Developments in Chinese Patent Litigation: Key Cases from the Past Year

Introduction: The Chinese Patent Litigation Landscape
Recent Developments in Chinese Patent Litigation: Key Cases and Analysis (2024)Introduction: The Chinese Patent Litigation LandscapeChina has transformed into one of the world's preeminent forums for patent litigation, with its specialized intellectual property courts handling thousands of cases annually. The Chinese patent system, while relatively young compared to Western systems, has evolved rapidly since major reforms began in the early 2000s. Today, China's intellectual property regime is governed primarily by the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, which underwent its fourth major amendment in 2020, with implementation continuing to develop through 2024.

The Chinese patent litigation system operates through a specialized court structure. The Supreme People's Court (SPC) sits at the apex, with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in technically complex patent cases. Below this are specialized Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hainan, alongside IP Tribunals in 21 intermediate courts across the country. This structure reflects China's commitment to developing specialized expertise in handling complex technological disputes.

For foreign entities, the Chinese patent litigation landscape presents unique opportunities. China's market size alone makes it an essential jurisdiction for global IP enforcement strategies. The country's manufacturing capabilities mean that effective enforcement in China can prevent infringing products from entering global supply chains. Moreover, Chinese courts have several distinct advantages:

1. Speed of resolution: Chinese patent litigation typically concludes within 6-18 months, significantly faster than many Western jurisdictions where cases may drag on for years.
2. Cost-effectiveness: Litigation costs in China are generally lower than in the United States or Europe, making enforcement more accessible.
3. Availability of injunctive relief: Chinese courts readily grant injunctions upon finding infringement, providing powerful remedies to patentees.
4. Specialized technical expertise: The technical investigation officers employed by Chinese IP courts bring substantial subject-matter expertise to complex technological disputes.
5. Increasingly substantial damages: Recent reforms have significantly increased damage awards, including punitive damages up to five times the compensatory amount for willful infringement.

The following analysis examines significant patent cases adjudicated in Chinese courts from January 2024 through October 2024, highlighting key developments in this rapidly evolving jurisdiction.

1. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Date: January 29, 2024
Court: Supreme People's Court
Case Number: (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1213
Background:
This high-profile case involved Huawei's standard-essential patents (SEPs) relating to 5G telecommunication technologies. Huawei alleged that Samsung implemented these patented technologies in their smartphones and telecommunications equipment without proper licensing. The case originated in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in 2022 and reached the Supreme People's Court on appeal in late 2023, with the final decision delivered in January 2024.

Holding:
The Supreme People's Court upheld the lower court's finding of infringement, determining that Samsung had failed to negotiate FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) terms in good faith. The Court ordered Samsung to pay damages of RMB 560 million (approximately USD 78 million) and granted a conditional injunction requiring Samsung to either reach a licensing agreement with Huawei within six months or face a prohibition on selling the infringing products in China.

Importance and Future Influence:
This landmark decision reinforces China's position on SEP enforcement and FRAND negotiations. The SPC articulated detailed standards for evaluating good faith in FRAND negotiations, establishing that both implementers and patent holders have reciprocal obligations to negotiate reasonably. The Court's approach to determining FRAND royalty rates using a top-down methodology (starting with an aggregate royalty burden for the entire standard and apportioning based on patent contribution) provides important guidance for future cases.
The conditional injunction mechanism employed by the Court represents a balanced approach to the tensions between patent rights and market access, creating strong incentives for parties to reach licensing agreements while avoiding immediate market disruption. This case will likely serve as a template for future SEP disputes in China, particularly in the telecommunications sector.

2. AstraZeneca AB v. Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.
Date: March 15, 2024
Court: Beijing Intellectual Property Court
Case Number: (2023) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 1492
Background:
This pharmaceutical patent dispute concerned AstraZeneca's cancer drug Tagrisso (osimertinib), which targets specific mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Hansoh had filed for regulatory approval of a generic version of osimertinib before the expiration of AstraZeneca's compound patent. AstraZeneca sued for patent infringement, while Hansoh counterclaimed for invalidation of the patent based on alleged lack of inventiveness.

