Evidentiary Strategies Drive Record High Patent Damages in Chinese Courts

China’s patent damages regime has undergone a significant transformation over the past decade. Historically, patent holders pursuing infringement claims in Chinese courts faced modest statutory damage awards that often failed to reflect the actual commercial harm suffered. However, recent rulings from the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC IP Court) demonstrate a decisive shift toward awarding damages calibrated to real economic losses, with some awards reaching nine figures in RMB.

Notable cases exemplify this trend: the WAPI case (2022 SPC IP Civil Final No. 817, 2022) resulted in an award of RMB 143 million; the Melamine case (No. 1559, 2020) and the Electronic-grade Copper Oxide case (No. 1254, 2024) each yielded damages exceeding RMB 120 million. These landmark decisions signal the courts’ readiness and capability to move beyond statutory minimums and assess damages based on actual market impact.

A fundamental procedural challenge remains, however: China lacks a discovery mechanism comparable to that in the United States. Chinese patentees cannot compel defendants to disclose internal financial records, sales data, or communications, leaving patentees often without direct access to critical evidence needed to prove damages. This evidentiary gap has historically limited damage awards, even in cases with strong infringement claims.

This analysis reviews evidentiary strategies and procedural tools employed in 16 SPC IP Court decisions with damages ranging from RMB 10 million to RMB 143 million. Successful patentees typically develop dual lines of evidence: one to establish infringement and another to quantify damages, including sales volume, profit margins, infringement duration, and distribution channels.

For product patents, a common approach involves notarised purchases combined with technical comparisons. In complex cases, judicial or technical appraisal reports provide authoritative technical comparisons, as seen in the Glucoamylase (No. 483, 2022) and Intramedullary Nail (No. 148, 2021) cases.

Method patents covering large industrial systems have leveraged administrative regulatory compliance documents in lieu of on-site inspections. The Melamine case demonstrated that safety assessments, environmental impact reports, and engineering design documents submitted to government authorities can serve as objective third-party evidence of the defendant’s system implementation.

For standard-essential patents, data from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s network access permits can simultaneously prove the accused product’s market presence and compliance with relevant standards, as utilized in the WAPI case.

Where prior infringement judgments exist, proving subsequent infringement is simplified by demonstrating continued use of the same technical solution post-judgment.

Damages evidence falls into four principal categories. First, external and objective data—such as tax records, customs export data, and government invoice information—provides highly credible proof independent of defendant cooperation. For example, in Bear Bile Eye Drops (No. 2874, 2023), a Tax Enforcement Feedback Notice documented RMB 26.68 million in infringing sales over five years. Similarly, the Rear-view Mirror case (No. 2892, 2022) involved invoice data obtained directly from the tax bureau, and the Gold-finger Circuit Board case (No. 1791, 2020) relied on customs export records.

Second, defendants’ own public disclosures, including annual reports and regulatory filings, serve as difficult-to-deny evidence. In the Cavity Microwave Device case (No. 379, 2021), the plaintiff combined the defendant’s annual report with industry profit margins to estimate infringement profits. In Intramedullary Nail, sales data from the defendant’s prospectus supported an adverse inference after evidence obstruction.

Third, multichannel sales evidence helps establish the full scope of infringement beyond minimal proof from a single platform. The Breast Pad case (No. 1124, 2023) included notarised purchases from multiple online marketplaces and procurement contracts to demonstrate broad distribution. The Toy Figurine case (No. 1282, 2020) extended this by surveying 114 physical retail stores and integrating industry white paper data to capture both online and offline sales.

Fourth, historical contracts and comparable license agreements provide concrete benchmarks for damages. In Bear Bile Eye Drops, a prior distribution agreement specified per-unit penalties that informed the court’s large damages award. The WAPI case submitted a comparable third-party license agreement enabling royalty-based damages calculations under Article 71 of China’s Patent Law. The Electrical Connector case (No. 646, 2023) referenced prior settlement figures in assessing punitive damages.

To mitigate the evidentiary challenges posed by the absence of discovery, Chinese courts employ Article 27 of the SPC’s Judicial Interpretation II on Patent Infringement Disputes. This provision authorizes courts to draw adverse inferences or accept the patentee’s damages claims when defendants refuse to produce financial records under court order. This shifts the evidentiary burden and consequences of missing information onto defendants, incentivizing cooperation and protecting patentees’ rights.

In sum, the combination of strategic evidence gathering—leveraging notarised purchases, technical appraisals, government records, public disclosures, and multichannel sales data—alongside procedural tools like adverse inference rules, has enabled Chinese patentees to secure historically high damages awards. These developments reflect a maturing patent enforcement environment increasingly aligned with commercial realities.