Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.

Ge Cheng & Co Ltd. China

Newsletter: Volume 11 (2021) Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)


  • The Beijing Intellectual Property Court carried out judicial confirmation on Beijing's first administrative mediation agreement for a dispute over patent infringement
  •  WIPO Annual Report: China ranks first in the number of intellectual property applications worldwide
  •  Restrictions on the application of patent equivalent infringement——(2021) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No.192
  • Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial will take effect on January 1 next year

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court carried out judicial confirmation on Beijing's first administrative mediation agreement for a dispute over patent infringement



Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court conducted judicial confirmation 0n two administrative mediation agreements for patent disputes, which is the first case in Beijing where an administrative mediation agreement was reached for judicial confirmation of a patent infringement dispute.


A technology company in Beijing and a technology company in Jiangsu requested an administrative adjudication from the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Intellectual Property Office) for an infringement dispute over a utility model patent for smart cleaning equipment. After mediation by the Intellectual Property Office, both parties reached a mediation agreement and signed the “Patent Agreement on Administrative Mediation of Infringement Disputes”. Afterward, both parties applied for judicial confirmation of the above-mentioned administrative mediation agreement.


After accepting the case in accordance with the law, after review, it was believed that the mediation agreement reached by both applicants complied with the statutory conditions for judicial confirmation of the mediation agreement, and it was ruled as follows in accordance with Article 195 of the Civil Procedure Law: 1. The mediation agreement between the applicants presided over by the Intellectual Property Office is valid. 2. The applicants should consciously fulfill the obligations in accordance with the mediation agreement; if one applicant refuses to perform or fails to perform all of the obligations, the other applicant may apply to the court for enforcement.


The above two cases finally resolved the disputes between the parties by the court’s judicial confirmation of the administrative mediation agreement, which not only reflected the effective connection between administrative and judicial work, but also was an important measure for us to further promote the diversion of complicated and simple cases and optimize the allocation of judicial resources. It is of great importance to improve our diversified mediation mechanisms for intellectual property rights disputes and enhance the quality and effectiveness of trials.


From: Beijing Intellectual Property Court

 November 9, 2021



WIPO Annual Report: China ranks first in the number of intellectual property applications worldwide


Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the annual report of World Intellectual Property Index. The report showed that in 2020, there has been a rebound in the number of global intellectual property applications, which restored growth trend. Hereinto, the CNIPA took the lead with 1.5 million patent applications. In 2020, global valid patents increased by 5.9%, and the number of valid patents owned by China reached 3.1 million, achieving the fastest growth.


It is indicated in the report that, in 2020, there were about 13.4 million trademark applications worldwide, an increase for the 11th consecutive year. China ranked first in the world with around 9.3 million trademark registration applications. It is believed in the report that during the COVID-19 epidemic, global trademark application activities have increased remarkably with some new products and services emerging due to the pandemic.


In the aspect of industrial designs, it is pointed out in the report that, in 2020, there about 1.1 million industrial design applications been filed globally, including 1.4 million designs, an increase of 2% year-on-year. In 2020, the applications accepted by CNIPA contained 770,362 designs, accounting for 55.5% of the world’s total amount


Data from 92 national and regional offices showed that there were approximate 58,800 protected and effective geographical indications in 2020. Hereinto, Germany reported 14,394 valid geographical indications, followed by China, with 8,476 valid geographical indications.


The annual report data of the "World Intellectual Property Index" once again forcefully manifested to the world that China's intellectual property industry has entered a stage of high-quality development, and it has been transforming from a large country in the introduction of intellectual property to a large country of creation, the transformation of intellectual property work from the pursuit of quantity to the improvement of quality has been accelerated in an all-round way. Such development like above mentioned has also been unanimously affirmed by all walks of life around the world.


From: China Intellectual Property News

November 10, 2021




 Restrictions on the application of patent equivalent infringement——(2021) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No.192


Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court concluded the case of a dispute over infringement of patent rights for inventions, which included Xuzhou Zhongsen Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongsen Company), Changzhou Great Garden Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Great Company), and Ningbo Anglin Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anglin Company), determined to quash the original judgment and rejected the patentee Zhongsen Company’s litigation request.


The case involved the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the patent infringement determination. The second-instance judgment pointed out that if the patentee clearly knew the related technical solution when writing the patent application document, but it did not include in the protection scope of the claim, then in the litigation, it would be no longer applied to equivalence theory to include the technical solution in the scope of protection.


In the first instance, Zhongsen alleged that it was the patentee of the invention patent for "Electric Hedge Trimmer" (Patent No. 201610201500.0), and Great Company produced and sold the alleged infringing products "Broadband Trimmer" that violated claim 1 of its invention patent without its permission, which constituted an infringement; Anglin Company provided parts and components for the alleged infringing product produced and sold by Great Company, which also infringed on its invention patent rights. After the first instance, the court determined that the alleged infringing product fell into the protection scope of Zhongsen Company's patent claim 1, and ordered Great Company and Anglin Company to stop the infringement and compensate losses.


Both the Great Company and Anglin Company dissatisfied and filed an appeal to the Supreme People's Court.


Both Great Company and Anglin Company argued that the alleged infringing product did not fall into the scope of protection of the patent claims involved, and the court of first instance wrongly judged that the relevant technical features of the alleged infringing product were equivalent to the driving method of the involved patent. In addition, Anglin company also claimed that its behavior of selling parts and components did not constitute assistance infringement.


