In July 2025, the Supreme People's Court issued Judicial Interpretation No. 11 [2025] (https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4545.html) to guide local courts in handling patent disputes. This interpretation formally clarifies the legal status of patent evaluation reports and grants them nationwide binding effect. It states:
when a patent evaluation report concludes that the patent in question does not meet the statutory requirements for patentability, “the people's court shall not dismiss the case solely on that basis. The court must consider the specific circumstances of the case, provide clarification, and render judgment in accordance with the law”.
Effective from August 1, 2025, this interpretation establishes that patent evaluation reports serve only as reference evidence in assessing patent validity and are not a prerequisite for filing or initiating litigation. The regulation clarifies how local courts should handle patent infringement cases involving the submission of patent evaluation reports and negative conclusions, thereby enhancing transparency and consistency in judicial applications.
Under China’s patent framework, utility model and design patents are granted without undergoing substantive examination, which often leads to questions about the stability and validity of the rights conferred. To address this structural challenge, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) established the patent evaluation report system. Upon request by the patent holder, an interested party, or the alleged infringer, CNIPA conducts a prior art search and in-depth analysis to issue a technical opinion on the validity of the patent.
In practice, patent evaluation reports are frequently misunderstood as binding legal judgments on patent validity. As the number of patent infringement cases continues to rise, the role of evaluation reports in judicial proceedings has become increasingly prominent, highlighting the need for clearer legal interpretation and guidance. In particular, when a report yields a negative conclusion, whether courts should still accept the case has become a focal point of legal debate.
Building on the previous discussion of the patent evaluation report system, it is important to further clarify the legal nature of these reports and their role within administrative and judicial proceedings.
Patent evaluation reports are issued by the CNIPA upon request. They are technical documents generated through prior art searches, analysis, and evaluation of utility model or design patents. Under the current Patent Law and its implementing regulations, these reports are neither administrative decisions nor judicial rulings. Their conclusions are not legally binding and cannot serve as direct grounds for invalidating a patent.
If a requester believes the report contains errors, they cannot seek relief through administrative reconsideration or litigation. However, CNIPA allows the requester to submit a correction request within two months of receiving the report, along with supporting evidence and explanatory materials. CNIPA may choose to correct or partially revise the report’s conclusions or decline to make any changes. Notably, for patent holders, failure to clarify validity through this process means they must wait for a future invalidation proceeding initiated by a third party to present further arguments and evidence.
According to the relevant provisions of the Patent Law, when a patent holder files an infringement lawsuit involving a utility model or design patent, the people's court or the administrative authority in charge of patent affairs may request the submission of a patent evaluation report. This wording confirms that the report is not mandatory. However, in earlier judicial practice, some courts interpreted “may” as “must,” leading to situations where refusal to submit the report resulted in the court declining to docket the case or outright dismissing the lawsuit.
In practical application, the Guangdong High People's Court made a clear statement in the 2018 design patent infringement case (Yue Min Zhong No. 2282), made a clear statement in response to the accused infringer’s claim that the first-instance court had violated procedural rules by not requiring the patentee to submit a patent evaluation report. The court held that when the patent holder has already submitted the patent certificate, proof of annuity payment, and other materials, which sufficiently demonstrating the patent’s valid status, the court should grant legal protection in accordance with law without mandating the submission of the evaluation report. (https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=NFoBqWrxrKSmCsWN06lrMtc/fK+boJqkxz2yJfusprkbY5FqYWE5OZ/dgBYosE2gItm7+Mif3GsM+jkpDQOLXvsWX87jgw5u0DzKypYpmUwYW4TbO7OegtC83B2afXyI)
This case further confirms that such reports are not a prerequisite for initiating litigation or resolving infringement disputes, and courts may exercise discretion based on the specific circumstances.
To unify judicial standards, the Supreme People's Court issued the 2020 judicial interpretation titled Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases, which states:
“If the plaintiff fails to submit the patent evaluation report without justifiable reason, the people's court may rule to suspend the proceedings or order the plaintiff to bear potential adverse consequences.”
This provision emphasizes the court’s discretionary power to impose consequences for non-submission, rather than establishing a mandatory requirement.
Additionally, to improve the system and expand the scope of applicability, the fourth amendment to the Patent Law in 2020 formally included alleged infringers as eligible parties to request a patent evaluation report. This revision fills a procedural gap in adversarial litigation, allowing defendants in utility model or design patent cases to proactively request technical assessments to support their defense.
As a bridge between patent validity assessment and infringement dispute resolution, the patent evaluation report plays a pivotal role in enforcement practice. Although its conclusions are not legally binding, the report holds significant reference value across multiple domains, including judicial adjudication, administrative enforcement, commercial operations, and public perception.
