New Judicial Interpretation from the Supreme People’s Court of China: Clarification of Role of Patent Evaluation Reports in Utility Model or Design Patent Infringement

Summary 

This article explains how the Supreme People’s Court’s ("SPC's") new judicial interpretation, Fashi [2025] No.11^[1], changes the practical use of Patent Evaluation Reports ("PERs") in utility model and design patent infringement disputes. While PERs remain important evidence, the new rule confirms they are not required to file a lawsuit, and negative PER conclusions cannot automatically defeat infringement claims. For companies, this means greater flexibility when enforcing such patents and a clearer pathway for defending against weak patents. The article outlines the legal framework, key points of the interpretation, and provides practical implications for patent owners, defendants, and corporate IP strategy.
 

Background and Legal Context 

The PER system was established as a supplement to utility model and design patents, which are granted without substantive examination in China, to help assess their validity. 

Under the PRC Patent Law (Art. 66(2)^[2]), in disputes involving utility models or design patents, the PRC court or the patent administrative enforcement authorities (such as local administrations for market regulation) may require the patent owner or an interested party to provide a PER. Such a report may also be submitted voluntarily by the patent owner, an interested party, or the alleged infringer. 

SPC Provisions on the Application of Law in Patent Dispute Cases^[3] (Art. 4) state that if a plaintiff fails to submit a PER when required by the PRC court, the PRC court may suspend the proceedings or impose legal consequences on the plaintiff, such as adverse rulings or bearing procedural liabilities.  Additionally, Art. 5 clarifies that if the defendant files an invalidation request during an infringement action, the court shall suspend the case, unless the submitted PER shows no grounds for invalidity, among other statutory exceptions.

On July 30, 2025, the SPC promulgated the judicial interpretation, Fashi [2025] No.11, which took effect on August 1, 2025. This Judicial Interpretation resolves lingering questions on how courts should treat PERs which contain negative conclusions on a patent’s validity. 

The New Judicial Interpretation

• PER is evidence, not a threshold: Courts must accept cases regardless of whether a PER is filed. 
• A negative PER does not automatically lead to dismissal: Even if the PER suggests the patent lacks validity, courts cannot summarily reject the claim. 
• Case-by-case assessment: Judges should explain the implications of PER results to the parties and decide the dispute based on the full evidence and arguments. 

Key Provisions and Principles

1. Neutral role of PER: The report supports evidence-based decision-making but does not replace judicial assessment. Its conclusion is for reference only and does not determine the patent's ultimate validity.
2. Enhanced judicial discretion: Judges retain flexibility to weigh PER findings together with other technical and legal evidence. The ultimate determination of patent validity remains within the purview of the administrative invalidation process and subsequent judicial review. 
3. Guidance for litigants: Patent owners, accused infringers, and stakeholders should view PERs as helpful tools to demonstrate patent strength or raise doubts, but not as the "final word." 
    

Business Takeaways 

• For Patent Owners：
  The new interpretation gives you more certainty when enforcing utility model or design patents. You may proceed with litigation even if a PER is still pending or contains mixed conclusions. If you anticipate a favourable PER, obtaining it early can strengthen your negotiating position and help accelerate the case.
• For Alleged Infringers：
  A negative PER remains a valuable tool for challenging patent stability, although it is not decisive. You should still rely on technical analysis, prior-art searches, and other substantive defences. If the patent appears weak, proactively requesting a PER may strengthen your defence and create additional pressure on the patent owner.
• For Corporate IP Risk managers 
  PERs should be viewed as a strategic tool in both enforcement and defence planning. It is useful for assessing litigation risk, but it does not determine the ultimate outcome of a case. Before formally requesting a PER, consider conducting an internal or external patent stability assessment to better manage expectations and avoid unexpected results.
   

Additional Notes on PERs

• Legal Nature: A PER constitutes an authoritative technical assessment issued by the CNIPA, rather than an administrative decision. As such, it is not subject to administrative reconsideration or litigation^[4]. However, the requester may petition the CNIPA for correction of potential errors within two months of receiving the report. 
• Uniqueness & Public Accessibility^[5]:  Only one PER is issued for a given patent. Once issued, the report is uploaded to the official patent database and becomes part of the public file, accessible to any member of the public.
• Application Conditions: The right to request a PER arises only after the patent grant announcement is published. Eligible requesters include:
  • The Patent Owner: May apply at any time without providing additional justification.
  • Interested Parties (e.g., exclusive licensees): Must submit the request along with evidence of their legal interest (e.g., a copy of the license agreement).
  • Alleged Infringers: Must submit the request accompanied by preliminary evidence of a legal dispute (e.g., a court case-filing notice, a cease-and-desist letter, or a platform takedown notice).
• Official Guidelines: The specific procedures, required documentation, and fees for applying for a PER are detailed in Chapter 11 of the Guidelines to Intellectual Property Government Services, accessible at https://ggfw.cnipa.gov.cn/portal/helper/zhinan.pdf.