Article 11

Where the sequence of technical steps is not specified in a process claim but a person of ordinary skill in the art can directly and clearly learn that such technical steps shall be exploited according to specific sequence upon reading the claims, description and drawings, the people's court shall decide that such sequence of steps is a limitation to the protection scope of the patent.

Article 12

Where phrases such as "at least" or "not more than" are used in a claim to define numerical features, and a person of ordinary skill in the art can learn that the patented technical solution places special emphasis on the roles of such phrases to limit the respective technical features, upon reading the claims, description and  drawings, the people’s court shall not side with the right holder if the later alleges that the technical features different from the numerical features are equivalent features.

Article 13

Where the right holder proves that any amendments or statements made by the patent applicant or the patentee to limit the claims, description or drawings during the patent prosecution or patent invalidation proceedings are definitely denied, the people's court shall determine that said amendments or statements do not lead to waiver of a technical solution.

Article 14

When determining the level of knowledge and discriminability of an ordinary consumer to a design, the people’s court shall normally consider the design space of the products in the same or similar category as the patented design at the time of infringement. Where the design space is relatively large, the people’s court may determine that it is usually unlikely for an ordinary consumer to notice the minor differences between the compared designs; where the design space is relatively small, the people’s court may determine that it is usually more likely for an ordinary consumer to notice the minor differences between two compared designs.

Article 15

For a patent for designs of products in set, where the accused design is identical with or similar to one of the designs, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design falls within the protection scope of the patent.

Article 16

For a patent for design of a component product with a unique assembly relation among the individual components, where the accused design is identical with or similar to the design of the component product in its assembled sate, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design falls within the protection scope of the patent.

For a patent for design of a component product with no assembly relation or with no unique assembly relation among the individual components, where the accused design is identical with or similar to the designs of all the individual components of the component product, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design falls within the protection scope of the patent; where the accused design lacks the design of one individual component of the component product or is neither identical with nor similar to the design of one individual component, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design doesn’t fall within the protection scope of the patent.

Article 17

For a patent for design of a product with variant states, where the accused design is identical with or similar to the design in all its use states as shown in the relevant views, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design falls within the protection scope of the patent; where the accused design lacks the design in one of its use states or is neither identical with nor similar to the design in one of its use states, the people’s court shall determine that the accused design doesn’t fall within the protection scope of the patent.

Article 18

Where a right holder files a lawsuit to request an entity or individual to pay appropriate fees for exploiting its, his or her invention during the period from the date of publication of the invention patent application to the date of announcement of grant of the invention patent in accordance with Article 13 of the Patent Law, the people's court may determine the fees reasonably by referring to relevant royalties of the patent.

Where the protection scope claimed by the applicant upon the publication of the invention patent application is inconsistent with the protection scope of the patent upon the announcement of grant of the invention patent, and the accused technical solution falls within both of the foregoing two protection scopes, the people's court shall determine that the defendant exploited the relevant invention during the period stated in the preceding paragraph; where the accused technical solution falls within only one of the two protection scopes, the people's court shall determine that the defendant didn’t exploit the invention during the period stated in the preceding paragraph.

Where a party, without consent of the patentee and for the business purposes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the products that were manufactured, sold or imported by another party during the period stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article after the date of announcement of grant of the invention patent, and such another party has paid or promised in writing to pay appropriate fees prescribed in Article 13 of the Patent Law, the people's court shall not side with the right holder asserting that the aforesaid act of use, offer to sell and sell has infringed the patent.

Article 19

Where a sales contract of products is concluded in accordance with laws, the people's court shall determine that the sale as prescribed by Article 11 of the Patent Law have been constituted.

Article 20                                                                                                      

As regards the re-processing or re-treatment of a follow-up product obtained from the further processing or treatment of a product directly obtained from a patented process, the people's court shall determine that such re-processing or re-treatment does not belong to "use of a product directly obtained according to the patented process" as prescribed in Article 11 of the Patent Law.