CNIPA Releases Draft Guidelines on Patent Administrative Adjudication and Mediation for Public Consultation
Published 27 May 2026
Yu Du
On 25 May 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the draft Guidelines for Handling Patent Administrative Adjudication and Mediation Cases (Guidelines) for public comment, with comments accepted until 9 June 2026.
The draft was prepared against the backdrop of China’s continued effort to strengthen intellectual property protection and improve the administrative adjudication system. In recent years, the number of patent administrative adjudication cases in China has continued to increase. However, in practice, differences still exist among local intellectual property authorities in areas such as case acceptance, evidentiary standards, infringement analysis, and procedural arrangements. Some regions have already developed relatively mature adjudication experience, while others still rely more heavily on general principles, resulting in limited predictability for enterprises seeking administrative enforcement remedies. Against this background, according to the drafting notes, the Guidelines aim to provide more unified and practice-oriented operational rules and to improve the consistency of enforcement standards across different regions.
The proposed Guidelines are extensive, covering both administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes and administrative mediation of a wide range of patent-related disputes. Below are some of the key highlights of the draft.
A More Comprehensive Framework for Patent Administrative Adjudication
One of the most notable features of the draft is its scale and level of detail. The Guidelines reportedly contain more than 300,000 Chinese characters and are divided into two major parts: patent infringement administrative adjudication and patent dispute administrative mediation. Compared with the previous situation, in which practice mainly relied on the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes and local enforcement experience, the Guidelines are clearly closer to a systematic case-handling manual.
For administrative adjudication, the draft systematically addresses issues including jurisdiction, filing and acceptance procedures, evidence rules, infringement analysis, oral hearings, administrative litigation following adjudication decisions, and enforcement-related matters. The structure and level of detail are significantly more comprehensive than those of the more principle-based normative documents issued in the past, suggesting that CNIPA intends the Guidelines to serve as a working reference for local IP authorities and practitioners.
Detailed Guidance on Patent Infringement Determination
Compared with previous practice, in which patent infringement analysis relied more heavily on court cases, local experience, and case-by-case determinations, the draft devotes substantial attention to substantive infringement analysis. Entire sections are dedicated to acts constituting patent infringement, indirect infringement including inducement and contributory infringement, non-infringement defenses, claim interpretation, design patent infringement analysis, and standards for determining infringement of invention and utility model patents.
Importantly, the draft also addresses newer issues introduced under the revised Patent Law , including partial design patents and standards for determining infringement involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). Previously, publicly available rules in these areas were relatively limited in administrative enforcement practice, and enterprises often relied more heavily on judicial practice when assessing risks. The incorporation of these issues into a unified set of Guidelines suggests that administrative authorities may develop more stable and predictable standards in handling complex technology-related patent disputes in the future. For companies operating in technology-intensive industries, these sections may provide valuable insight into how administrative authorities are expected to approach technical patent disputes in practice.
Recognition of Indirect Infringement
The draft expressly discusses “helping infringement” and “inducing infringement,” clarifying the standards applicable to contributory and inducement liability. Previously, the scope of application of indirect infringement in administrative adjudication was not always entirely clear, and some cases focused more on acts such as direct manufacturing and sales. This is particularly significant for platform operators, component suppliers, and upstream technology providers whose exposure may not arise from direct manufacturing or sales activities alone.
Expansion of Online and Flexible Procedures
The Guidelines also reflect a stronger emphasis on procedural efficiency and digitalization. The draft introduces provisions relating to online oral hearings, consolidated case handling, technical investigators, technical appraisal procedures, and evidence assistance mechanisms.
The inclusion of online hearing procedures is especially notable. In the past, some patent administrative cases involving cross-regional handling still relied heavily on offline procedural arrangements, resulting in certain limitations in terms of efficiency and convenience. As an increasing number of patent administrative cases involve parties from different regions, online procedures can help improve the efficiency of case handling. At the same time, the further introduction of technical investigators and technical appraisal mechanisms reflects that the administrative adjudication system is gradually evolving toward a more specialized and technology-oriented model, rather than remaining merely a traditional form of administrative enforcement.
Administrative Adjudication for Major Patent Disputes
A separate chapter addresses administrative adjudication of major patent infringement disputes. Previously, for patent cases with significant industry-wide or cross-regional impact, differences still existed in practice with respect to coordination levels, case organization methods, and procedural consistency within the administrative adjudication system. The inclusion of a separate chapter on this issue indicates that the CNIPA is seeking to establish a more unified mechanism for handling major cases. The draft further clarifies issues such as the competent adjudicating authority, materials required for major cases involving cross-provincial impact or significant public interests, and procedural handling of complex cases.
This reflects China’s continued effort to position administrative adjudication as a faster and more specialized alternative to court litigation in certain categories of patent disputes, especially where disputes may affect broader industries or public interests.
Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage and Open Licensing
The draft also incorporates rules relating to newer systems introduced under the amended Patent Law. Previously, although the relevant system had already been established at the legislative level, the specific administrative procedures and practical operational rules were still in the process of gradual development. Separate sections address administrative adjudication under the pharmaceutical patent linkage system and mediation of disputes arising from open patent licensing arrangements.
The pharmaceutical patent linkage provisions include discussion of review procedures, burden of proof, and adjudication rules relating to whether generic drugs fall within patent protection scopes. Meanwhile, the open licensing sections provide more detailed guidance on license validity, contract performance disputes, and licensing-related mediation mechanisms.
Broader Scope of Administrative Mediation
The mediation portion of the draft goes well beyond traditional infringement compensation disputes. Compared with the past, when administrative mediation focused more primarily on traditional infringement disputes, the scope has been significantly expanded in this draft. The Guidelines cover mediation relating to patent ownership disputes, inventor or designer attribution disputes, employee inventor remuneration disputes, technology development agreements, patent open licensing disputes, and disputes concerning compensation during the temporary protection period of invention patents.
This reflects a broader policy direction in China toward using administrative mediation not only for infringement-related conflicts, but also for commercial and employment-related patent disputes. For enterprises, this may mean that certain patent-related commercial disputes that previously relied more heavily on court litigation may gradually be resolved more frequently through administrative mediation channels in the future.
Stronger Procedural and Evidence Rules
The draft further refines procedural safeguards and evidence rules. Among other things, it clarifies recusal requirements, strengthens confidentiality obligations relating to trade secrets and personal information, streamlines legalization requirements for foreign evidence in light of the Apostille Convention [ https://english.www.gov.cn/services/visitchina/202408/13/content_WS66bb1869c6d0868f4e8e9e2a.html ] framework, and clarifies evidentiary requirements for utility model and design patents.
The draft also confirms that technical investigators may participate in handling technically complex matters. For foreign companies involved in administrative patent proceedings in China, the simplification of authentication procedures may be particularly welcome.
Comment
The draft Guidelines show how China intends to operationalize patent administrative enforcement after the latest Patent Law amendments. Over the past few years, administrative adjudication has become increasingly active in China, especially in regions where local IP authorities are handling large volumes of patent disputes. However, practice standards have sometimes varied across jurisdictions, and procedural arrangements and infringement analysis standards in some complex cases also lacked uniformity. The new Guidelines appear designed to provide a more unified and professional procedural framework. The draft also signals that administrative adjudication is evolving into a more sophisticated dispute resolution mechanism, particularly for technically complex matters, SEP disputes, pharmaceutical patent linkage cases, and cross-regional disputes. For enterprises and foreign rights holders, more uniform procedural rules and a more detailed infringement analysis framework may also help facilitate earlier assessments of potential enforcement risks and rights protection strategies.
The draft was prepared against the backdrop of China’s continued effort to strengthen intellectual property protection and improve the administrative adjudication system. In recent years, the number of patent administrative adjudication cases in China has continued to increase. However, in practice, differences still exist among local intellectual property authorities in areas such as case acceptance, evidentiary standards, infringement analysis, and procedural arrangements. Some regions have already developed relatively mature adjudication experience, while others still rely more heavily on general principles, resulting in limited predictability for enterprises seeking administrative enforcement remedies. Against this background, according to the drafting notes, the Guidelines aim to provide more unified and practice-oriented operational rules and to improve the consistency of enforcement standards across different regions.
The proposed Guidelines are extensive, covering both administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes and administrative mediation of a wide range of patent-related disputes. Below are some of the key highlights of the draft.
A More Comprehensive Framework for Patent Administrative Adjudication
One of the most notable features of the draft is its scale and level of detail. The Guidelines reportedly contain more than 300,000 Chinese characters and are divided into two major parts: patent infringement administrative adjudication and patent dispute administrative mediation. Compared with the previous situation, in which practice mainly relied on the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes and local enforcement experience, the Guidelines are clearly closer to a systematic case-handling manual.
For administrative adjudication, the draft systematically addresses issues including jurisdiction, filing and acceptance procedures, evidence rules, infringement analysis, oral hearings, administrative litigation following adjudication decisions, and enforcement-related matters. The structure and level of detail are significantly more comprehensive than those of the more principle-based normative documents issued in the past, suggesting that CNIPA intends the Guidelines to serve as a working reference for local IP authorities and practitioners.
Detailed Guidance on Patent Infringement Determination
Compared with previous practice, in which patent infringement analysis relied more heavily on court cases, local experience, and case-by-case determinations, the draft devotes substantial attention to substantive infringement analysis. Entire sections are dedicated to acts constituting patent infringement, indirect infringement including inducement and contributory infringement, non-infringement defenses, claim interpretation, design patent infringement analysis, and standards for determining infringement of invention and utility model patents.
Importantly, the draft also addresses newer issues introduced under the revised Patent Law , including partial design patents and standards for determining infringement involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). Previously, publicly available rules in these areas were relatively limited in administrative enforcement practice, and enterprises often relied more heavily on judicial practice when assessing risks. The incorporation of these issues into a unified set of Guidelines suggests that administrative authorities may develop more stable and predictable standards in handling complex technology-related patent disputes in the future. For companies operating in technology-intensive industries, these sections may provide valuable insight into how administrative authorities are expected to approach technical patent disputes in practice.
