/>iOn April 26, 2024, China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the 2023 Typical Cases of Administrative Enforcement (2023年度知识产权行政保护典型案例). The 30 cases covers patents, trademarks and geographical indications. Administrative enforcement in China provides an alternative to enforcement through the court system and can be faster and less expensive than going to trial. However, while damages are unavailable defendants can be fined.
CNIPA provided case briefs for the typical administrative patent cases as follows:
I. Typical cases of administrative protection of patents in 2023
1. The Intellectual Property Office of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province and the Intellectual Property Office of Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province jointly handled the patent infringement dispute case of the utility model of “pre-pressing device for window film adhesive”
【Case Brief】
The applicant, Wenzhou Chuangda Printing Machinery Co., Ltd., obtained the utility model patent right of “pre-pressing device for window film adhesive” on April 10, 2018, with patent number ZL201721264785.9. The patent right involved was legal and valid when the applicant filed a request for handling infringement disputes .
From March 1 to March 3, 2023, a certain window sticking machine exhibited and sold by a company in Wenzhou, the respondent, was suspected of infringing on the patent rights involved in the case. The petitioner submitted a request for administrative ruling to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Office on March 2, 2023. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Office accepted the case on the same day and inspected the booth in accordance with the law to conduct investigation and evidence collection. After comparison, it was initially determined that the accused product was suspected of infringing the patent rights involved. Both parties involved were Wenzhou enterprises, and the petitioner later requested coordination from the Intellectual Property Offices of Guangzhou and Wenzhou.
In order to stop patent infringement at the source and facilitate dispute resolution, the petitioner applied to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Office to withdraw the processing request and transfer the evidence collected by the on-site inspection. On March 13, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Office approved the withdrawal of the processing request in accordance with the law and transferred the case materials to the Wenzhou Intellectual Property Office. On March 30, the Wenzhou Intellectual Property Office accepted the case in accordance with the law at the request of the petitioner, combined with the evidence materials transferred by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Office, organized mediation for the parties, and finally facilitated the signing of a mediation agreement between the two parties. The respondent shall perform the terms of the agreement on site and pay the requester’s rights protection fees. The Wenzhou Intellectual Property Office issued an administrative mediation letter for patent infringement disputes to conclude the case.
2. Beijing Intellectual Property Office handles the patent infringement dispute case of “toner cartridge and image forming device”
【Case Brief】
The applicant, Fujifilm Business Innovation Co., Ltd. , obtained the invention patent right of “toner cartridge and image forming device” on May 28, 2014 , with patent number ZL201010211753.9. The patent right in question was legal and valid when the applicant filed a request for handling the infringement dispute .
On January 19, 2022, the petitioner entered into a dispute with the respondent Beijing Pinyoujiahui Technology Co., Ltd. and the respondent Beijing Weinasi Gang Technology Co., Ltd. and the respondent Zhongshan Jingcheng Technology Co., Ltd. and submitted a request to the Beijing Intellectual Property Office for handling .
The petitioner believes that Pinyoujiahui Company has offered to sell and sold products manufactured and sold by Venus Gang Company and Zhongshan Jingcheng Company without permission and is suspected of falling within the scope of protection of the patent involved, and requests that the respondent and two affiliated defendants stop the infringement.
During the trial, they stated that the products involved in the case had been applied for design patents by Pinyoujiahui Company. Weinasi Company and Zhongshan Jingcheng Company had never manufactured the products involved. The three defendants argued they di not infringe but did not provide evidence of non-infringement.
During the handling of the case, the three defendants failed to participate in the oral hearing without legitimate reasons, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Office conducted the case in absentia in accordance with the law. After comparison, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office determined that the product involved fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved. Based on the evidence in the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office determined that Pinyoujiahui Company offered to sell and sold the products involved in the case; the Beijing Intellectual Property Office confirmed the claim made by the petitioner that Weinasi Gang Company and Zhongshan Jingcheng Company manufactured the products involved in the case.
On April 28, 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office announced the results of the ruling in court: it was determined that the products involved fell within the scope of protection of the patent rights involved; the requested company, Youjiahui Company, was ordered to immediately stop offering to sell and sell the products involved; Weinasi Gang Company and Zhongshan Jingcheng Company were ordered to immediately stop manufacturing the products involved, destroy the special equipment and molds used to manufacture infringing products, and were not allowed to sell or use unsold infringing products.
3. Nanjing Intellectual Property Office of Jiangsu Province handled the utility model patent infringement dispute case of “a new type of sewage-intercepting environmental rainwater outlet”
【Case Introduction】
The petitioner, Anhui Yajing Rainwater Utilization Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yajing Company), obtained a utility model patent titled “A new type of sewage-intercepting environmentally friendly rainwater outlet” on March 24, 2020. The patent number is ZL201920377144. 7. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
Yajing Company submitted a request to the Nanjing Intellectual Property Office to handle the patent infringement dispute between it and the respondent, Jiangsu Pader New Materials Co., Ltd. The Nanjing Intellectual Property Office accepted the case on June 21, 2023. On July 26, 2023, the Nanjing Intellectual Property Office merged this case’s oral hearing with another related case (the respondent is Nanjing Nanyu Environmental Protection Equipment Engineering Co., Ltd.). Yajing Company requested in court to add Nanyu Company as the respondent in the case and submitted a letter of request. Nanyu Company did not raise any objection, and the Nanjing Intellectual Property Office added Nanyu.
Yajing Company argued that Pader Company, without permission, for the purpose of production and operation, manufactures, uses, and sells rainwater outlet products that fall within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent involved in the case, which constitutes an infringement of the patent rights involved; at the same time, Pader Company sold shells of the infringing product to Nanyu Company. Nanyu Company provided inner components and technology. Pader Company was entrusted by Nanyu Company to produce it. Nanyu Company constituted an accessory in infringement.
Pader Company argued that: the accused infringing products do not fall within the protection scope of the patent involved; the accused infringing products purchased by Yajing Company from Pader Company are samples assembled by the company, and the relevant parts are not produced by Pader Company; Pader Company’s allegedly infringing product was produced in 2018, which is earlier than the filing date of the patent involved, and should not be regarded as infringement.
Nanyu Company argues that: the alleged infringing product does not fall within the protection scope of the patent involved, and the accused infringing product belongs to existing technology and does not constitute infringement; Nanyu Company has no cooperative relationship with Pader Company, nor is it an accessory to infringement; Relevant products are produced in accordance with the “Guidelines for the Construction of Sponge Rainwater Gutters in Anhui Province” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”). The “Guidelines” are mandatory standards. Yajing Company is the chief editor of the “Guidelines” and Incorporated into the “Guidelines” its technology and abuses the “Guidelines” to exclude and restrict competition and the Nanjing IP Office should not support its requests.
The Nanjing IP Office held (1) the alleged infringing product fell into the scope of protection of Claim 1 of the patent in question, and the reasons for the existing technical defense put forward by Nanyu Company were untenable; (2) Nanyu Company had not subjectively made any declaration of will to jointly manufacture the alleged infringing product with Pader Company, nor objectively aided or abetted Pader Company in the manufacture or sale of the alleged infringing product. Therefore, Pader Company produced and sold the alleged infringing product independently, and Nanyu Company should not bear joint and several liabilities. (3) The Guidelines, which were recommended local standards of Anhui Province, did not constitute a coercive force on the production of similar products, and there was no evidence showing that Yajing Company abused its patent right.
On October 19, 2023, the Nanjing IP Office rendered an administrative ruling, ordering Pader Company to cease the infringement of manufacturing or selling any rainwater outlet product falling within the scope of protection of the patent claims in question without the permission of the patentee.
4. The Intellectual Property Office of Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province handled the “medicine bottle label” design patent infringement dispute case
【Case Introduction】
The petitioner, Hebei Kun’an Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., obtained the design patent right named “Medicine Bottle Label” on October 1, 2021, with the patent number ZL202130389718.5. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
On February 13, 2023, Kunan Pharmaceutical submitted a request to the Shijiazhuang Intellectual Property Office for settlement of the patent infringement dispute between it and the respondent Lesheng Pharmaceutical Shijiazhuang Co., Ltd. On that day, the Shijiazhuang Intellectual Property Office opened the case in accordance with the law at the request of the petitioner.
The two parties have signed a cooperation agreement. The petitioner invests in and develops nitroglycerin tablets and owns the design patent rights for related product packaging. It entrusts the respondent to produce them per a production schedule. It is also agreed that the respondent shall not produce and sell the tablets on its own without the permission of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the label and packaging of the nitroglycerin tablet bottles produced and sold by the respondent, which were not within the scope of the entrustment, were the same as the products for which the petitioner had design patent rights, and notarized the purchase of the accused infringing products.
