AFD China Newsletter – May 2026

AFD China is Again Included in the List of Recommended Reputable IP Firms for 2026 by Capital Intellectual Property Services Association

AFD China has once again been honored to be included in the List of Recommended Reputable IP Firms for 2026 by the Capital Intellectual Property Services Association (CIPSA), making the fourth consecutive year of this recommendation.

The CIPSA, in accordance with relevant regulations, conducted a public collection and review process, as well as a council meeting to compile the List of Recommended Reputable IP Firms for 2025.

This list aims to promote a healthy IP industry, foster a culture of good faith, protect the rights of members and the public, and ensure that IP service providers act honestly and comply with professional standards.

Since its establishment, AFD China has been committed to the core value of achieving sustainable success through building trust. By adhering to the principle of honest service, we have earned the trust and recognition of our clients. Our consistent inclusion in this prestigious list since 2023 underscores our outstanding performance and commitment to trustworthy services. This renewed recognition not only further validates our long-standing integrity and professional services but also serves as motivation to uphold these principles and strive for excellence.

Moving forward, we will continue to uphold a work attitude of integrity and provide our clients with more professional and high-quality intellectual property services. We will continue to uphold high standards of integrity and do our part to encourage a responsible, well‑regulated IP services sector.

AFD China Wins Three Awards at the 2026 China IP Awards

Recently, Asia IP magazine announced the winners of its 2026 China IP Awards across various categories.

AFD China has been recognized by clients for its efficient and tailored intellectual property services. This year, the firm not only retained its title as the Technology, Media & Telecoms

Firm of the Year, but also received two new honors for the first time: IP Transactions Firm of the Year and IP Portfolio Management Firm of the Year.

The China IP Awards evaluate each firm based on its standout cases over the past year, overall performance, and client feedback. AFD China's continued win in the TMT category reflects client recognition of the protection and enforcement strategies we provide in this field. Meanwhile, the newly awarded IP Transactions and IP Portfolio Management categories demonstrate the firm's expanding scope of services and its ability to respond to client needs across multiple dimensions.

AFD China extends its sincere thanks to all clients for their trust and support. Going forward, we will continue to focus on your needs, work closely as a team, and tailor our strategies to each client and each case, helping you protect your intangible assets and supporting your innovation and growth.

China Issues New Judicial Interpretation on Punitive Damages for IP Infringement

The new interpretation refines the legal standards for punitive damages based on experience gained since the previous rules were issued in 2021. It aims to make the rules more practical, unify court decisions, and offer clearer guidance for rights holders and the market.

Key clarifications in the new interpretation include the following:

First, it provides more detailed rules for determining when a defendant’s conduct is “intentional” or “serious”. For example, it treats as “intentional” a situation where a defendant, after settling with the plaintiff and agreeing to stop the infringement, later commits the same or a similar act. It also gives a clearer definition of “making a business out of infringement”.

Second, it offers clearer methods for calculating the base amount for punitive damages. If the base amount is based on the defendant’s illegal gains or profits, courts may refer to operating profits. If the defendant makes a business out of infringement, sales profits may be used. Statutory damages cannot serve as the base for punitive damages.

Third, it clarifies how the multiplier for damages should be determined. Courts must take into account any administrative or criminal fines already imposed for the same infringing act, even if the plaintiff does not request it.

The Supreme People's Court (SPC) expects these rules to help impose meaningful penalties on serious IP infringers, thereby fostering a legal environment that supports innovation and high quality development.

2026 National Intellectual Property Publicity Week Launched in Beijing

On April 20, the main event of the 2026 National Intellectual Property Publicity Week was held in Beijing. Running from April 20 to 26, this year's campaign is themed "Strengthening IP Protection in Emerging Fields to Accelerate the Development of New Productive Forces."

Throughout the week, the campaign will highlight the important role of intellectual property in protecting inventions, promoting industrial innovation, encouraging creative expression, and building brands. A special focus will be placed on IP protection practices in emerging fields and the close connection between IP and people's daily lives.

Speaking at the main event, officials noted that China has made new progress in IP development, successfully concluding the 14th Five Year Plan period (2020-2025). With the rapid rise of emerging technologies and industries, there is a growing need for stronger IP protection in these fields. Improving relevant legal frameworks will be key to supporting high quality economic development.

