin Xiaomi from restraining IDC's patent infringement actions in India.The India court granted this injunction on October 9, 2020, enjoining Xiaomi from enforcing the anti-suit injunction issued by the Wuhan court while the infringement cases in India are pending.Litigation Battle between IDC and Lenovo & MotorolaIn China, IDC is also in SEP litigation with Lenovo and Motorola.On April 10, 2020, Lenovo and Motorola sued IDC before the Beijing IP Court, requesting the court to determine the FRAND rates payable for IDC's Chinese 3G, 4G, and 5G SEPs. The court accepted the case on June 16, 2020.The series of SEP actions between IDC, Lenovo and Motorola first began in the U.K.On August 27, 2019, IDC sued Lenovo and Motorola before the High Court of Justice in London for patent infringement and requested the court to declare that the global royalty rates that IDC offered were FRAND rates, or to determine the terms for a worldwide license for its 3G and 4G patent portfolios.IDC also sought a "FRAND injunction" in the proceedings.The five patents in dispute were EP 2 363 008, EP 2 557 714, EP 2 485 558, EP 2 421 318, and EP 3 355 537.Meanwhile in the U.S., on August 28, 2019, IDC sued Lenovo and Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware District Court").IDC accused Lenovo and Motorola of infringing its patents, and requested the court to declare its offer did not breach the FRAND commitments.Furthermore, IDC requested that if Lenovo refused to negotiate for a global license, enter into an international arbitration, or accept the FRAND terms determined by the High Court in the U.K, the US court should issue an injunction.The 8 patents involved in the patent infringement action are patents Nos 8,085,665, 8,199,726, 8,427,954, 8,619,747, 8,675,612, 8,797,873, 9,203,580, and 9,456,449.Lenovo and Motorola challenged the validity of the patents in the suit and their motion to dismiss 6 of the 8 patents in the entirety was denied by the court on July 14, 2020.On April 9, 2020, Lenovo and Motorola also filed an anti-monopoly suit against IDC in the same Delaware District Court, seeking rulings that IDC violated the Sherman Act and its FRAND commitments to ETSI with its licensing of the 3G and 4G SEPs.They also requested the court to determine that they were entitled to a FRAND license for IDC's 3G and 4G SEPs, and to enjoin IDC from obtaining excessive royalties from them or their customers for its U.S. 3G and 4G SEPs through patent infringement litigation.

Qishan Zhao, Zhe Lu•On August 28, 2020, the Intellectual Property Division of China's Supreme People's Court issued an injunction order in Huawei v. Conversant that before it renders its final judgment, Conversant shall not apply to enforce the Düsseldorf Regional Court’s injunction order in the German case between the two parties.•This is the first anti-suit injunction issued by a Chinese court in a SEP dispute.•The Chinese injunction order includes a penalty of RMB 1 million per day if Conversant violates the order.BackgroundConversant is a non-practicing entity (NPE) and acquired a patent portfolio of about 2,000 patents and patent applications (including SEPs), covering about 40 countries and regions, from Nokia in 2011. On July 24, 2017, Conversant brought an action against Huawei and ZTE before the High Court of Justice in London, alleging the two defendants of infringing its 4 UK patents and asking the court to determine global FRAND royalty rates for the above global patent portfolio[1].On January 25, 2018, Huawei brought three actions before the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court,[2]applying for non-infringement declaration toward three Chinese SEPs owned by Conversant and a determination of FRAND terms (including royalty rates) for the Chinese market toward all Chinese SEPs owned by Conversant.On September 16, 2019, the Nanjing court issued the first-instance judgment and dismissed Huawei’s request for a non-infringement declaration on the grounds that the asserted patents (ZL 00819208.1, ZL 200580038621.8 and ZL 200680014086.7) had all been invalidated.Since 8 of the fifteen Chinese SEPs[3]held by Conversant had already been declared invalid in prior administrative proceedings, the court assessed the essentiality of the remaining 7 SEPs and decided that only one patent (ZL 200380102135.9) was essential to 4G technologies under relevant 3GPP standards.The court thus ruled that Huawei and its Chinese affiliates only needed to pay royalties for the 4G mobile terminal products for that patent, with the rate of single-mode 4G mobile terminal products being 0.00225% and the rate of multi-mode products being 0.0018% in China[4].Conversant appealed the first-instance judgment to the SPC IP Division[5]and the two parties are awaiting for the second-instance judgment.On April 20, 2018, Conversant sued Huawei for patent infringement in three cases before the Düsseldorf Regional Court in Germany, involving patents EP1797659[6], EP1173986[7], and EP1878117[8](Conversant also sued ZTE in three other cases based on the same patents).On August 27, 2020, the Düsseldorf court handed down the first-instance judgments in the actions involving EP1797659.In the case against Huawei, the court found Huawei to be an unwilling licensee and thus rendered an injunction order prohibiting Huawei and its German affiliates from providing, selling, using or, for such purposes, importing or possessing relevant mobile devices, and prohibiting Huawei from supplying or delivering UMTS-compliant mobile phones and tablets to customers.The court also ruled that Huawei shall reveal information about the infringing acts and sales, destroy and recall the infringing products, and bear the cost of litigation.