The respondent believed that the petitioner made a production schedule, and after the respondent produced the goods, the petitioner did not pick up the goods, resulting in a backlog of goods. In order to reduce losses, it tried to sell them. After receiving the petitioner’s complaint this time, the respondent has replaced the labels and cartons as soon as possible.
The Shijiazhuang Intellectual Property Office held that: after comparing the alleged infringing product with the patent involved, it was found that they both belong to the same design, and the alleged infringing product fell within the protection scope of the patent involved ; the two parties were originally in a cooperative relationship, and the petitioner entrusted the respondent with production, and the production activities have been permitted within the entrustment period; the notarized production dates of multiple allegedly infringing products are after the entrustment period, that is, the production and sales activities of the respondent are without the permission of the petitioner.
On April 14, 2023, the Shijiazhuang Intellectual Property Office made a ruling, concluding that the respondent had infringed the patent rights involved, and ordered it to immediately stop manufacturing, destroy special equipment and molds for manufacturing infringing products, and not sell unsold infringing products. or place it on the market in any other form.
5. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Office handled the invention patent infringement dispute case of “Pharmaceutical preparations containing dapagliflozin propylene glycol hydrate”
【Case Introduction】
AstraZeneca (Sweden) Co., Ltd. obtained the invention patent right for “Pharmaceutical preparations containing dapagliflozin propylene glycol hydrate” on July 15, 2015 , with the patent number ZL201210201489.X. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement .
On May 10, 2023, AstraZeneca (Sweden) Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement dispute settlement request with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Office regarding its patent infringement dispute with the respondent Shandong Lukang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
The petitioner argued that the accused infringing drug dapagliflozin tablets, which the respondent has obtained the marketing authorization and license for a generic version, falls within the protection scope of the patent involved. The relevant online procurement notices include the above accused infringing drugs, and the relevant hospital sold the alleged infringing drug , implying the respondent manufactured, sold, and offered to sell the alleged infringing drug that fell within the scope of protection of the patent claims involved. However, the respondent continued to sell and promised to sell the allegedly infringing drugs after the license agreement was terminated, thus infringing the petitioner’s patent rights involved in the case.
The respondent believes that: the respondent’s activities of manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing drugs all occurred within the validity period of the relevant patent license agreement, and should be considered to have obtained the implicit permission of the patentee; that the respondent applied to the relevant administrative agencies for the accused infringing drugs only indicates that the drug variety held by the respondent is about to pass the administrative examination and approval of the local administrative agency, and the listing information of the accused infringing drugs does not show the price and packaging information of the drug, nor is it related to the relevant medical treatment. Any bargaining behavior carried out by the institution should not be deemed as an offer to sell; the respondent’s behavior is within the validity period of the license agreement; it is recognized that the accused infringing drug Dapagliflozin Tablets falls within the protection of the relevant claims asserted by the patent claimant involved in the case scope.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Office held that: (1) Offering to sell refers to an expression of intention to sell goods by means of advertising, displaying in shop windows, or exhibiting at trade fairs. The respondent’s application to the Shanghai Medical Insurance Department to be linked to the Internet is an expression of intention for future sales of the allegedly infringing products and should be deemed as a current offer to sell. (2) The patentee has the right to decide the method and time of disposal of rights. The petitioner had signed an implementation license agreement with the respondent for the patents related to the drugs that were allegedly infringed, and it was not inappropriate to only claim that the respondent should be held liable for infringement after the agreement was terminated. (3) The bidding and procurement agency assisted in the investigation and provided a sales list of the allegedly infringing drugs. From the time recorded on the list, it can be inferred that the sales and offer for sale of the allegedly infringing drugs not only occurred during the existence of the agreement between the two parties, but also occurred after the agreement between the two parties was terminated.
On August 9, 2023, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Office made an administrative ruling: it was determined that the respondent continued to list and sell the allegedly infringing dapagliflozin tablets on the relevant platform after the termination of the agreement, which constituted offers for sale and sales, and the allegedly infringing drugs had fallen within the protection scope of the invention patent involved; the respondent was ordered to immediately stop offering to sell and selling the products involved that infringed the patent rights involved, and to withdraw the relevant listings.
- The Pinghe County Intellectual Property Office of Fujian Province and the Wudi County Intellectual Property Office of Shandong Province jointly handled a series of five design patent infringement dispute cases involving Lai Moumou and Wudi Yurui E-Commerce Co., Ltd.