Recognition of Indirect Infringement
The draft expressly discusses “helping infringement” and “inducing infringement,” clarifying the standards applicable to contributory and inducement liability. Previously, the scope of application of indirect infringement in administrative adjudication was not always entirely clear, and some cases focused more on acts such as direct manufacturing and sales. This is particularly significant for platform operators, component suppliers, and upstream technology providers whose exposure may not arise from direct manufacturing or sales activities alone.
Expansion of Online and Flexible Procedures
The Guidelines also reflect a stronger emphasis on procedural efficiency and digitalization. The draft introduces provisions relating to online oral hearings, consolidated case handling, technical investigators, technical appraisal procedures, and evidence assistance mechanisms.
The inclusion of online hearing procedures is especially notable. In the past, some patent administrative cases involving cross-regional handling still relied heavily on offline procedural arrangements, resulting in certain limitations in terms of efficiency and convenience. As an increasing number of patent administrative cases involve parties from different regions, online procedures can help improve the efficiency of case handling. At the same time, the further introduction of technical investigators and technical appraisal mechanisms reflects that the administrative adjudication system is gradually evolving toward a more specialized and technology-oriented model, rather than remaining merely a traditional form of administrative enforcement.
Administrative Adjudication for Major Patent Disputes
A separate chapter addresses administrative adjudication of major patent infringement disputes. Previously, for patent cases with significant industry-wide or cross-regional impact, differences still existed in practice with respect to coordination levels, case organization methods, and procedural consistency within the administrative adjudication system. The inclusion of a separate chapter on this issue indicates that the CNIPA is seeking to establish a more unified mechanism for handling major cases. The draft further clarifies issues such as the competent adjudicating authority, materials required for major cases involving cross-provincial impact or significant public interests, and procedural handling of complex cases.
This reflects China’s continued effort to position administrative adjudication as a faster and more specialized alternative to court litigation in certain categories of patent disputes, especially where disputes may affect broader industries or public interests.
Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage and Open Licensing
The draft also incorporates rules relating to newer systems introduced under the amended Patent Law. Previously, although the relevant system had already been established at the legislative level, the specific administrative procedures and practical operational rules were still in the process of gradual development. Separate sections address administrative adjudication under the pharmaceutical patent linkage system and mediation of disputes arising from open patent licensing arrangements.
The pharmaceutical patent linkage provisions include discussion of review procedures, burden of proof, and adjudication rules relating to whether generic drugs fall within patent protection scopes. Meanwhile, the open licensing sections provide more detailed guidance on license validity, contract performance disputes, and licensing-related mediation mechanisms.
Broader Scope of Administrative Mediation
The mediation portion of the draft goes well beyond traditional infringement compensation disputes. Compared with the past, when administrative mediation focused more primarily on traditional infringement disputes, the scope has been significantly expanded in this draft. The Guidelines cover mediation relating to patent ownership disputes, inventor or designer attribution disputes, employee inventor remuneration disputes, technology development agreements, patent open licensing disputes, and disputes concerning compensation during the temporary protection period of invention patents.
This reflects a broader policy direction in China toward using administrative mediation not only for infringement-related conflicts, but also for commercial and employment-related patent disputes. For enterprises, this may mean that certain patent-related commercial disputes that previously relied more heavily on court litigation may gradually be resolved more frequently through administrative mediation channels in the future.
Stronger Procedural and Evidence Rules
The draft further refines procedural safeguards and evidence rules. Among other things, it clarifies recusal requirements, strengthens confidentiality obligations relating to trade secrets and personal information, streamlines legalization requirements for foreign evidence in light of the Apostille Convention [ https://english.www.gov.cn/services/visitchina/202408/13/content_WS66bb1869c6d0868f4e8e9e2a.html ] framework, and clarifies evidentiary requirements for utility model and design patents.
The draft also confirms that technical investigators may participate in handling technically complex matters. For foreign companies involved in administrative patent proceedings in China, the simplification of authentication procedures may be particularly welcome.
Comment
The draft Guidelines show how China intends to operationalize patent administrative enforcement after the latest Patent Law amendments. Over the past few years, administrative adjudication has become increasingly active in China, especially in regions where local IP authorities are handling large volumes of patent disputes. However, practice standards have sometimes varied across jurisdictions, and procedural arrangements and infringement analysis standards in some complex cases also lacked uniformity. The new Guidelines appear designed to provide a more unified and professional procedural framework. The draft also signals that administrative adjudication is evolving into a more sophisticated dispute resolution mechanism, particularly for technically complex matters, SEP disputes, pharmaceutical patent linkage cases, and cross-regional disputes. For enterprises and foreign rights holders, more uniform procedural rules and a more detailed infringement analysis framework may also help facilitate earlier assessments of potential enforcement risks and rights protection strategies.