[9]Conversant can enforce the injunction on the condition that it provide a bond of 2.4 million euros.Huawei applied for behavior preservation to the SPC IP Division at the same day the Düsseldorf Regional Court issued its decision, seeking an order prohibiting Conversant from enforcing the Düsseldorf decision before SPC IP Division issues its final judgment in the Chinese action.Huawei also provided a bond of RMB 19.7 million for the application.On August 28, the SPC IP Division issued a ruling granting Huawei’s application, which is the first anti-suit injunction that Chinese courts have issued in SEP cases that involve parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions.Factors SPC IP Division Considers in Granting an Anti-Suit InjunctionThe main legal basis for the anti-suit injunction granted by SPC IP Division is Article 100 of China’s Civil Procedures Law providing for behavior preservation:“When the enforcement of a judgment may be difficult or other damages may be caused due to the conduct of one party or for other reasons, the People's Court may, upon the application of the other party, rule to preserve its property, order it to perform certain acts or prohibit it from performing certain acts; if the other party does not make an application, the People's Court may also rule to take preservation measures when necessary.The People's Court, in adopting protective measures, may order the applicant to provide security, and may reject the application if the applicant fails to provide the security.Upon accepting the application, the People's Court must make a ruling within 48 hours if the situation is urgent; if it rules that protective measures should be taken, it shall immediately begin the enforcement.”The Civil Procedures Law does not provide for specifics regarding behavior preservation against the enforcement of a foreign court judgment as Huawei applied for.The SPC IP Division identified and analyzed 5 factors in deciding whether to grant such a behavior-preservation application (i.e. an anti-suit injunction).1. Influence of Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions on Chinese ProceedingsThe SPC IP Division held that in determining whether to grant an anti-suit injunction, the court should first examine whether the enforcement of a foreign court decision would have a substantial effect on the trial, adjudication and enforcement of the parallel proceedings in China.The court may issue an anti-suit injunction if it finds that the respondent’s relevant behavior might hinder the trial of the parallel litigation in China or make it difficult to enforce the relevant Chinese judgments.In this case, the SPC IP Division held that: (1) the parties in the Düsseldorf judgment and the Chinese cases were basically the same; (2) the issues partially overlapped in the two cases notwithstanding some differences; and (3) in terms of results, if Conversant applied to and was allowed to enforce the injunction decision by the Düsseldorf Regional Court, the three SEP cases now being heard by the SPC IP Division would be interfered and its second-instance proceedings would even become meaningless.2. Necessity of an Anti-Suit InjunctionThe SPC IP Division held that the examination of the necessity of issuing an anti-suit injunction should focus on whether there would be any irreparable harm to be suffered by the applicant or difficulty in enforcing Chinese court’s decision in the absence of an anti-suit injunction.In principle, a Chinese court should issue an anti-suit injunction only when it is truly necessary.In this case, the SPC IP Division held that if Conversant filed an application and managed to enforce the injunction in Germany, Huawei would either have to withdraw from the German market or be forced to accept the license terms Conversant offered, which were 18.3 times the royalty rate as determined by the Chinese court in the first instance.Huawei would thus be forced to give up remedies it might have under Chinese laws and suffer irreparable harm.Therefore, an anti-suit injunction was necessary and urgent in this particular case.3. Balance of Interests between the Two PartiesThe SPC IP Division held that in determining whether to grant an anti-suit injunction, the court should also consider the balance of interests of both parties and weigh the harms the applicant might suffer in the absence of an anti-suit injunction and the harms the respondent might suffer as a result of an anti-suit injunction.In this case, the court held that Huawei would be forced to withdraw from the German market or to accept Conversant’s license offer and give up remedies it might have under Chinese laws in the absence of an anti-suit injunction.However, if an anti-suit injunction was imposed, the court held, the damages that Conversant might suffer would be limited to a stay of enforcement of the Düsseldorf court’s decision, which was not the final judgment.Moreover, Conversant’s other