The Supreme People’s Court believed that the determination of patent protection scope should not only strictly protect the interests of the patentee, but also safeguard the publicity of the claims and the public’s trust in the patent documents, and balance the relationship between the patentee and the public.


To determine whether the patentee clearly understands and incorporates the specific technical solution into the protection scope of the patent right when applying for a patent, it can be affirmed in conjunction with the content of the description and drawings, and the description and drawings should be viewed as a whole. The judgment standard is the understanding of the technical person in the art after reading the claims, the specification and the drawings.


Meanwhile, generally the subject name of the patent has a restrictive effect, which defines the technical field to which the technical solution applies.


The subject name of the patent involved in this case is "an electric hedge trimmer", and the preamble of the claims also contains an explicit record of "motor" drive.


It can be seen from the description and the claims that when drafting the claims and description of the patent involved, the patentee clearly knew that there were two methods of motor drive and fuel engine drive in the prior art, and “environmental protection” is a new technical effect of this patent compared the prior art, however, the patentee only documented motor drive in the patent claims involved, which clearly demonstrated that the drive mode in the patented technical solution involved is merely limited to motor drive without including fuel engine drive.


In terms of the relevant content of the specification that based on the pursuit of environmental protection, the patent applicant did not seek for the technical solution protecting the hedge trimmer whose power source is a fuel engine when drafting the patent claims involved.


In other words, based on the “electric hedge trimmer” defined by the claims, the introduction of the two driving modes of the hedge trimmer in the background technology section in the specification, and the emphasis on the effect of "environmental protection" in the part of invention object in the specification, etc., can be completely understood as the patent applicant clearly does not seek for the technical solution protecting that hedge trimmers use fuel engines as power sources.


In this case, if the fuel engine drive and the motor drive are determined to constitute the technical features equivalent when judging whether the alleged infringing product is included within the scope of the patent protection involved, it is not conducive to the publicity of the patent claims and the protection of the public trust interest.

                                            From: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court

November 17, 2021



Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial will take effect on January 1 next year


Recently, CNIPA issued the Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines), which will be take effect on January 1, 2022, and the original "Standards of Trademark Examination and Trial" will be abolished at the same time.


The Guidelines is divided into two parts: "Formal Examination and Clerical Operations" and "Trademark Examination and Trial". There are 25 chapters in the "Formal Examination and Clerical Operations", which makes systematic and comprehensive pectination to the formal examination and affairs work of trademark examination trials, stipulates the general requirements of formal examination, and refines the work standards of various trademark business forms. It regulates the classification of commodity and services, the classification of trademark text search elements, the classification of graphic elements and other search elements. It clarifies the examination standards for trademark renewal, alteration, and transfer procedures, and explains the Madrid trademark international registration application, opposition and follow-up business, regulating trademark fees, document service, trademark archives, trademark announcements, etc. In "Trademark Examination and Trial", there are 19 chapters, it improves the substantive standards of trademark examination and trial, implements the supporting requirements for the amendment of laws and regulations, stipulates the principles, scope and basic concepts of trademark examination and trial, enhances the rationality and guidance of substantive examination standards corresponding to the legislative intent of the legal provisions, and clarifies the practical requirements of the combination of consistent standard implementation and individual case examination, embedding guiding cases and adding illustration with relevant notes for the purpose of strengthening standard's guidance.


It is reported that the "Guidelines" is published by the Intellectual Property Publishing House and will be publicly released in January 2022.


From: The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court

November 24, 2021



Notice on items related to the charge for the international phase of PCT applications in RMB standard


In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding on the Remittance of Fees under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) signed by CNIPA and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), starting from December 1, 2021, CNIPA will charge for the international phase of PCT applications on behalf of WIPO in accordance with the RMB standard published by WIPO, and is no longer converted to the Swiss franc standard. The relevant affairs are hereby notified as follows:


1. The upcoming RMB standard


In terms of the latest expense standard published by the WIPO in November 2021, CNIPA will charge the international phase fee for PCT applications according to the following standards.


In accordance with the agreement, each year WIPO publishes the RMB standard for the international phase of PCT applications for the next year. In principle, it remains valid for one year. If the standard needs to be adjusted due to great exchange rate fluctuations, it will be announced at some other time.


2. Scope of application


International filing fees for PCT applications submitted to CNIPA and received after December 1, 2021 (inclusive), and service charge for PCT international preliminary examination requirements received after December 1, 2021 (inclusive) apply to the RMB standard published in this notice. For PCT applications and PCT international preliminary examination requirements received before December 1, 2021, the relevant fees shall be converted and collected in Swiss francs according to the existing way.


Apart from the fees collected on behalf of International Bureau, the search fees and other fees charged by CNIPA remain unchanged. More details can be seen on the Standards for Patent Fees, Integrated Circuit Layout Design Fees issued on the website of CNIPA.


Hereby inform.

                                            From: CNIPA

November 26, 2021


  • 北京知识产权法院对北京首例专利侵权纠纷行政调解协议进行司法确认
  • WIPO年度报告:中国多项知识产权申请量居全球首位
  • 专利等同侵权适用之限制——(2021)最高法知民终192
  • 《商标审查审理指南》将于明年11日起施行
  • 关于以人民币标准收取PCT申请国际阶段费用相关事项的通知





































































Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.

About the Firm

Related Newsletters