Holding:
The Beijing IP Court rejected Hansoh's invalidation claims, finding AstraZeneca's patent valid and enforceable. The Court determined that Hansoh's generic version would infringe the patent and issued a permanent injunction preventing Hansoh from manufacturing, selling, or offering to sell its generic product until patent expiration. The Court awarded damages of RMB 75 million (approximately USD 10.5 million) based on a reasonable royalty calculation.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case demonstrates China's strengthening protection for pharmaceutical innovations. The Court's detailed technical analysis of the inventive step involved in osimertinib's development sets an important precedent for evaluating pharmaceutical patents, particularly for compounds that represent incremental but clinically significant improvements over prior art.
The decision also reinforces the trend toward higher damages in Chinese patent cases, moving away from statutory minimums toward more market-based calculations. For the pharmaceutical industry, this case signals that Chinese courts will provide robust protection for innovative drugs, potentially encouraging more foreign pharmaceutical companies to invest in the Chinese market and enforce their patent rights there.

3. Qualcomm Incorporated v. OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd.
Date: April 23, 2024
Court: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court
Case Number: (2023) Yue 73 Min Chu No. 2831
Background:
This case involved non-standard-essential patents related to smartphone camera technology, specifically image stabilization and processing algorithms. Qualcomm alleged that OPPO implemented these technologies in their flagship smartphones without licensing. Unlike the Huawei v. Samsung case, these patents were not subject to FRAND licensing obligations.

Holding:
The Guangzhou IP Court found in favor of Qualcomm, concluding that OPPO had infringed two of the four patents at issue. The Court rejected OPPO's arguments that Qualcomm's previous licensing discussions with OPPO covering other patents should have included these patents as well. The Court ordered OPPO to pay damages of RMB 120 million (approximately USD 16.8 million) and issued an injunction against the infringing products.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case highlights the distinction between SEP and non-SEP enforcement in China. While SEP cases involve complex FRAND considerations, non-SEP cases can result in straightforward injunctions and substantial damages. The Court's willingness to issue an injunction against popular consumer products from a major Chinese manufacturer demonstrates the increasingly neutral stance of Chinese courts, regardless of the nationality of the litigants.
The case also illustrates the sophisticated technical analysis now routinely performed by Chinese IP courts, with the judgment including detailed comparisons of the accused functionality against the patent claims, supported by the findings of technical investigation officers. This technical rigor enhances the credibility of Chinese patent adjudication on the global stage.

4. Siemens AG v. Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited
Date: May 30, 2024
Court: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court
Case Number: (2023) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 1658
Background:
This industrial patent dispute involved Siemens' patents on gas turbine technology, specifically related to cooling systems for high-efficiency power generation. Siemens alleged that Shanghai Electric had copied these patented technologies in their latest generation of gas turbines. The case was complicated by Shanghai Electric's assertion that they had independently developed similar solutions and by national security interests related to energy infrastructure.

Holding:
The Shanghai IP Court found partial infringement, determining that two of Siemens' three asserted patents were valid and infringed. The Court rejected Shanghai Electric's independent development defense, finding sufficient evidence of access to Siemens' patented technology through previous collaborations. However, rather than granting Siemens' requested injunction, the Court ordered a compulsory license with reasonable royalties, citing national energy security concerns. The Court awarded damages of RMB 150 million (approximately USD 21 million) for past infringement.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case illustrates the balance Chinese courts are striking between IP protection and national strategic interests. The compulsory license solution—relatively rare in Chinese patent litigation—represents a nuanced approach to cases involving critical infrastructure or technologies. This approach may become more common in sectors designated as strategically important under China's industrial policies.
The substantial damages award, despite the denial of injunctive relief, signals that Chinese courts are committed to ensuring adequate compensation for patent holders even when other remedies are limited by public interest considerations. For foreign companies operating in sensitive sectors, this case provides important insights into how their intellectual property rights may be balanced against Chinese national interests.

5. Nippon Steel Corporation v. Baosteel Group Corporation
Date: July 12, 2024
Court: Supreme People's Court
Case Number: (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 582
Background:
This case involved advanced steel manufacturing patents, specifically hot-stamping technology for high-strength automotive steel. Nippon Steel had originally filed in the Shanghai IP Court, alleging that Baosteel had infringed patents related to the composition and manufacturing process of certain advanced steel products. After mixed results at the first instance (with findings of infringement on some claims but not others), both parties appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