【Case Introduction】
The petitioner Lai XX obtained the design patent for “Packaging Box (Juice Pomelo)” on January 3, 2023, with the patent number ZL202230645195.0. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
On May 8, 2023, Lai XX submitted a request to the Pinghe County Intellectual Property Office to handle the patent infringement disputes between him and the respondent, four e-commerce companies and a fast food restaurant in Wudi County.
The Pinghe County Intellectual Property Office used an online evidence collection platform to collect evidence from the respondent’s online store involved in the case and obtained the subject information of the accused online store and the transaction records of the goods involved in the case from the e-commerce platform operator, and found out key information such as the place of shipment, sales time, and amount involved in the case.
After verifying and confirming the evidence, the Pinghe County Intellectual Property Office promptly transferred the case to the Wudi County Intellectual Property Office. After consultation, the intellectual property departments of the two places used online video conferencing between two locations to jointly hear the case. During the trial of the case, both parties fully stated their opinions, cross-examined, and argued online. During the trial, the online evidence collection platform was again used to store evidence and upload the entire trial process, achieving evidence storage and traceability management throughout the entire process. Through online collaborative hearing, the parties to three cases signed mediation transcripts and mediation agreements on the spot, and expressed their willingness to submit them to judicial confirmation in court; the parties to two cases signed oral trial transcripts, and the case handling agency immediately made an administrative ruling.
After the trial, according to the wishes of both parties, the two mediation cases were submitted to the Zhangzhou Intermediate People’s Court for judicial confirmation. The Zhangzhou Intermediate People’s Court accepted the cases in different places in accordance with the law and made judicial confirmation of the mediation agreements of the two cases. This was the first application of the out-of-place judicial confirmation procedure in the mediation of patent infringement disputes.
7. Zhejiang Province Hangzhou Intellectual Property Office mediates the invention patent infringement dispute case of “composition of diammonium glycyrrhizinate”
【Case Introduction】
Lianyungang Runzhong Pharmaceutical Co Ltd obtained the invention patent right for “composition of diammonium glycyrrhizinate” through transfer on February 6, 2012 , with the patent number ZL200610040759.8. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
On October 8, 2022, Runzhong submitted a request to the Hangzhou Intellectual Property Office for handling the patent infringement dispute between it and the respondent, a company in Jinan, and the Hangzhou Intellectual Property Office accepted the case on that day. Runzhong believes that the product involved in the case was applied for and was selected for the second batch of centralized drug procurement by public medical institutions in Zhejiang Province, and that the respondent has actually sold the product involved in the case. It requested that it be ordered to immediately stop manufacturing, selling, and offering to sell the product.
The respondent believed that the raw materials used in the accused infringing products were purchased from third-party companies, and the technology used to implement the raw materials involved was existing technology. It also believed that diammonium glycyrrhizinate capsules had been on the market before the filing date of the patent involved, and the accused infringing products that were implemented has been used publicly and belongs to the existing technology. The respondent also argued that it enjoyed the right of prior use and had not infringed the patent rights involved.
The Hangzhou Intellectual Property Office preliminarily determined that the technical solution of the allegedly infringing product fell within the protection scope of the patent involved, and that the relevant actions constituted infringement; the existing technology defense was not established, and the prior use defense was also not established. Based on the case and actual situation, considering the actual sales of a company in Jinan after bidding in Zhejiang Province, stopping sales will affect the stable supply of downstream hospitals and pharmacies, and there is still the possibility of cooperation between the two companies. On March 16, 2023, The Hangzhou Intellectual Property Office organized the two parties to conduct mediation and reached a mediation agreement. At the same time, it guided both parties to apply for judicial confirmation. On May 18, 2023, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a judicial confirmation ruling in accordance with the law.
8. Tianjin Binhai High-tech Industrial Development Zone Market Supervision and Administration Bureau investigated and dealt with the repeated infringement case of Tianjin Ruitai Technology Development Co., Ltd.’s design patent
【Case Introduction】
The petitioner, Suzhou Hanmo Technology Co., Ltd., obtained the design patent right named “Condom (Texture Series)” on October 28, 2015, with the patent number ZL201530111370.8. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
On March 23, 2022, Suzhou Hanmo Technology Co., Ltd. filed a request with the Tianjin Intellectual Property Office to handle the patent infringement dispute between it and the respondent Tianjin Ruitai Technology Development Co., Ltd. The Tianjin Intellectual Property Office accepted the case on the same day and made a decision on June 16, 2022, ordering Tianjin Ruitai Technology Development Co., Ltd. to stop the infringement.