In a video message, the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization pointed out that this year's World IP Day theme is "IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate!" He explained that patents, designs, trademarks, and copyright not only drive technological development in sports and help build brands, but also protect sports broadcasts and social media content. The protection and management of IP assets have become an essential part of the sports industry.

During the event, ten practical measures were announced to make IP services more accessible and business friendly. These include integrated processing, smart Q&A services, on demand examination, overseas protection support, and diversified dispute resolution. Representatives from emerging technology companies and an Olympic athlete jointly called for stronger IP protection in emerging fields.

Throughout the publicity week, government agencies and local authorities across the country will carry out awareness activities on IP, fostering a culture that respects knowledge, values innovation, upholds integrity and fair competition.

China Releases 2025 Typical Cases on Patent Reexamination and Invalidation

China's National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has released ten typical cases from 2025 involving patent reexamination and invalidation. These cases were selected because they are highly relevant, widely discussed, and provide useful guidance on how patent rules are applied in practice.

Case 1: "A Method for Preparing Heterologous Triploid Scallops" (Reexamination)

The patent office overturned an earlier rejection.

The decision clarifies how to assess technical effects in aquaculture patents and what counts as common general knowledge in the field. This is particularly important for protecting innovation in marine seed industry and supporting ocean related industries.

Case 2: "A Pharmaceutical Composition for Treating Cerebrovascular Diseases" (Invalidation)

The patent was maintained.

The decision explains how to evaluate the reliability of experimental data submitted by the patentee. It also examines whether a specific combination of drug ingredients at a particular ratio produces a synergistic effect beyond what each ingredient does alone. The case provides practical guidance for drafting high quality biopharmaceutical patents.

Case 3: "Nucleoside Phosphoramidate Prodrugs" (Invalidation)

The patent was maintained.

The decision clarifies that the claimed compounds include not just one specific chemical structure but multiple possible three dimensional spatial configurations. It also provides a detailed discussion on how to assess inventiveness for pharmaceutical compounds. This case shows how invalidation proceedings can support and strengthen the protection of high value pharmaceutical patents.

Case 4: "Polymorphs of C MET/HGFR Inhibitors" (Invalidation)

The patent was maintained.

Starting from the fundamental principle that patents are granted in exchange for full disclosure of the invention, the decision accepted additional experimental data submitted by the patentee after filing. It found the patent inventive. The case systematically explains the standards for accepting supplementary experimental data in the pharmaceutical and chemical fields, a common issue in drug patent disputes.

Case 5: "Bottle" (Design Patent Invalidation)

The patent was declared completely invalid.

When read together with a related case on a label design, this case illustrates how the same design feature may carry different weight when applied to different products. A certain design element might be highly distinctive on one product but not on another. The decision is a typical application of the "overall observation and comprehensive judgment" principle used when assessing design patents.

Case 6: "Offset Decoding Device, Offset Encoding Device, Image Filtering Device" (Invalidation)

The patent was partially invalidated.

The decision explains how to interpret the scope of protection of patent claims in validity proceedings. It also carefully identifies what the genuine innovative contribution of the patent is in the video coding field, distinguishing it from what was already known.

Case 7: "Method, Apparatus, Device, and Storage Medium for Generating Dynamic Images Based on Audio" (Invalidation)

The patent was maintained.

In applying the three step method for assessing inventiveness, the decision fully considered factors such as the specific application scenario and the method used to train the AI model. The case provides guidance on patent examination standards in the field of artificial intelligence and its various sub sectors.

Case 8: "Method and Device for Adjusting Wireless Network" (Invalidation)

This case is the first of its kind where an invalidation request was rejected for violating the principle of good faith.

The decision makes it clear that invalidation requests must have a genuine purpose, that is, to correct improperly granted patents. Requests made for other reasons, such as harassing a competitor or delaying litigation, are considered an abuse of the system and will be rejected. This case helps maintain fair market competition and prevents misuse of the invalidation process.

Case 9: "Optical Imaging System" (Invalidation)

The patent was declared completely invalid.

