# Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases
These Interpretations are formulated in order to correctly try patent infringement dispute cases, in accordance with the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and other relevant legal provisions, and in combination with trial practice.
**Article 1** Where a claim contains two or more claims, the right holder shall specify in the complaint the claims on the basis of which it sues the alleged infringer for infringing its patent right. If the complaint does not contain such specification or the specification is unclear, the people's court shall require the right holder to make it clear. If the right holder still fails to make it clear after explanation, the people's court may rule to dismiss the action.
**Article 2** Where a claim asserted by a right holder in a patent infringement lawsuit is declared invalid by the Patent Reexamination Board, the people's court trying the patent infringement dispute case may rule to dismiss the action filed by the right holder on the basis of such invalid claim.
Where there is evidence proving that the decision declaring the aforesaid claim invalid has been revoked by a legally effective administrative judgment, the right holder may file a separate lawsuit.
Where the patentee files a separate lawsuit, the statute of limitations shall be calculated from the date of service of the administrative judgment referred to in the second paragraph of this Article.
**Article 3** Where a patent is requested to be declared invalid because the specification cannot be used to interpret the claims due to an obvious violation of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law, and the case does not fall under the circumstances prescribed in Article 4 of these Interpretations, the people's court trying the patent infringement dispute case shall generally rule to suspend the litigation; if the patent is not requested to be declared invalid within a reasonable time limit, the people's court may determine the scope of protection of the patent right according to the recitations in the claims.
**Article 4** Where there are ambiguities in grammar, words, punctuation, drawings, symbols, etc. in the claims, specification and drawings, but a person having ordinary skill in the art can arrive at a sole understanding upon reading the claims, specification and drawings, the people's court shall make a determination on the basis of such sole understanding.
**Article 5** When the people's court determines the scope of protection of a patent right, the technical features recited in the preamble portion and the characterizing portion of an independent claim, as well as the reference portion and the limiting portion of a dependent claim, shall all have a limiting effect.
**Article 6** The people's court may interpret the claims of the patent in issue by reference to other patents having a divisional application relationship with the patent in issue, their patent prosecution files, and legally effective written judgments and rulings on patent grant and validity determination.
The patent prosecution files include written materials submitted by the patent applicant or patentee in the procedures of patent examination, reexamination and invalidation, as well as office actions, interview records, oral hearing records, legally effective decisions on examination of patent reexamination requests and decisions on examination of patent invalidation requests issued by the patent administrative department of the State Council and its Patent Reexamination Board.
**Article 7** Where the alleged infringing technical solution adds other technical features on the basis of containing all technical features of a claim for a closed composition, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing technical solution does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right, unless the added technical features constitute unavoidable conventional impurities in normal quantities.
The term "claim for a closed composition" as mentioned in the preceding paragraph generally does not include claims for traditional Chinese medicine compositions.
**Article 8** A functional feature refers to a technical feature that defines a structure, component, step, condition or the relationship therebetween by the function or effect achieved thereby in the invention-creation, unless a person having ordinary skill in the art can directly and explicitly determine the specific embodiment for achieving the aforesaid function or effect merely by reading the claims.
Compared with the technical features indispensable for achieving the function or effect referred to in the preceding paragraph as recited in the specification and drawings, if the corresponding technical feature of the alleged infringing technical solution achieves the same function and attains the same effect by substantially identical means, and a person having ordinary skill in the art could conceive of it without creative labor at the time of the alleged infringing act, the people's court shall determine that the corresponding technical feature is identical or equivalent to the functional feature.
**Article 9** Where the alleged infringing technical solution cannot be applied to the use environment defined by the use environment feature in the claim, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing technical solution does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right.
**Article 10** With respect to a technical feature in a claim that defines a product by a preparation method, if the preparation method of the alleged infringing product is neither identical nor equivalent thereto, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing technical solution does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right.
**Article 11** Where a method claim does not explicitly recite the sequence of technical steps, but a person having ordinary skill in the art directly and explicitly considers that the technical steps shall be carried out in a specific sequence upon reading the claims, specification and drawings, the people's court shall determine that such sequence of steps has a limiting effect on the scope of protection of the patent right.