After the above decision came into effect, the petitioner discovered that the respondent was still selling the products involved in the case on its official website and related e-commerce platforms, and then reported the relevant situation to the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Tianjin Binhai High-tech Industrial Development Zone. On July 27, 2023, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the “Tianjin Patent Promotion and Protection Regulations”, the Tianjin Binhai High-tech Industrial Development Zone Market Supervision and Administration Bureau determined after investigation that the respondent refused to make corrections after being found to have infringed the design patent rights of others. Accordingly, in the case of repeated infringement of the same patent right, Tianjin Ruitai Technology Development Co., Ltd. was given an administrative penalty of confiscation of illegal gains and a fine of 10,000 RMB.
9. The Intellectual Property Office of Ma’anshan City, Anhui Province handled the utility model patent infringement dispute case of “an irregular chassis structure”
【Case Introduction】
The petitioner, Dongguan Jinhetian Industrial Co., Ltd., obtained the utility model patent for “an irregular chassis structure” on January 24, 2023, with the patent number ZL202222656483.3. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement.
On May 15, 2023, Dongguan Jinhetian Industrial Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement dispute settlement request with the Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Office regarding its patent infringement dispute with the respondent, Ma’anshan Tianlang Internet Cafe. Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Office recruited technical investigators to participate in the entire process.
The petitioner believes that it discovered that the respondent used the accused infringing products in its business premises and promoted the accused infringing products by promising sales. The petitioner is suspected of infringement and should bear corresponding legal liability according to law. The respondent believed that the products it used were all provided by outsourcers, and there was no manufacturing or sales commitment, nor was there any inventory of related products.
On June 27, 2023, Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Office organized both parties to participate in the oral hearing, and the respondent provided evidence from legal sources. The petitioner recognized that the allegedly infringing chassis used by the respondent on-site had legal origin. After trial, the Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Office determined that the respondent only engaged in use of the product. On July 10, 2023, the Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Office made an administrative ruling: it determined that the infringement was established, ordered the infringer to immediately stop the infringement, and rejected the petitioner’s other requests.
After the verdict of the case, Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Protection Center continued to follow up and coordinate in a timely manner, urging the respondent to provide complete supplier information of the products involved in the case. Under the organization and coordination of the Ma’anshan Intellectual Property Protection Center, the respondent realized that the products involved in the case were infringing products and stated that if it expands its business scale in the future, it will give priority to purchasing the petitioner’s patented products. The petitioner acknowledges that the respondent has no malicious infringement intention, that the source information it provides can help it combat the infringement at the source, and that the respondent has paid a reasonable price for the product, and authorizes the respondent to continue to use its patented products.
10. The Intellectual Property Office of Jingdezhen City, Jiangxi Province handled the “Ceramic Flower Vase (Strange)” design patent infringement dispute case
【Case Brief】
The petitioner, Jingdezhen Beihanmei Ceramics Co., Ltd., obtained the design patent right named “Ceramic Flower Ware (Odd)” on August 3, 2021, with the patent number ZL202130401899.9. The patent rights involved in the case were legal and valid when the petitioner filed a request for infringement dispute settlement .
On July 4, 2023, Jingdezhen Beihanmei Ceramics Co., Ltd. filed a request with the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Office regarding its patent infringement dispute with a Jingdezhen Ceramics Co., Ltd., and requested the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Office to handle the case of infringement of related products including conducting investigation and evidence collection at the residence of the short video platform store operator. On July 5, 2023 , the Jingdezhen Municipal Intellectual Property Office assigned law enforcement officers to the respondent’s site for on-site inspection based on the petitioner’s application to conduct investigation and evidence collection.
Due to the complexity of the facts involved in the case, the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Office appointed a technical investigator from the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Protection Center to participate in the technical investigation. Together with members of the case group, they conducted a detailed analysis of the allegedly infringing products sampled and collected evidence, and compared the patent involved in the case item by item with design features of the allegedly infringing product.
On September 5, 2023, the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Office made an administrative ruling in accordance with the law, confirming that the respondent’s infringement was established and ordering him to immediately stop the infringement. On September 28, 2023, the petitioner submitted a request for administrative mediation of the dispute over the amount of compensation to the Jingdezhen Intellectual Property Office. Afterwards, the two parties reached a written mediation agreement and judicial confirmation. The respondent paid infringement compensation to the petitioner.
The original announcement, including third-party expert commentary, is available here (Chinese only).