Holding:
The Supreme People's Court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but modified the remedies. The SPC found infringement of all asserted patent claims, overturning the lower court's partial non-infringement finding. However, the SPC reduced the damages award from RMB 320 million to RMB 280 million (approximately USD 39.2 million), finding that the lower court had not properly accounted for certain non-infringing alternatives in its lost profits calculation. The SPC maintained the injunction against Baosteel's infringing products but provided a six-month transition period to prevent disruption to automotive supply chains.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case demonstrates the SPC's increasingly sophisticated approach to damages calculations in patent cases, moving toward more economically sound methodologies that consider market alternatives and supply chain impacts. The modification of the injunction to include a transition period reflects growing awareness of the broader economic consequences of patent remedies, particularly in industrial sectors with complex supply chains.
The case also highlights the specialized technical expertise being developed within China's IP judiciary, with the SPC conducting its own detailed analysis of metallurgical processes rather than simply deferring to the lower court's technical findings. This technical confidence at the highest judicial level reinforces the credibility of Chinese patent adjudication in complex technological fields.

6. ByteDance Ltd. v. Tencent Holdings Ltd.
Date: August 25, 2024
Court: Beijing Intellectual Property Court
Case Number: (2024) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 763
Background:
This software patent dispute between two Chinese tech giants concerned recommendation algorithm technology used in social media platforms. ByteDance alleged that Tencent's recommendation systems used in its WeChat and QQ platforms infringed ByteDance's patents covering content recommendation methods based on user behavior analysis and machine learning. The case attracted significant attention due to the competitive dynamics between these major players in China's internet ecosystem.

Holding:
The Beijing IP Court found that Tencent had infringed ByteDance's patents and ordered Tencent to pay damages of RMB 500 million (approximately USD 70 million)—one of the largest patent damages awards in Chinese history. The Court rejected Tencent's invalidity arguments based on prior art and rejected the argument that the patents covered abstract algorithms rather than practical applications. Notably, the Court declined to issue an injunction, instead establishing a forward-looking royalty framework for Tencent's continued use of the technology.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case sets important precedents for software and algorithm patents in China, an area where protection has historically been more limited than in other technological fields. The Court's analysis of the patentability of algorithm-based inventions provides valuable guidance for the growing number of AI and machine learning patent applications being filed in China.

The decision to implement a royalty framework rather than an injunction represents an evolution in Chinese courts' approach to remedies, particularly in cases where an injunction could negatively impact large numbers of users or ecosystem participants. This more flexible approach to remedies may become more common in digital technology cases, balancing innovation incentives against market disruption.

7. Nokia Corporation v. Xiaomi Inc.
Date: September 18, 2024
Court: Wuhan Intellectual Property Tribunal
Case Number: (2024) E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 825
Background:
This multi-patent case involved Nokia's wireless communication patents implemented in Xiaomi's smartphones. The case was notable for its jurisdictional complexity, with parallel proceedings in multiple countries including Germany, India, and the United States. Xiaomi had previously secured an anti-suit injunction from the Wuhan court in 2023, temporarily preventing Nokia from enforcing an injunction granted by a German court. The substantive infringement case was then heard by the Wuhan IP Tribunal.

Holding:
The Wuhan IP Tribunal found that Xiaomi had infringed three of Nokia's patents relating to video encoding and wireless transmission technologies. The Tribunal ordered Xiaomi to pay damages of RMB 110 million (approximately USD 15.4 million) and established global FRAND licensing terms for Nokia's entire portfolio, setting a global royalty rate of 0.8% per device. Notably, the Tribunal claimed jurisdiction to set this global rate based on China's significance in the global smartphone supply chain and manufacturing ecosystem.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case solidifies Chinese courts' willingness to set global FRAND rates in telecommunications patent disputes, positioning China as a potential alternative to traditional venues like the United States and United Kingdom for global patent licensing disputes. The Wuhan court's assertion of jurisdiction to establish worldwide licensing terms represents a significant development in the international patent landscape.
The decision also illustrates the complex interplay between anti-suit injunctions and substantive patent rulings in multi-jurisdictional disputes. As more patent cases involve parallel proceedings across multiple countries, the ability of Chinese courts to affect global licensing through both procedural mechanisms (like anti-suit injunctions) and substantive rate-setting will make China an increasingly important forum for international patent strategy.

