Before Enforcing a Chinese Patent: Check Annual Fees and Legal Status

By Pan Jianxing · Published 29 October 2026

A foreign patent owner may discover an unauthorised product after several years of routine renewal payments. The certificate is available, the accused product looks relevant and a commercial team wants an immediate demand. Before asserting that an enforceable Chinese patent supports that demand, reconcile the annual-fee history with the official legal status. A payment instruction, an agent’s invoice and an official record answer different questions.

Start with the exact Chinese right

Identify the patent number, patent type, application date, grant information and registered owner. Keep this separate from overseas family members, pending applications and similarly named inventions. An annual fee paid for one Chinese patent does not maintain another. Where a portfolio contains both an invention patent and a utility model for related technology, build a separate status line for each.

The Patent Law, Articles 43 and 44, requires annual fees from the grant year and provides for early termination when fees are not paid as required or the owner abandons the right in writing. Early termination is registered and announced. A certificate alone cannot resolve whether an intervening event has affected the right.

Reconcile the payment chain

Collect the renewal instruction, the payment confirmation issued by the payment service or agent, and the official payment record. Check the patent number, fee category, fee year, amount, transaction date and allocation of the payment. A bank debit proves that money moved; it does not necessarily prove that the correct fee was credited to the correct right.

Under Articles 114 and 115 of the Implementing Regulations, the grant-year fee is handled with registration procedures, while subsequent annual fees are due before the preceding year expires. Do not calculate the payment year simply from the anniversary of an agent’s invoice. Ask the responsible patent professional to reconcile the official due date and the applicable fee calculation.

For example, a hypothetical spreadsheet may show “renewed” because the accounts team approved a bundled payment. That entry should be supported by the itemised list and official allocation for the patent in dispute. Resolve discrepancies before copying the spreadsheet into a court submission or a platform complaint.

Check notices and any late-payment period

Article 115 provides a six-month period, measured from expiry of the annual-fee payment deadline, for making up an unpaid or insufficient fee following notification, together with the applicable surcharge. If payment is still not made within that period, termination runs from expiry of the original payment deadline. The later appearance of a termination notice therefore cannot simply be treated as the first date on which status matters.

Retrieve the actual notice, its delivery record and any response. Separate the original deadline, the late-payment endpoint and the recorded termination date. Do not describe a patent as safely maintained merely because a reminder was sent, a payment is being processed or the six-month period has not been calculated. Conversely, an apparent accounting gap needs investigation before it is labelled a confirmed loss of the right.

Separate a restoration request from restoration

If rights have been lost, review whether a restoration route is available under Article 6 and the facts of the missed deadline. That provision distinguishes force majeure from other justified reasons, sets different time limits and requires the relevant procedural steps. It also excludes specified statutory periods. Restoration should not be presented as an automatic remedy for every missed deadline.

Preserve the request, reasons, supporting documents, required payments, official acknowledgement and subsequent decision. Label a pending request as pending. Article 106 lists termination and restoration among matters recorded in the patent register; obtain the relevant current register information rather than treating submission of an application as proof of a restored patent.

Connect status to the conduct and requested remedy

Prepare a chronology showing the alleged manufacture, sale or other accused acts alongside the right’s status. Historical acts, continuing conduct and a proposed future injunction require separate assessment. A later status change does not by itself answer every question about an earlier claim, and an earlier grant does not establish entitlement to every remedy today.

Keep evidence of the accused conduct while status questions are resolved. Record the source and retrieval date of each status document, and preserve original notices and transaction records. If two records conflict, state the discrepancy and obtain clarification; do not silently choose the entry that best supports the proposed demand.

A practical status file

• Exact patent identity and current owner, with relevant transfer records.
• Official register information and the date it was retrieved.
• Annual-fee years, deadlines, payments and official allocations.
• Late-payment, termination or restoration notices and responses.
• A separate timeline of accused acts and the remedies being considered.

Contact Pan Jianxing with the patent number, public status information and a short non-confidential summary of the conduct. Detailed payment and internal correspondence can be reviewed after conflict and document-sharing arrangements are confirmed.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →