China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Chinese Court Rules on First Case of Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage

Mon, 30 May 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 15 Apr. 2022, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court announced the first-instance judgment of the case Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., addressing whether the generic drug in question falls within the protection scope of relevant patent rights.

The case is reported to be the first pharmaceutical patent linkage lawsuit in China since the implementation of the amended Patent Law.

The generic drug involved is mainly for osteoporosis treatment.

After trial, the court held that the technical solution used by the generic drug at issue was neither the same nor equivalent to the technical solution of the involved patent, and therefore the technical solution did not fall within the protection scope of the involved patent.

According to Article 76 of the fourth amendment to the Patent Law passed in October 2020, during the marketing review and approval of new drugs, the applicant for the drug marketing authorization and the concerned patentee or interested party may request a judgment through judicial or administrative proceedings on whether the technical solution of the drug applying for registration falls within the scope of protection of another party’s drug patent rights. This provision laid the foundation for China’s pharmaceutical patent linkage system.

Later, China’s Supreme People’s Court promulgated the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Concerning Patent Disputes Related to Drugs Applied for Registration” (最高人民法院关于审理申请注册的药品相关的专利权纠纷民事案件适用法律若干问题的规定), authorizing the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to have exclusive jurisdiction over pharmaceutical patent linkage lawsuits.

 

 

Cover Photo by Lavinia Occeña on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)