Understanding "Violation of the Principle of Good Faith" as a Ground for Invalidation of a Patent Right

— (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 over the invalidation of a utility model patent, clarifying that the circumstances in which a violation of the principle of good faith leads to invalidation of a patent right are mainly the falsification of the patented technical solution. Where a requester for invalidation claims that the patentee plagiarized the requester's inventions-creations to file a patent application, the dispute is in essence a dispute over patent ownership, the right of inventor attribution, or the like, and should be resolved separately through channels such as patent ownership disputes and disputes over the right of inventor attribution.

The party in this case, Yang *, believed that Baoji Shi* Company, China Shi* Company and Baoji San* Company had plagiarized the inventions-creations he had completed and applied for the patent in suit on that basis, and therefore requested that the patent in suit 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 (CNIPA) held that it could only examine grounds for invalidation involving Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law raised by requesters in invalidation cases filed after January 20, 2024; since the request date of this invalidation case was October 20, 2023, earlier than January 20, 2024, it would not examine the requester's ground for invalidation that the patent did not comply with Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law as revised in 2023. In addition, Yang * only raised the claim that the patent did not comply with Article 71 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law during the oral hearing, which exceeded the prescribed time limit for adding grounds for invalidation or supplementing evidence, so CNIPA could also decline to examine that ground for invalidation. Dissatisfied, Yang * filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting that the examination decision be revoked. The first-instance judgment dismissed Yang *'s claims; dissatisfied, Yang * appealed.

The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that: it can be seen from Yang *'s grounds of appeal and statements at trial that he essentially believed that Baoji Shi* Company, China Shi* Company and Baoji San* Company had appropriated the inventions-creations he completed and applied for this patent right, as a result of which his later-filed patent application could not be granted. This case is in essence a civil dispute over ownership and inventor attribution arising from matters such as the source of the patented technical solution. For such disputes, the parties may file a civil lawsuit and request confirmation of the ownership of the disputed patent and of the true inventor, rather than directly claiming invalidity of the patent right under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law; this is also more conducive to protecting the lawful rights and interests of the true right holder. Otherwise, simply declaring a patent right invalid because the patentee has engaged in dishonest conduct such as impersonation or plagiarism would both lack a legal basis and be of no benefit to protecting the interests of the true right holder. Therefore, the Supreme People's Court did not support Yang *'s ground of appeal that the patent did not comply with Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law.

The second-instance judgment in this case further pointed out that, according to Section 4.1 of Chapter 3 of Part IV of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, where the acquisition of a patent right obviously violates the principle of good faith, the collegial panel may, ex officio, introduce the ground for invalidation under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law for examination. Therefore, even if the requester for invalidation has not raised the relevant ground for invalidation under Article 11 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, or has raised the relevant ground after the time limit for adding grounds for invalidation prescribed by the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, CNIPA may also conduct the corresponding examination ex officio, so as to better safeguard social integrity and the public interest. The corresponding findings of the challenged decision and the first-instance judgment were somewhat improper, but this does not affect the correctness of the outcome of the challenged decision and the first-instance judgment.

This case shows that, where the principle of good faith is used as a ground for patent invalidation, the focus of regulation is on ensuring the authenticity of the inventive-creative activity itself, i.e., the process of forming the technical solution must be true and credible and must not be fabricated or falsified. Dishonest conduct in the patent application process, such as false inventor attribution or stealing others' inventions-creations to apply for patents, should be resolved through disputes over patent ownership, disputes over the right of inventor attribution and the like. If such conduct were regulated through invalidation proceedings, declaring the patent right 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 Case Analysis；2026-10-22；https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6187.html