Judicial Pragmatism in Cross-Border Service: China's Supreme Court Tackles Service Evasion in Patent Dispute Involving Amazon

[Abstract]

In the case of Amazon Joyo v. CNIPA & Seletech et al. (2024), China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) addressed the procedural hurdles of serving an elusive foreign litigant in an intellectual property dispute. By integrating the Hague Service Convention with domestic civil procedure, the SPC validated a non-hierarchical, multi-track service strategy. This commentary analyzes how the court’s use of multiple means, particularly postal and electronic channels, combats procedural abuse while upholding due process norms.

In international litigation, effective service of process on foreign parties is a foundational requirement that balances due process with judicial efficiency. A recent judgment by China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) in Amazon Joyo Co., Ltd. v. CNIPA & Seletech et al. (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 141 provides a blueprint for addressing these challenges in service. Facing a U.S.-based co-patent holder who actively evaded participation, the SPC utilized a combination of domestic statutes and the Hague Service Convention to affirm the validity of multi-track service. The ruling underscores a shift in China’s foreign-related judicial practice, moving toward a proactive, flexible, and non-hierarchical service framework designed to prevent bad-faith procedural delays.

I.Case Background

The case arose from an invalidation request filed by Amazon Joyo Co., Ltd. (“Amazon”) concerning a Chinese invention patent in multimedia communication. The patent was granted in 2019 to Sellerbid (a Chinese company), Ms. Anne Wong (a U.S. citizen residing in Texas), and Mr. T. Wong (her brother, a Chinese resident).

Amazon first sought invalidation before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), which upheld the patent. Amazon appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, naming Sellerbid, Ms. Wong, and Mr. Wang as third parties, but the first-instance court dismissed the claims in December 2023. Undeterred, Amazon appealed to the SPC, which accepted the case and conducted hearings amid ongoing procedural hurdles.

During the proceedings, the challenge of serving Ms. Wong arose, as she refused to confirm addresses and evaded participation. Sellerbid’s representative, Ms. Ning Wang (Ms. Wong’s sister-in-law), and Mr. Wang attended the first hearing but withdrew midway through the second, contesting service on Ms. Wong. Ms. Wong herself did not appear despite the court summons. The SPC ultimately revoked the CNIPA decision and the first-instance judgment, remanding for re-examination primarily on patent creativity, but it dedicated significant reasoning to validating the service efforts.

II.Multi-Track Service of Process

The SPC employed a comprehensive multi-track service strategy to address Ms. Wong's evasion, employing postal, electronic, substituted, and announcement methods to safeguard the procedural integrity.

Service by post served as a primary channel in this case. Using a Texas address previously disclosed by Ms. Wong in related proceedings, the SPC dispatched the judicial documents via China Post EMS. Tracking data from the United States Postal Service (USPS) confirmed the package was “Delivered, Left with Individual” in May 2025. This method aligns with Article 283(8) of the 2023 PRC Civil Procedure Law (CPL), which allows postal service when permitted by the law of the destination state.

Electronic service supplemented the postal efforts, grounded in Ms. Wong’s prior consent. In the first-instance trial, she had executed a “Confirmation of Service Address,” designating a specific email address for judicial communications and stipulating its validity for the appellate stage. The SPC transmitted the documents to this address, and for added assurance, also utilized a secondary email that Ms. Wong had disclosed in associated litigation. This aligns with CPL Article 283(9), which allows electronic service provided the method is verifiable and is not prohibited by the law of the destination state.

Further attempts included service through associated domestic addresses. The Court first attempted substituted service via Ms. Wong’s relative who is also a litigant in the case and business associates (i.e. patent co-holders with common interests) in Beijing. When these parties refused to cooperate, the SPC issued two public announcements, each exceeding the 60-day statutory period. These efforts established a comprehensive record of diligence, showing that the Court had exhausted every available domestic and international means of service.

III. Analysis: Harmonizing International Obligations with Domestic Efficiency

The significance of the Amazon decision lies not merely in its outcome, but in the SPC’s articulate reasoning regarding the legality of service methods.

3.1 The Non-Hierarchical Framework on Service

China's framework for cross-border service integrates international conventions with domestic legislation to offer courts adaptable tools for effective delivery. The Hague Service Convention, to which both China and the United States are parties, establishes a central authority channel for judicial assistance while permitting alternative methods unless a state expressly objects. On the domestic front, Article 283 of the CPL enumerates eleven service options for parties without a Chinese domicile, and these apply to administrative disputes like this case through Article 101 of the Administrative Litigation Law, which refers to CPL rules for procedural elements such as service.

