On 31 July 2025, the Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Tribunal released a guiding case, providing important clarification on what constitutes protectable subject matter under China’s utility model patent regime.
Case Summary
The patentee, Corning Incorporated (Corning), held utility model patent No. 201621360437.7 entitled “Glass-Based Article and Apparatus Containing the Same”. Claim 1 of the patent described a glass product with a thickness of less than approximately 3 mm and a specific stress distribution along the thickness, defined by certain mathematical parameters such as maximum CS, DOC, and CT values.
On 23 July 2019, an individual named Tian filed an invalidation action, arguing that the claimed subject matter did not fall within the protectable scope of utility model patents. On 27 February 2020, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued an invalidation decision, holding that the patent claims merely described material parameters rather than improvements in shape or structure, and therefore were not eligible subject matter under the Patent Law.
Corning challenged this decision in court, arguing that the invention represented an improvement to the layered structure of the glass, similar to known examples such as a carburized layer, and should thus be protectable. The first-instance court rejected the claim, and Corning appealed. On 14 November 2024, the Supreme People’s Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that under Article 2(3) of the Patent Law, utility model patents are limited to products, and the claimed invention must represent an improvement in shape, structure, or their combination. Therefore, the Court emphasized the following principle:
“To determine whether a technical solution is eligible for utility model protection, one must assess whether the improvement over prior art lies in the shape, structure, or their combination - not in the material or method itself.”
The Court further clarified that while a utility model claim may refer to known materials by name, it may not focus on improvements to the material itself. If the core contribution lies in material innovation, rather than structural features, the claim falls outside the protectable scope of a utility model.
In this case, the Court found that the patent aimed to improve the stress distribution of chemically strengthened glass, a property tied to material characteristics rather than product structure. The claimed stress profile did not constitute a modification to shape or structure, and the “stress layer” was not shown to be a known material like the “carburized layer” discussed in the Patent Examination Guidelines. Thus, the invention was deemed ineligible for utility model protection.
Comment
The Court’s ruling reaffirms a long-standing but often-contested boundary in Chinese patent law: utility model protection is reserved for structural or shape-based innovations. This decision sends a clear message to applicants that improvements directed at material properties, even if they lead to better product performance, must be protected through invention patents, not utility models.
This case reinforces the principle that utility models are not a shortcut for patenting all forms of technical improvement, particularly in high-tech sectors like materials science. Applicants need to carefully consider the nature of their innovation and select the appropriate patent route.
Case Summary
The patentee, Corning Incorporated (Corning), held utility model patent No. 201621360437.7 entitled “Glass-Based Article and Apparatus Containing the Same”. Claim 1 of the patent described a glass product with a thickness of less than approximately 3 mm and a specific stress distribution along the thickness, defined by certain mathematical parameters such as maximum CS, DOC, and CT values.
On 23 July 2019, an individual named Tian filed an invalidation action, arguing that the claimed subject matter did not fall within the protectable scope of utility model patents. On 27 February 2020, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued an invalidation decision, holding that the patent claims merely described material parameters rather than improvements in shape or structure, and therefore were not eligible subject matter under the Patent Law.
Corning challenged this decision in court, arguing that the invention represented an improvement to the layered structure of the glass, similar to known examples such as a carburized layer, and should thus be protectable. The first-instance court rejected the claim, and Corning appealed. On 14 November 2024, the Supreme People’s Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that under Article 2(3) of the Patent Law, utility model patents are limited to products, and the claimed invention must represent an improvement in shape, structure, or their combination. Therefore, the Court emphasized the following principle:
“To determine whether a technical solution is eligible for utility model protection, one must assess whether the improvement over prior art lies in the shape, structure, or their combination - not in the material or method itself.”
The Court further clarified that while a utility model claim may refer to known materials by name, it may not focus on improvements to the material itself. If the core contribution lies in material innovation, rather than structural features, the claim falls outside the protectable scope of a utility model.
In this case, the Court found that the patent aimed to improve the stress distribution of chemically strengthened glass, a property tied to material characteristics rather than product structure. The claimed stress profile did not constitute a modification to shape or structure, and the “stress layer” was not shown to be a known material like the “carburized layer” discussed in the Patent Examination Guidelines. Thus, the invention was deemed ineligible for utility model protection.
Comment
The Court’s ruling reaffirms a long-standing but often-contested boundary in Chinese patent law: utility model protection is reserved for structural or shape-based innovations. This decision sends a clear message to applicants that improvements directed at material properties, even if they lead to better product performance, must be protected through invention patents, not utility models.
This case reinforces the principle that utility models are not a shortcut for patenting all forms of technical improvement, particularly in high-tech sectors like materials science. Applicants need to carefully consider the nature of their innovation and select the appropriate patent route.