rights and interests in the German litigation would not be affected by the stay, and since Conversant’s central demand was monetary compensation, the loss it might suffer from such a stay would be limited.In the meantime, Conversant’s interests could be adequately remedied by the bond Huawei provided for the anti-suit injunction.4. Harm to Public InterestsThe SPC IP Division held that in determining whether to grant an anti-suit injunction, the court should further consider whether the public interests would be disserved by the injunction.In this case, the court found no adverse impact on the public interests from the anti-suit injunction.5. Conformity to Principle of International ComityThe last factor that the SPC IP Division considered is whether an anti-suit injunction would be in line with the principle of international comity.In this regard, SPC IP Division held that the following factors should be examined: the temporal order by which the cases were filed, whether courts have the appropriate jurisdiction, and whether the impact an anti-suit injunction would have on the trial and adjudication of foreign cases is proportionate.In this case, the SPC IP Division held that (1) the Chinese cases were filed earlier than the German cases and (2) the impact of the anti-suit injunction on the German case was proportionate since the consequence was limited to the stay of enforcement of the first-instance injunction order, while the German court’s subsequent proceedings would not be affected and legal effect of the German judgment would not be diminished.Consequence of Refusal to Comply with an Anti-Suit InjunctionMoreover, given the emergency, the SPC IP Division, according to Article 100 of the Civil Procedures Law, issued the anti-suit injunction within 48 hours, without a prior hearing and with an immediate enforcement of it.Conversant may apply for a reconsideration of the anti-suit injunction, but its enforcement would not be stayed during the reconsideration.Also, according to subparagraph 6, paragraph 1 of Article 111 (regarding consequences of refusal to comply with an effective court judgment or ruling) and paragraph 1 of Article 115 (regarding fines between RMB 50,000 and 1,000,000 that may be imposed on legal entities), the court ruled that if Conversant did not comply with the anti-suit injunction, it would be fined RMB 1 million for each day of incompliance.Chinese courts rarely set a penalty for refusal to comply with behavior preservation orders.This is also the first time for the SPC to rule that fines under the first paragraph of Article 115 of Civil Procedures Law can be accrued on a daily basis.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1]After Conversant filed the patent infringement case against Huawei and ZTE before the High Court of Justice in London, Huawei and ZTE challenged the court’s jurisdiction to determine the global royalty rates for the patent portfolio in dispute.On April 16, 2018, the High Court of Justice dismissed the challenge of jurisdiction, which was appealed by Huawei and ZTE afterwards.On January 30, 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.Then the case was appealed to the UK Supreme Court, and on August 26, 2020, UK Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.[2]The Nanjing Intermediate Court accepted the cases at the date of filing and the docket numbers of the three cases are respectively (2018) Su 01 Min Chu No. 232, (2018) Su 01 Min Chu No. 233, and (2018) Su 01 Min Chu No. 234.[3]The 15 patents fall into 10 families, of which 11 patents in 10 families were held by Conversant before Huawei filed the cases before Nanjing Intermediate Court, and another four patents in four families were transferred to Conversant amid the court proceeding and then added into the trial with consent of both parties.[4]For details of the judgment, see Lu Zhe, Zhao Qishan, Huawei v. Conversant: Setting the FRAND Rates for SEPs in Chinese Market,https://new.lexfieldlaw.com/static/?c=n&a=Publication_detail&myid=8&id=118, last visited on September 16, 2020.[5]The SPC IP Division accepted the three appeals on November 18, 2019. The docket numbers are respectively (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.732, (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.733, and (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.734.[6]The docket number of the German case against Huawei is 4b O30/18.The Chinese patent of the same family, ZL 200580038621.8, has been declared invalid in administrative invalidation proceedings and the relevant administrative litigation proceeding is now in the first trail.[7]The docket number of the German case against Huawei is 4b O 48/18.The Chinese patent of the same family, ZL 00804203.9, has been declared valid in administrative invalidation proceedings but was held as non-essential to relevant standard by Nanjing Intermediate Court.[8]The docket number of the German case against Huawei is 4b O 49/18.The Chinese patent of the same family, ZL200680014086.7, has been declared invalid in administrative invalidation proceedings.[9]In addition, Düsseldorf Regional Court also rendered first-instance decisions in the cases involving EP1173986 where the defendants were found to have infringed the disputed patent but no injunctive relief was granted due to the expiration of the patent.