China’s Supreme People’s Court Defines Profit-Based Criteria for Inventor Compensation in Biosimilar Patent Dispute

On June 24, 2026, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of China’s Supreme People’s Court issued a final judgment in case (2024)最高法知民终907号, published on September 4, 2026, addressing a statutory inventor remuneration dispute involving a service invention patent. The appeal arose from a decision by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, which had dismissed the inventor’s claims entirely.

The Supreme People’s Court clarified that under Chinese patent law, a company must pay an inventor a share of the operating profit generated by a patented invention whenever the invention is commercially utilized and the relevant product yields profit in any given year. This obligation applies irrespective of whether the product is profitable over its entire commercial lifespan.

The case involved Wang, a Canadian national and former Senior Director of Formulation Process Development at the defendant company, presumed to be Bio Thera Solutions Ltd. Wang was named as one of six co-inventors on a patent covering a formulation for treating TNF-α related diseases. The patented invention was commercialized in the company’s biosimilar adalimumab injection product, Gele Li, launched between late 2019 and early 2020.

Wang sought both a share of patent ownership and statutory inventor remuneration. He requested payments calculated as a percentage of the product’s revenue or operating profit over multiple years and claimed a 70% ownership interest in the patent. The company contested these claims, arguing Wang had made no substantive inventive contribution, that the patent covered only a minor aspect of the product’s technology, that Gele Li had not been profitable overall since launch, and that inventor rewards had already been paid under an internal policy.

At trial, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court recognized Wang’s inventor status and acknowledged a prior one-time reward payment related to a priority application. However, it dismissed Wang’s remuneration claims, holding that he failed to prove the product’s profitability since financial reports indicated net losses in most years. The court also rejected Wang’s ownership claim as unsupported and inconsistent with his remuneration theory.

On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court upheld Wang’s inventor status and the distinction between reward and remuneration but reversed the dismissal of remuneration claims. The court emphasized that being listed as an inventor at filing creates a presumption of genuine inventive contribution, which the patent owner cannot later negate without evidence. It rejected the company’s argument denying Wang’s contribution, noting the company’s prior recognition of Wang as an inventor and payment of a related reward.

The court rejected Wang’s claim to sole inventorship and a 70% ownership share, finding no evidentiary or legal basis for these assertions. Crucially, the court clarified the statutory test for remuneration under the Patent Law and the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements. It held that remuneration depends on whether the product generated operating profit in any given year after commercial launch, not on net profitability over the product’s entire commercial life.

The Supreme People’s Court found the trial court erred by requiring proof of overall profitability and by placing the burden on Wang to fund a specific audit of profitability. Given the company exclusively held relevant financial data, the appellate court ordered the company to submit a statement of Gele Li’s revenue and profit. The court found this data, corroborated by the company’s audited financial reports, sufficient to establish that Gele Li generated operating profit in some years since its 2020 launch.