(1) Judicial enforcement impact
In patent infringement litigation, courts may refer to the contents of evaluation reports but must not base their judgment solely on the conclusions. Even if the conclusion is unfavourable, the patent holder retains the right to pursue legal action. However, if the patent holder fails to respond proactively, the court may suspend proceedings pending the outcome of a patent invalidation process. In some specific scenarios, the plaintiff may be deemed to have engaged in malicious litigations.
(2) Administrative enforcement impact
In cases handled by local intellectual property offices involving utility models or design patents, the evaluation report is often treated as core evidence, influencing whether a case is accepted and how efficiently it is processed. Similarly, when applying to customs for recordation of intellectual property rights, the submission of such reports with a positive conclusion is typically required to facilitate successful recordation and enable the subsequent seizure of suspected infringing goods.
On e-commerce platforms such as Taobao, JD.com, and Pinduoduo, patent holders initiating infringement complaints are generally required to submit a patent evaluation report to prove the validity of their rights. A positive conclusion in the report is often a prerequisite for launching such complaints.
(3) Commercial operations impact
In the process of registering for open patent licensing, patent holders must submit a patent evaluation report with a positive conclusion to signal that the patent is stable and safe for implementation.
Moreover, in patent pledge financing or mergers and acquisitions, banks and investment institutions routinely request patent evaluation reports. A negative conclusion may significantly reduce the patent’s valuation or even cause the transaction to fail.
(4) Public perception impact
As a publicly available technical document issued by CNIPA, a patent evaluation report can be accessed and copied by anyone. Its conclusions carry social influence, potentially shaping public perception of the patent’s stability and the credibility of the patent holder. This impact should not be underestimated.
In summary, while a patent evaluation report is not legally decisive, it remains a key reference across judicial, administrative, and commercial contexts.
Given the multifaceted influence of patent evaluation reports, it is recommended that holders of utility model or design patents take the following measures before requesting a patent evaluation report or initiating enforcement actions, in order to reduce the risk of receiving a negative conclusion:
While patent evaluation reports are not legally binding, they remain a critical technical reference issued by CNIPA and play an indispensable role in patent enforcement. Before requesting such a report, patent holders should conduct a thorough internal assessment and prepare for the possibility of an unfavorable outcome.
