Understanding “Violation of the Principle of Good Faith” as a Ground for Declaring a Patent Invalid

—(2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 794

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court rendered a final judgment in an administrative dispute concerning the invalidation of a utility model patent. It clarified that circumstances in which a violation of the principle of good faith leads to patent invalidity mainly concern fabrication or falsification of the patented technical solution. Where an invalidation petitioner asserts that the patentee plagiarized its inventive achievements and filed a patent application thereon, the dispute is in essence one concerning patent ownership, inventorship attribution and the like, and should be resolved separately through actions such as patent ownership disputes or inventorship disputes.

The party Yang in this case believed that Baoji Shi Co., Ltd., China Shi Co., Ltd. and Baoji San Co., Ltd. had plagiarized the invention-creation completed by Yang and used it to apply for the patent at issue, and therefore requested that the patent be declared invalid on the ground of violation of Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law as revised in 2023. The China National Intellectual Property Administration took the view that it could examine invalidation grounds involving Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law only in invalidation cases filed on or after 20 January 2024; the filing date of the present invalidation request was 20 October 2023, earlier than 20 January 2024, and therefore the ground that the patent did not comply with Article 11 of the 2023 Implementing Regulations was not examined. In addition, Yang only raised in oral hearing the assertion that the patent did not comply with Article 71 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, which already exceeded the prescribed time limit for adding invalidation grounds or supplementing evidence, and CNIPA could likewise decline to examine that ground. Yang disagreed and sued before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court seeking revocation of the examination decision. The first-instance judgment dismissed Yang’s claims; Yang appealed.

On second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held that, as shown by Yang’s grounds of appeal and statements at hearing, Yang in substance contended that Baoji Shi Co., Ltd., China Shi Co., Ltd. and Baoji San Co., Ltd. had appropriated Yang’s invention-creation and applied for the patent, causing Yang’s later patent application to be unable to obtain grant. The case is in essence a civil dispute over ownership and inventorship arising from the source of the patented technical solution. For such disputes, the parties may bring a civil action seeking confirmation of ownership of the disputed patent and of the true inventor, rather than directly claiming patent invalidity under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law; this is also more conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the true right holder. Otherwise, simply declaring a patent invalid because the patentee once engaged in impersonation, plagiarism or other dishonest conduct would lack a legal basis and would not benefit protection of the true right holder’s interests. Accordingly, the Supreme People’s Court did not support Yang’s appellate ground that the patent failed to comply with Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law.

The second-instance judgment further pointed out that, pursuant to Section 4.1 of Chapter 3 of Part IV of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, where the obtaining of a patent clearly violates the principle of good faith, the collegial panel may, ex officio, introduce the invalidation ground under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law for examination. Therefore, even if the invalidation petitioner did not raise related grounds under Article 11, or raised them after the time limit prescribed by the Implementing Regulations for adding invalidation grounds, CNIPA may still conduct corresponding examination ex officio, the better to uphold social good faith and the public interest. The corresponding findings in the challenged decision and the first-instance judgment were somewhat improper, but did not affect the correctness of the outcomes of the challenged decision and the first-instance judgment.

This case shows that, where the principle of good faith is invoked as a ground for patent invalidation, the regulatory focus is ensuring the authenticity of inventive activity itself—namely that the process by which the technical solution was formed is genuine and credible, without fabrication or falsification. Dishonest conduct in the patent application process such as false inventorship attribution or misappropriating another’s invention-creation to apply for a patent should be addressed through patent ownership disputes, inventorship disputes and the like. Regulating such conduct through invalidation proceedings and declaring the patent invalid would instead be detrimental to protecting the rights and interests of the true right holder.

Source：Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court；2026-10-22；https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6187.html