China’s SPC has issued a final judgment in an administrative dispute over the invalidation of a utility model patent, clarifying that: where bad faith is usedas grounds for invalidating a patent, the rule is primarily directed at fabrication in the technical solution itself. If an invalidation petitioner instead claims that the patentee plagiarized another party's invention, the dispute is essentially one over patent ownership or inventorship, and should be resolved through separate proceedings.
Background
The petitioner, X, claimed that three Companies had plagiarized an invention completed by X and used it to file the patent at issue. X accordingly requested invalidation of the patent on the ground that it violated Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, as revised in 2023.
The CNIPA held that Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations applied only to invalidation requests filed after 20 January 2024. As the request in this case was filed on 20 October 2023, before that date, the CNIPA declined to examine the ground. In addition, X raised an argument under Article 71 of the Implementing Regulations for the first time at the oral hearing, which exceeded the time limit for adding invalidation grounds or supplementing evidence, so the CNIPA also declined to examine it. X challenged the decision, lost at first instance, and appealed.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The SPC held on appeal that, based on X's grounds of appeal and statements at the hearing, X's core claim was that the three companies had appropriated an invention completed by X and used it to file the patent at issue, thereby preventing X's later patent application from being granted. The case was in substance a civil dispute over ownership of the technical solution and inventorship.
For such disputes, the party may bring civil proceedings to confirm ownership of the disputed patent and identify the true inventor, rather than directly citing Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations to invalidate the patent. This approach better protects the legitimate rights and interests of the true right holder. Otherwise, invalidating a patent merely because the patentee had previously engaged in name appropriation, plagiarism or other bad-faith conduct would lack a legal basis and would not serve the interests of the true right holder. The Court therefore did not support X's grounds of appeal.
The judgment further noted that, under the Guidelines for Patent Examination, where the grant of a patent manifestly violates the principle of good faith, the panel may introduce the invalidation ground under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations on its own initiative. Accordingly, even if the petitioner has not raised such ground, or has raised it out of time, the CNIPA may still examine it ex officio in order to safeguard social integrity and the public interest. The relevant findings in the contested decision and the first-instance judgment were not entirely appropriate, but did not affect the correctness of their outcomes.
Significance
The case clarifies the boundary of the good faith principle as grounds for patent invalidation. Its focus is on ensuring the authenticity of the inventive activity itself, i.e., the technical solution was genuinely developed and not fabricated. Bad-faith conduct such as misstating inventorship or appropriating another party's invention to file a patent should be addressed through disputes over patent ownership or inventorship. Using invalidation proceedings to address such conduct may instead undermine the protection of the true right holder's interests.
(2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 794
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
