Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court handed down a judgment on appeal in a dispute over infringement of an integrated circuit layout-design, making clear that, in hearing cases concerning infringement of integrated circuit layout-designs, where the alleged infringer contends that the layout-design at issue does not satisfy the statutory conditions, the court may examine in accordance with law whether that layout-design has a basis in right and whether it should be protected in the infringement proceedings, even if the alleged infringer has not instituted revocation proceedings. In this case, on the evidence on file it could be found that the layout-design at issue had been applied for registration more than two years after the date of its first commercial exploitation, so that it did not satisfy the registration conditions laid down in Article 17 of the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs, and the people’s court accordingly declined to protect it.

In this case, Company Ze is the holder of the rights in the layout-design at issue, and alleged that the layout-design of the accused infringing chip products manufactured and sold by Company Xin and Company Chi was identical to the layout-design at issue in all four points of originality. At first instance, Company Chi submitted that it had not actually taken part in the manufacture or sale of the accused infringing chips, and raised no objection to the proposition that the layout-design of the accused infringing chips was identical to the layout-design at issue in all four points of originality; Company Xin likewise accepted Company Ze’s assertions. On that basis the court of first instance found that the layout-design of the accused infringing chips reproduced the layout-design at issue. At the same time, the court of first instance upheld Company Xin’s request to invoke the defence of “existing layout-design”, holding that the layout-design of the accused infringing chips constituted an “existing layout-design” within the meaning of the Guidelines for the Examination and Enforcement of Integrated Circuit Layout-Designs (For Trial Implementation) (hereinafter the “Layout-Design Enforcement Guidelines”), so that the accused conduct of Company Xin and Company Chi did not infringe Company Ze’s exclusive right in the layout-design at issue, and dismissed Company Ze’s claims.

On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court held that an “existing layout-design” within the meaning of the Layout-Design Enforcement Guidelines should be a layout-design available to the public before the filing date or the date of first commercial exploitation (whichever is earlier), and that it may be used to assess the originality of a layout-design, but that there is at present no express provision permitting a non-infringement defence to be asserted on that basis. Moreover, the Guidelines are in the nature of a normative document and are not appropriate to serve directly as the basis on which a people’s court renders a civil adjudication. However, on the evidence on file in this case it could be found that the layout-design at issue had been applied for registration more than two years after the date of its first commercial exploitation, so that it did not satisfy the registration conditions laid down in Article 17 of the Layout-Design Regulations and should not be protected.

The judgment on appeal pointed out that layout-designs undergo only a preliminary examination at the time of registration, and that whether they substantively satisfy the statutory conditions can often be determined only in litigation, upon objections or defences raised by the parties and on the basis of the evidence they adduce. Where an alleged infringer contends that a registered layout-design of the right holder does not satisfy the statutory conditions, the court may conduct an appropriate examination of whether that layout-design has a basis in right and whether it should be protected in the infringement proceedings, without having to wait for, or require, the alleged infringer to institute revocation proceedings. The examination conducted by the people’s court in such circumstances does not directly determine whether the layout-design in which rights are claimed should be revoked, but deals only with whether that registered layout-design may obtain judicial protection in the infringement proceedings. If, after examination, the people’s court considers that the layout-design in which rights are claimed does not satisfy the statutory conditions and suffers from serious defects of right, it should not be granted protection in the infringement proceedings.

Source: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court; authors: XU Zhuobin, LI Xiuli; date of original: 4 September 2026; link to original: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6024.html