Tackling Malicious Patent & Design Litigation: Insights from China’s SPP

In the realm of intellectual property, the protection of patents and designs is fundamental to fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition. Recent developments from China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) have underscored the increasing concern surrounding malicious intellectual property litigation, particularly regarding utility model and design patents. While intellectual property serves as a cornerstone of vibrant market competition, there are instances where individuals may misinterpret the concept of "protecting their rights" to engage in "profit-seeking" or "unfair competition" through malicious litigation. Such actions not only infringe upon the legitimate rights of others but also disrupt the judicial process and compromise the integrity of the legal system.

On June 29, 2026, the SPP published a collection of typical cases that address the issue of malicious intellectual property litigation. This release features five cases that exemplify the supervision of bad-faith enforcement actions across various aspects of intellectual property law, including utility model patents, design patents, trademarks, and instances of unfair competition. Below, we highlight two significant cases focused specifically on patents and designs.

In the first case, a dispute arose between Wuxi XX Machinery Technology Co., Ltd. (Wuxi Company) and Foshan-based Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (Foshan Company) over a utility model patent. In January 2023, Foshan Company filed a lawsuit claiming infringement related to a "mixing device" and sought damages of 23 million yuan, affecting Wuxi Company's IPO application. However, in March 2023, the Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate discovered that Foshan Company's patent claims had been invalidated and that Wuxi Company had commenced manufacturing the device before the patent was granted. This led to the conclusion of malicious litigation. The procuratorate subsequently transferred the case to the Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court, which dismissed the lawsuit in April 2023, ordered Foshan Company to compensate Wuxi Company 400,000 RMB in expenses, and mandated a public statement to mitigate reputational damage. The Supreme People’s Court upheld this decision in June 2024, emphasizing the importance of prosecuting malicious litigation, especially when parties knowingly pursue invalid claims during critical business operations.

In the second case, He XX filed lawsuits against various sellers, including Yiwu XX Import and Export Co., Ltd., alleging patent infringement concerning a design patent for shapewear he obtained in 2017. Although the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled in his favor in 2018, declaring the patent valid and awarding damages, the Hangzhou Municipal People’s Procuratorate later discovered that the patent had been invalidated by the CNIPA in 2019—a fact that He failed to disclose during the litigation process. Following a protest by the procuratorate, the Zhejiang High People’s Court overturned the original judgment in 2024, dismissing He’s lawsuit based on his concealment of the patent's invalid status and imposing a fine of 50,000 RMB. This case highlights the critical importance of good faith in patent litigation, reinforcing that patentees must promptly inform the court of any invalidation to prevent the abuse of the legal system through malicious litigation practices.

An official from the Intellectual Property Prosecution Department of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate has indicated that procuratorial authorities have intensified their specialized supervision of malicious intellectual property litigation in recent years. They are actively working to foster an environment that protects and promotes innovation while upholding core values of honesty and integrity. This collection of typical cases provides replicable and scalable models for preventing and addressing malicious intellectual property litigation nationwide.

In conclusion, addressing malicious intellectual property litigation is essential for maintaining a fair and equitable marketplace. The insights derived from these typical cases will contribute to ongoing efforts to protect the interests of legitimate patent holders and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Subscribe to receive more articles like this here.