Article 70 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China CNIPA may handle patent infringement disputes that have a major influence across the country.
n the bifurcated world of Chinese patent enforcement, litigants typically choose between the Judicial route (Courts) for damages and permanent injunctions, or the Administrative route (Local IP Offices) for quick, localized "cease and desist" orders.
However, since the 2021 Patent Law amendments and the subsequent 2021 Administrative Adjudication of Major Patent Infringement Disputes Measures, a "third way" has emerged. This mechanism allows the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to take direct jurisdiction over cases that would otherwise be handled by local authorities.
1. What Qualifies as "Major"?
The CNIPA does not accept every case. To trigger this national jurisdiction, a dispute must meet specific high-stakes criteria:
National Impact: The infringement occurs across multiple provinces or has a significant impact on the national market.
Industry Significance: The case involves core technologies or major industrial sectors.
Significant Public Interest: The dispute affects the public interest or large-scale consumer safety.
International Friction: Cases that might have a significant impact on international relations or trade.
2. The Power of the "Nationwide Injunction"
The primary advantage of this mechanism is its geographic reach.Normally, a decision from a local Intellectual Property Office (e.g., Shanghai IPO) is only enforceable within that city’s jurisdiction. To stop an infringer across China, a patentee would traditionally need to file in court or multiple local offices.
Under the Major Case mechanism, a CNIPA decision is enforceable nationwide. If the CNIPA finds infringement, it can order the infringer to immediately stop all infringing acts—production, sales, and imports—across the entire country.
3. Case Study: Boehringer Ingelheim vs. DYG
The landmark case involving Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) and its diabetes drug Linagliptin served as the proof-of-concept for this system.
The Dispute: BI discovered that an infringer was offering generic versions of its patented drug during a provincial centralized procurement process (tendering).
The Action: BI bypassed local offices and petitioned the CNIPA directly, citing the nationwide impact of the drug procurement system.
The Outcome: The CNIPA adjudicated the case with remarkable speed (under 4 months). It issued a decision confirming the infringement and ordered a nationwide halt to the infringing activities.
4. Why Use This Over Traditional Litigation?
While CNIPA cannot award monetary damages (which still requires a court filing), it offers several strategic "pros":
Speed: These cases are designed to be resolved within 3 to 4 months, significantly faster than the 12–24 months typical for a first-instance court judgment.
Specialized Expertise: The adjudicators are CNIPA's own patent examiners/judges, who often possess higher technical expertise than general civil court judges.
No "Bifurcation" Delay: In some instances, the CNIPA coordinates the infringement adjudication with any pending invalidation proceedings, reducing the risk of the "stay" that often plagues court cases.