Supreme People’s Court Releases 2025 Intellectual Property Typical Cases: Guidance on Patent Claim Interpretation in Logic Circuits

On April 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a press conference to mark the start of the 2026 Intellectual Property Awareness Week, during which it presented ten significant cases from the past year. These cases clarify key provisions of China’s intellectual property law, particularly regarding trademarks and patents.

Among the ten cases, Case 2 stands out as the only one focused on an invention patent infringement dispute, particularly relevant to the semiconductor chips sector.

In this case, Chengdu Xinyuan System Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US-based Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPS, NASDAQ: MPWR), initiated legal proceedings against Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Technology, Ltd. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufactured, offered for sale, and sold the MK1808 and related power management chips in China, claiming they infringed Claim 1 of the plaintiff’s Chinese invention patent (ZL201710561412.6). The alleged infringement specifically concerned the “pulse signal generation feature” utilized in synchronous rectification control circuits.

The court of first instance concluded that the circuit module in the accused product constituted an equivalent technical feature to the patented pulse signal generation feature, thereby falling within the patent’s protection scope. The court ordered the defendant to cease infringement and pay RMB 1.2 million in damages and reasonable expenses.

However, upon appeal, the SPC reversed the first-instance judgment in its 2025 final decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims entirely.

The SPC determined that when interpreting patent claims in the electrical field involving logic circuits, courts must employ a holistic approach. Technical features should be evaluated within their logical connections, signal flow direction, and control timing/sequence, rather than in isolation.

From the perspective of a person skilled in the art, considering the claim as a whole, the Court identified distinctions between the accused circuit and the patented feature in terms of means (circuit structure and logic), function (signal generation and control loop application), and effect (performance and timing behavior during the synchronous rectification process). Consequently, the two circuits were neither identical nor equivalent, which led to the conclusion that the accused technical solution did not exhibit the claimed pulse signal generation feature and did not fall within the patent’s protection scope.

This case serves as a reference point for invention patent disputes involving analog and power management chips. It reiterates the importance of respecting the internal workings of complex logic-circuit technologies, particularly regarding signal flow and timing, rather than applying the doctrine of equivalents too broadly to individual components.

This ruling aims to strike a balance between the protection of innovation and avoiding overly broad patent claims. It provides guidance for the industry and supports fair competition in sectors such as new energy vehicles, energy storage, and industrial electronics.

Additionally, the decision marks the conclusion of a multi-year global intellectual property dispute between the two parties in China.