PATENT LITIGATION
CD: How have recent landmark cases shaped the interpretation of patent validity and infringement in your country of focus?
Xia: China is not a case law country, but the Chinese Supreme People’s Court (SPC) regularly publishes landmark or guiding cases for lower courts’ reference in similar cases, especially after the establishment of the SPC IP Court in 2019 which centrally handles all appeals in patent infringement and validity matters in China. These ‘model’ case decisions over the years have progressively refined some of the rules or trends for patent litigation in China. For instance, the SPC just upheld the validity of Novo Nordisk’s core semaglutide patent in China at the end of 2025. This high-profile case demonstrates China’s increasing willingness to consider post-filing data, provided that the ideas of the surprising technical effects were already established in the original application as filed. In addition, Chinese courts are very open to granting punitive damages – up to five-fold – against wilful patent infringements, such as FMC’s record high award of around $5m.
Rizzi: The US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice from 2014 continues to have a significant impact on the validity of patents in the US, especially in the tech and software space. Although we rarely see plaintiffs seeking to enforce many patents that are more obviously invalid under the court’s more restrictive view of patent-eligible subject matter, such as business method patents, many software-related patents continue to be struck down. And despite repeated attempts by litigants, the court has not shown a willingness to revisit its decision and clarify the rules.
Apr-Jun 2026 issue
GEN Law Firm
Maiwald GmbH
McKool Smith, P.C.
Simmons & Simmons LLP