The case involves the use of software to reproduce prior art and calculate certain technical parameters. The decision examines the software from four angles: the source of the software, its type, its function, and whether it can be properly operated in the relevant context. It provides a clear framework for assessing whether computer generated calculations are reliable enough to be used as evidence in patent disputes. It also offers guidance on how parties should present such evidence. 

Case 10: "A Metallographic Preparation Method for Tungsten Zirconium Alloy" (Reexamination)

The request for reexamination was rejected.

The decision explains that content generated by large language AI models, such as ChatGPT, is not reliable evidence for proving what was already known before a patent application was filed. This is because AI generated content is influenced by many factors, including the data used to train the model, the algorithm design, and how the user asks the question. Therefore, such content cannot accurately represent the knowledge level of a person skilled in the art at the time of filing.

China Releases 2025 Typical Cases of Patent Administrative Protection

The CNIPA has released ten typical cases of patent administrative protection from 2025.

1. Patent Infringement Dispute Involving a Clutch Device, Shanghai

This case involved the interpretation of "offering for sale." The ruling held that an offer to sell is not established when the only communication is a purchase request from a buyer. This provides useful guidance for similar cases.

2. Patent Infringement Dispute Involving Encoding Methods and Devices, Guangdong

This case involved a standard essential patent. The authorities carefully assessed whether the parties had followed the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory principle during pre-litigation negotiations. Based on this assessment, the parties were guided to reach a settlement that respected both the value of the patent and market rules.

3. Patent Infringement Dispute Involving a Diabetes Drug, Shandong

This case centered on whether a specific crystalline form of a drug was manufactured or used during production. The authorities gathered evidence from multiple sources to build a complete chain of evidence, allowed the parties to fully cross-examine the evidence, and made an infringement determination based on that foundation. This approach efficiently resolved a technically complex patent dispute.

4. Series of Patent Infringement Disputes Involving Equipment for Transferring Molten Metal, Sichuan

These cases involved complex technical comparisons and factual determinations. After on-site inspection and evidence collection, with the assistance of technical investigation officers, the authorities quickly established the technical facts and issued administrative rulings within a short period. This efficient and professional process protected the legitimate rights of the patentee.

5. Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute Involving a Brush Handle Insertion Guide Device, Anhui

This case demonstrated the efficient coordination between administrative adjudication and patent validity proceedings. Through a circuit hearing mechanism, the CNIPA issued a decision on-site maintaining the validity of the patent. The enforcement authority then quickly made a ruling based on that decision, fully illustrating the advantage of fast track administrative protection.

6. Series of Design Patent Infringement Disputes Involving a Motorcycle, Chongqing

In this case, based on evidence discovered at an exhibition, the same claimant filed handling request disputes against two companies located in different districts within Chongqing Municipality. The authorities provided coordinated guidance to both districts, ensuring uniform case handling standards and improving efficiency.

7. Series of Design Patent Infringement Disputes Involving a Phone Holder, Fujian and Other Provinces

This case involved a series of cross-regional patent infringement disputes. Relying on a cross regional collaborative protection mechanism, authorities from four provinces worked together, collecting and fixing evidence in a unified manner and handling the cases in parallel. This approach resolved the entire series of disputes within three months.

8. Design Patent Infringement Dispute Involving a Pipe Fitting, Zhejiang

During the handling of this case, the authorities successfully connected administrative mediation with arbitration. The parties reached a settlement quickly, and the compensation agreement was confirmed through arbitration, efficiently resolving the dispute.

9. Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute Involving a Scorpion Breeding Device, Henan

This case involved the cross regional transfer of a patent administrative ruling case. After receiving the transferred materials, the accepting authority accurately determined the infringing facts and issued an administrative ruling, promptly stopping the infringing activity and effectively reducing the patentee's enforcement costs.

10. Counterfeiting of a Utility Model Patent for a Drainage Pipe, Jiangsu and Another Province

This case involved cross provincial joint evidence collection. Authorities from two provinces conducted a joint investigation, fixed key evidence, and built a complete chain of proof. Based on this, they established the facts, completed the case quickly, and imposed administrative penalties in accordance with the law.

To view the full article, click here.

AFD China Newsletter is intended to provide our clients and business partners information only. The information provided on the newsletter should not be considered as professional advice, and should not form the basis of any business decisions.