Patents
The rejected applicant asks CNIPA to review the rejection decision.
Any entity or individual may challenge a granted patent before CNIPA on statutory grounds.
Courts or administrative channels decide conduct and remedies; they do not replace CNIPA's validity role.
Claim construction, amendments, evidence, timing, and settlement positions must align.
Send us the issue, the relevant rights, and any deadline. We will route it to the right practice lead within one business day.
Contact UsWhen CNIPA rejects a patent application, the applicant may request reexamination within three months of receiving the rejection decision. The file should identify errors in the decision, preserve support for any amendments, and explain why the application satisfies the Patent Law. The original examination record remains central.
If the reexamination decision maintains the rejection, judicial review may be available within the applicable period. The business should decide whether the potential claim scope still justifies the next stage.
After grant, any entity or individual may request that CNIPA invalidate all or part of a patent on prescribed grounds. The request must connect each ground to evidence and should be designed around the claims that matter commercially. Prior art, public use, disclosure defects, added matter, and other statutory issues may be relevant depending on the case.
The patentee may have limited amendment options, particularly by narrowing invention or utility-model claims. Both sides should expect the validity record to affect claim meaning and later enforcement.
An infringement case asks whether accused conduct falls within the patent's protected scope and what remedies follow. Evidence may cover technical comparison, manufacture or sales, source, volume, profit, loss, reasonable expenditure, and urgency. Administrative adjudication can be useful in suitable matters; civil litigation is generally required for damages and broader judicial remedies.
A defendant may launch invalidation while defending non-infringement. The infringement forum will decide how the parallel validity challenge affects case management under the applicable rules and facts.
The patentee should not argue for a narrow claim meaning to survive invalidation and a conflicting broad meaning to prove infringement. The challenger should likewise coordinate prior-art theory, technical comparison, and product evidence. Translate and label evidence consistently, and track what has been admitted in each forum.
Foreign evidence may require formalities, translation, and explanation of source or public availability. Start collecting it before procedural deadlines compress the options.
The goal may be product clearance, an injunction, damages, a licence, supply continuity, market separation, or a global settlement. Procedure should serve that goal. Model the sequence, cost, evidence burden, business disruption, and settlement leverage before filing multiple actions that later work against each other.
CNIPA: Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Q&A
This article is general information about Chinese IP practice, not legal advice for a specific matter. It was last reviewed on 2026-08-21. Rules, fees, and timelines change; confirm current requirements before acting. For advice on your situation, contact our team.