Article 21

Where a party, knowing that certain products are the materials, equipment, parts and components or intermediate items, etc. specifically for the exploitation of a patent, without consent of the patentee and for business purposes, provides such products to another party committing patent infringement, the people's court shall side with the right holder claiming that the party's provision of such products is an act of contributory infringement as prescribed by Article 9 of the Tort Liability Law.

Where a party, knowing that a product or process has been granted patent, without consent of the patentee and for business purposes, induces positively another party to commit patent infringement, the people's court shall side with the right holder claiming that the inducement of the party is an act of inducing another party to commit infringement as prescribed by Article 9 of the Tort Liability Law.

Article 22

Where an accused infringer defends on the basis of prior arts or prior designs, the people's court shall define the prior arts or prior designs pursuant to the Patent Law effective on the filing date of the patent.

Article 23

Where the accused technical solution or design falls within the protection scope of the asserted prior patent, the people's court shall not side with the accused infringer defending that its technical solution or design has been granted patent and thus does not infringe the asserted patent.

Article 24

Where a recommended national, industrial or local standard clearly indicates the essential patent-related information, the people's court shall in general not side with the accused infringer defending that the exploitation of such standard does not need consent of the patentee and thus does not infringe the patent.

Where a recommended national, industrial or local standard clearly indicates the essential patent-related information and the patentee intentionally violates the obligation for licensing on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as committed in formulating the standard in consultation with the accused infringer on the conditions for the exploitation and licensing of such patent, resulting in failure to conclude a patent licensing contract, the people's court shall, in general, not side with the right holder claiming stopping the exploitation of the standard by the accused infringer, if the accused infringer has no obvious fault in the consultation.

The conditions for the exploitation and licensing of a patent as mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this Article shall be determined upon consultation by the patentee and the accused infringer. Where no agreement is reached upon careful consultation, the parties may request the people's court to determine such conditions, in which case the people's court shall, on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, take into comprehensive consideration the degree of innovation of the patent, the role of the patent in the standard, the technical field to which the standard belongs, the nature and scope of application of the standard, the relevant licensing conditions and other factors to determine such exploitation and licensing conditions.

The provisions on the exploitation of a patent involved in a standard as otherwise prescribed by laws and administrative regulations shall prevail.

Article 25

Where a party, using, offering to sell, or selling patent-infringing products for business purposes without the knowledge that such products are manufactured and sold without consent of the patentee, proffers evidence showing the legitimate sources of such products, the people's court shall side with the right holder claiming that the aforesaid using, offering to sell, or selling shall be stopped, except that the user of the accused products proffers evidence to prove that it has paid reasonable quid pro quo for such products.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 of this Article, "without the knowledge" shall mean the circumstance where a party has no actual knowledge and ought not to have knowledge.

For the purpose of Paragraph 1 of this Article, "legitimate sources" shall mean acquire products through regular business methods such as lawful sales channels or usual sale and purchase contracts. The party who engages in use, offering to sell or selling shall proffer relevant evidence consistent with trading habits to prove said legitimate sources.

Article 26

Where the defendant is found to commit patent infringement, the people's court shall side with the right holder claiming that the defendant shall be ordered to stop infringement; however, the people's court may, instead of ordering the defendant to stop the accused act, order the defendant to pay reasonable fees in consideration of the interests of the state or the public interest.

Article 27

Where it is difficult to determine the actual loss suffered by a right holder, the people's court shall require the right holder to proffer evidence to prove the gains obtained by the infringer from the infringement in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 65 of the Patent Law. Where the right holder has proffered the prima facie evidence in relation to the gains obtained by the infringer but the account books and materials related to the acts of patent infringement are mainly under the control of the infringer, the people's court may order the infringer to submit such account books and materials; where the infringer refuses to provide such account books and materials without justification or submits false account books and materials, the people's court may determine the gains obtained by the infringer from the infringement based on the claims of the right holder and the evidence proffered thereby.

Article 28

Where a right holder and the infringer have legally agreed on the amount of damages for patent infringement or the methods for calculating the amount of damages, and one of them claims during a patentinfringement lawsuit that the amount of damages shall be determined in accordance with such an agreement, the people's court shall uphold such a claim.

Article 29

Where a party legally applies for retrial based on a decision declaring the patent invalid to request for vocation of the judgment or mediation statement on patent infringement that is rendered by the people's court before the patent is declared invalid but is not enforced, the people's court may render a ruling to suspend the examination in retrial and suspend the enforcement of the original judgment or mediation statement.

If the patentee provides sufficient and effective guarantee to the people's court to request that the enforcement of the judgment or mediation statement mentioned in the preceding paragraph be continued, the people's court shall continue the enforcement; if the infringer provides sufficient and effective counter-guarantee to the people's court to request that the enforcement be suspended, the people's court shall approve such request. Where the decision declaring the patent invalid is not revoked by a binding ruling/judgment of the people’s court, the patentee shall make compensation for the loss suffered by the other party concerned due to the continuation of the enforcement; where the decision declaring the patent invalid is revoked by a binding ruling/judgment of the people's court, the people's court may directly enforce the property under the above counter-guarantee based on the judgment or mediation statement mentioned in the preceding paragraph provided that the patent is still valid.

Article 30

If a lawsuit is not filed against a decision declaring the patent invalid with the people's court within the statutory time limit or the decision is not revoked by a binding ruling/judgment made after filing of a lawsuit, the people's court shall conduct retrial if one party legally applies for retrial based on such decision requesting that the judgment or mediation statement on patent infringement that has been rendered before the announcement of the invalidity of the patent and is not yet enforced be revoked. If the party, based on such decision, legally applies for termination of the enforcement of the judgment or mediation statement on patent infringement that has been rendered before the declaration of the invalidity of patent and is not yet enforced, the people's court shall rule to terminate the enforcement.

Article 31

This Interpretation is implemented as of April 1 2016. In case the relevant judicial interpretations previously published by the Supreme People's Court are not consistent with this interpretation, this interpretation shall prevail.