8. Microsoft Corporation v. Jinshan Software Co., Ltd. (Kingsoft)
Date: October 5, 2024
Court: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court
Case Number: (2024) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 1032
Background:
This case involved patents related to cloud document editing and collaboration technology. Microsoft alleged that Kingsoft's WPS Office online collaboration features infringed patents covering Microsoft's Office 365 collaboration functionality. The case was particularly notable because it involved two major office productivity suites, with WPS being the dominant office software in many Chinese government and state-owned enterprise environments.

Holding:
The Shanghai IP Court found that Kingsoft had infringed Microsoft's patents but declined to issue the requested injunction, citing potential disruption to government operations and data security concerns. Instead, the Court ordered Kingsoft to pay damages of RMB 200 million (approximately USD 28 million) and to work with Microsoft to implement technical workarounds within one year while paying ongoing royalties during the transition period.

Importance and Future Influence:
This case highlights the evolving approach to injunctive relief in Chinese patent litigation, particularly when national interests or public sector operations are implicated. The Court's solution—substantial damages coupled with a mandated technical redesign and transitional royalties—represents a sophisticated approach to balancing intellectual property rights against practical concerns.
The decision also demonstrates China's nuanced approach to foreign intellectual property rights in strategically important sectors. Rather than simply denying relief to the foreign patentee or invalidating the patents, the Court crafted a solution that acknowledged the legitimacy of Microsoft's patents while ensuring continuity for Chinese users. This balanced approach may serve as a model for disputes involving other technologies where China has strategic domestic alternatives.

​Conclusion: The Evolution of Chinese Patent LitigationThe cases analyzed above reveal several important trends in Chinese patent litigation that are likely to continue developing through 2025 and beyond:
1. Increasingly sophisticated remedial frameworks
Chinese courts are moving beyond binary infringement/non-infringement determinations with simple injunctions, developing more nuanced remedial frameworks that balance patent rights against market realities, supply chain considerations, and public interests. Conditional injunctions, compulsory licenses, transition periods, and forward-looking royalty frameworks all represent a maturation of the Chinese patent system.
2. Rising damages awards
The substantial damages awarded in recent cases reflect China's commitment to providing meaningful compensation to patent holders. This shift away from historically low damages not only enhances the attractiveness of Chinese venues for patent enforcement but also strengthens deterrence against infringement. The incorporation of punitive damages (up to five times compensatory damages) for willful infringement further reinforces this trend.
3. Technical rigor and expertise
The detailed technical analyses evident in recent decisions demonstrate the growing expertise within China's specialized IP courts and tribunals. The use of technical investigation officers, who bring subject-matter expertise to the judicial process, has enhanced courts' ability to handle complex technological disputes across diverse industries. This technical competence is essential for maintaining confidence in the system, particularly for foreign litigants.
4. Global impact and jurisdictional reach
Chinese courts are increasingly willing to issue rulings with global implications, particularly in FRAND licensing disputes. This assertion of jurisdiction to establish worldwide licensing terms positions China alongside the United States and United Kingdom as key forums for resolving global patent disputes. For multinational companies, this development necessitates incorporating Chinese litigation into global patent strategies.
5. Balanced treatment of domestic and foreign entities
The cases reviewed demonstrate Chinese courts' willingness to find infringement and issue remedies against domestic entities when foreign patentees present compelling cases. Simultaneously, the courts have shown pragmatism in crafting remedies that acknowledge Chinese national interests while respecting legitimate intellectual property rights. This balance enhances the credibility of the Chinese system on the international stage.
6. Integration with industrial policy
Chinese patent jurisprudence is developing in parallel with the country's industrial policies, with nuanced approaches to sectors designated as strategically important. The compulsory licensing approach seen in cases involving essential infrastructure and the national security considerations factored into remedial decisions reflect this integration.

As China continues its transition from a manufacturing-focused economy to an innovation-driven one, its patent system is evolving accordingly. The legal infrastructure for patent protection has matured significantly, with specialized courts, technically trained judges, and increasingly sophisticated jurisprudence. Foreign entities looking to protect their innovations in China now face a system that, while still distinct from Western models in important ways, offers credible and often effective pathways to enforce legitimate patent rights.
​
For companies operating globally, engaging with the Chinese patent system is no longer optional—it is an essential component of any comprehensive intellectual property strategy. The significant market opportunities, powerful remedies, efficient proceedings, and increasingly substantial damages make China an important venue for patent enforcement. As Chinese patent litigation continues to evolve, maintaining awareness of developments in this dynamic legal landscape will be crucial for innovators across all technological sectors.