Furthermore, future legislative reforms should consider enhancing procedural safeguards by allowing greater interaction between patent holders and CNIPA. For example, once a preliminary analysis is formed, patent holders should be given the opportunity to respond and provide supplementary explanations regarding the scope of protection. This would help ensure procedural fairness, strengthen the credibility of the report’s conclusions, and uphold the rights of patent holders and other stakeholders.
2025年7月，最高人民法院以指导地方法院审判实践的方式，发布了司法解释（ 法释〔2025〕11号 ）（https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-4545.html），明确了专利权评价报告的法律地位，并赋予其普遍约束力。该司法解释指出：当专利权评价报告认为涉案专利不符合专利法规定的授予专利权条件的，“人民法院不能仅据此径行裁定驳回起诉，应当结合具体案情进行释明，并依法作出裁判”。
该解释自2025年8月1日起施行，明确了专利权评价报告在诉讼中的定位：其仅作为判断专利有效性的参考证据之一，而非起诉或立案的前置性门槛。该规定明确地方法院处理专利侵权案件时，涉及专利权评价报告提交及负面结论的立案裁决和审理，提升了司法适用的透明度和一致性。
在中国专利制度框架下，实用新型与外观设计专利因授权前不经过实质审查，其权利稳定性常受到质疑。为回应这一制度性挑战，国家知识产权局设立了专利权评价报告制度。该报告由国家知识产权局根据专利权人、利害关系人或被控侵权人的请求，通过系统检索现有技术并进行深入分析，提供关于专利有效性的专业参考意见。
在实践中，专利权评价报告常被误解为“专利有效性的裁判书”。事实上，该报告仅为行政机关出具的技术性意见，其法律效力远低于司法判决或行政裁定。随着专利侵权案件数量的持续增长，报告在司法审理中的适用问题日益受到关注。尤其当报告结论为负面时，法院是否仍应受理相关诉讼，成为实践中的争议焦点。
延续前文对专利权评价报告制度的探讨，有必要进一步明确该报告的法律属性及其在行政与司法程序中的定位。
该报告由国家知识产权局出具，系基于相关请求，对实用新型或外观设计专利进行现有技术检索、分析与评价后形成的技术性文件。根据现行专利法及相关实施细则，评价报告既非行政决定，也不是司法裁判文书，其结论不具有强制力，亦不能作为宣告专利无效的直接依据。
若请求人认为报告结论存在错误，无法通过行政复议或行政诉讼途径进行救济。不过，国家知识产权局允许请求人在收到报告后两个月内提出更正申请，并可提交相关证据与陈述材料供参考。国家知识产权局可决定是否更正或部分更正报告结论，亦可选择不予更正。值得注意的是，对于专利权人而言，如未能通过更正程序澄清专利有效性，只能被动等待在第三人提起的后续专利无效宣告程序中，进一步陈述和申辩。
根据专利法的相关规定，实用新型或外观设计专利权人在提起侵权诉讼时，人民法院或管理专利工作的行政部门“可以”要求其提交专利权评价报告。这一表述明确了评价报告非强制性质。
在具体司法实践中，广东省高级人民法院在2018年粤民终2282号专利侵权案件中，针对被诉侵权人提出的一审法院因未要求专利权人提交涉案专利权评价报告属于程序违法的请求，作出明确表态[i]：当专利权人已提交专利证书、年费缴纳凭证等材料，足以证明涉案专利处于有效状态时，法院应依法予以保护，无需强制要求提交专利权评价报告。该案进一步印证了评价报告在诉讼启动阶段以及侵权纠纷处理中并非必要证据，法院可根据案情灵活裁量。
为统一司法适用标准，最高人民法院于2020年发布的《关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》中明确指出：“原告无正当理由不提交的，人民法院可以裁定中止诉讼或者判令原告承担可能的不利后果” 。这一规定强调了法院可以自由裁量权专利权人不提交评价报告的不利后果，而非强制要求提交评价报告。
此外，为完善制度设计并扩大评价报告的适用范围，2020年第四次专利法修订将被控侵权人正式纳入专利权评价报告的请求主体。这一修改有效填补了原制度在诉讼对抗性方面的空白，使被告方在面对实用新型或外观设计专利时，亦可主动请求技术评价报告，以增强抗辩依据。
作为连接专利有效性分析与侵权纠纷解决的桥梁，专利权评价报告在专利维权实践中发挥着重要作用。尽管其结论不具有法律强制力，但在司法裁判、行政执法、商业运营及社会认知等多个层面，均具有显著的参考价值。
1. 司法维权影响力
在专利侵权诉讼中，法院可参考专利权报告内容，但不得仅据其结论裁判。即使报告为负面，专利权人仍可依法维权。但是，如果专利权人没有积极应对，法院可能中止诉讼，等待专利无效程序结果，甚至在某些特殊情况下，专利权人可能会被认定为恶意诉讼。
2. 行政执法影响力
在地方知识产权局处理实用新型或外观设计侵权纠纷时，专利权评价报告常被视为核心证据，影响其立案与处理效率。此外，在向海关申请知识产权备案和保护时，海关备案亦要求提交具有正面结论的专利权评价报告，以确保成功获得知识产权海关备案和后续的查扣涉嫌侵权产品。
在电商平台（如淘宝、京东、拼多多）发起专利侵权投诉时，平台通常要求提交专利权评价报告作为权利有效性的证明。尤其是正面结论的报告，往往成为启动投诉程序的必要条件。
3. 商业运营影响力
在专利开放许可登记过程中，权利人必须向国家知识产权局提供具有正面结论的评价报告[ii]，以释放“权利稳定、可放心实施”的信号。
此外，在专利质押融资或投资并购交易中，银行及投资机构也普遍要求提供专利权评价报告。若报告结论为负面，可能显著压低专利估值，甚至导致交易失败。
4. 社会认知影响力
作为国家知识产权局公开发布的技术性文件，专利权评价报告可供公众查阅与复制。因此，其结论在社会层面也具有一定影响力，可能影响公众对专利权稳定性和权利人信誉的认知。专利权人对此不应忽视。
总而言之，虽然专利权评价报告的结论不具有法律效力，但在司法裁判、行政裁决和商业运营中，其具有重要的参考价值。
基于专利权评价报告的多维仍然影响力，建议实用新型或外观设计专利权人，在请求专利权评价报告或启动维权行动前，采取以下措施，以降低获得负面结论的风险：
尽管专利权评价报告在法律上不具有强制效力，但作为国家知识产权局出具的关于专利有效性的专业分析文件，其在专利维权过程中仍具有不可忽视的重要地位。专利权人在提交评价报告请求前，应委托专业人员进行专利稳定性评估，并为可能出现的负面结论做好充分准备与应对。
同时，建议在未来立法中进一步完善相关程序，赋予专利权人与国家知识产权局之间更多沟通机会。例如，在报告形成初步分析结论后，允许专利权人答复与补充说明，明确专利保护范围，从而保障程序救济权，提升行政程序的公正性与评价报告结论的可信度。
[i] https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=NFoBqWrxrKSmCsWN06lrMtc/fK+boJqkxz2yJfusprkbY5FqYWE5OZ/dgBYosE2gItm7+Mif3GsM+jkpDQOLXvsWX87jgw5u0DzKypYpmUwYW4TbO7OegtC83B2afXyI
[ii] 专利法第66条第2款