This framework stands out for its lack of mandatory sequencing among methods, empowering courts to choose based on case-specific needs and thereby prioritizing efficiency alongside fairness. As elaborated in a recent SPC commentary,^[i] and shown in the Ministry of Justice’s FAQs (2025),^[ii] there is no requirement to exhaust treaty-based routes before alternatives; instead, options like service by postal and electronic means, service to designated agents, can be selected if they respect the destination state’s sovereignty and treaty limits. In this case, the SPC used verified addresses and consented emails from the outset, demonstrating how such flexibility prevents delays without undermining due process.

3.2 Validity Criteria for Service by Post and by E-mail

The SPC applied both international treaties and Chinese laws in employing postal and electronic service, ensuring the procedural soundness.

Service by post, under the CPL Article 283(8) and Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, proved central to the strategy, given that the US (the destination state) allows delivery through mail as long as no compulsion is used.[iii] By using Ms. Wong's self-provided Texas address and verifying delivery through postal records from China Post EMS and the U.S. Postal Service, the SPC satisfied the validity criteria outlined in the HCCH Practical Handbook: adherence to the law of the state of origin and no objection to such use from the destination state. [iv]

Electronic service via email, under CPL Article 283(9), further illustrated this careful compliance, hinging on Ms. Wong's explicit consent in her prior confirmation form. Adopting the “functional equivalence” approach from SPC guidelines on foreign-related trials,[v] the Court treated email as akin to postal channels, deeming it permissible since the US permits postal service and its own courts frequently use emails to reach elusive foreign litigants,[vi] rendering it a valid tool for service.

3.3 The “Every Reasonable Effort” Standard

The SPC’s persistent service attempts, extending well beyond the initial postal and email successes, embodied the Hague Service Convention’s emphasis on making “every reasonable effort” to provide notice, which in turn justified proceeding to a default judgment and deterred procedural manipulation.

Although delivery through mail and consented email already established an effective service, the Court pursued additional domestic substitutions and public announcements to build an unassailable record. By engaging Ms. Wong's co-litigants—her family member and aligned parties—the SPC exposed and addressed bad-faith refusals, such as Ms. Ning Wang's implausible claim of ignorance, interpreting these as breaches of good faith that could not halt the case. This exhaustive diligence not only assured actual or constructive awareness, but also countered evasion tactics, setting a strong precedent for maintaining efficiency in cross-border disputes without tolerating obstruction.

IV. Comment

The Amazon judgment is widely welcomed by legal scholars as a model of advancing judicial capacity in foreign-related adjudication, where the Court skillfully balances adherence to international treaties with proactive steps to ensure due process and combat procedural abuse.

Professor Zhengxin Huo, Vice President of the China Society of Private International Law and professor at China University of Political Science and Law, underscores the ruling's importance in this regard. He observes that Chinese courts are growing more proficient in applying international conventions and civil procedure rules precisely, particularly when fulfilling service requirements for parties domiciled abroad. In Professor Huo’s view, by employing multiple channels and advancing to default judgment only after meeting all statutory conditions, courts exhibit rigorous compliance with treaties and domestic law; this not only safeguards litigants’ procedural rights but also prevents the misuse of process to impede justice, thereby enhancing the overall effectiveness of foreign-related trials.

All in all, the decision provides legal practitioners with a clear roadmap for navigating service of process in an era of globalization, affirming that such rules can remain stringent yet adaptable, protecting all parties' interests while resisting delays driven by bad-faith evasion.

[i] The Fourth Civil Division of China’s Supreme People’s Court, Understanding and Application of the Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao Lijie Yu Shiyong], People’s Court Press, 2023, pp. 104-105.

[ii] Ministry of Justice, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Regarding International Civil and Commercial Judicial Assistance (March 21, 2025), available at https://www.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbgw/jgsz/jgszzsdw/zsdwsfxzjlzx/sfxzjlzxxwdt/202503/t20250324_516204.html

[iii] The United States has no objection to the informal delivery of such documents by members of diplomatic or consular missions in the United States, or through mail, or by private persons – if effective under applicable law – provided no compulsion is used. See HCCH, United States of America - Central Authority & practical information, available at https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=279.

[iv] Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), HCCH Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, 2016, para. 256.

[v] See Supreme People’s Court, 2021 Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide [Quanguo Fayuan Shewai Shangshi Haishi Shenpan Gongzuo Zuotanhui Jiyao], Art. 11.

[vi] See Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), HCCH Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, 2016, Annex 8, para. 53.

Photo by Rubaitul Azad on Unsplash

Contributors: Meng Yu 余萌