Patent Claim Charts in China: Connect Every Technical Feature to Evidence

By Pan Jianxing · Published 1 November 2026

For an overseas patent owner reviewing a Chinese product, a side-by-side photograph is often the beginning of the investigation. It is rarely a complete technical infringement analysis. A claim chart should connect the asserted patent claim to the accused technical solution and then connect each proposed match to an identifiable piece of evidence. Its value lies as much in exposing missing information as in organising apparent similarities.

Choose the right claim and legal test

Under Article 64 of the Patent Law, the scope of an invention or utility-model patent is determined by its claims; the description and drawings may explain them. Design patents use a different statutory framework. Do not apply a technical claim chart mechanically to an appearance-based design dispute.

Obtain the Chinese granted claims and check the operative version, including any relevant invalidation decision or amendment. Record the patent number, claim number, source and date of retrieval. A foreign family member or an English abstract can help orientation, but it is not a substitute for the Chinese claim actually relied upon.

Keep the whole claim in view

Article 7 of the Supreme People’s Court’s patent infringement interpretation requires examination of all technical features of the asserted claim. Coverage involves identical or equivalent features; a missing feature, or a feature that is neither identical nor equivalent, prevents the technical solution from falling within that claim’s scope. Overall resemblance does not replace this analysis.

If a dependent claim is selected, follow its references and include the inherited limitations. Keep the complete claim text beside the working breakdown so that connectors, positional relationships and process conditions are not accidentally lost. Numbering rows is useful for navigation, but should not distort a feature’s technical meaning by separating words that must be understood together.

Separate interpretation from observation

Articles 2 and 3 direct attention to the understanding of a person skilled in the art and permit use of the description, drawings, related claims and prosecution file in interpretation. The historical text refers to former Article 59(1), corresponding to current Article 64(1). Explain disputed terminology before labelling the accused product as a match.

Use distinct columns for the claim wording, proposed interpretation, observed product feature, evidence reference and unresolved issue. Put the supporting page or passage next to an interpretation. Do not rewrite a broad claim narrowly just to fit a photograph, or erase a limiting term because the competing product performs the same general commercial function.

Tie evidence to an identifiable product version

Record the model, seller, purchase date, serial or batch number and condition of the specimen. Preserve the order and delivery trail, packaging and photographs before examination. A listing may describe several variants while a purchased sample represents only one. Mark that limitation instead of presenting the sample as proof about every product sold under the same name.

For each row, identify what the evidence actually shows. An exterior image may demonstrate the location of a visible component but say nothing about internal connections or a manufacturing step. Marketing statements are leads to investigate. If a feature depends on testing or dismantling, plan documentation and preservation before the specimen is altered.

Make uncertainty a separate entry

Consider a hypothetical claim containing a housing, a sensor and a specified connection between them. A photograph showing a housing and a sensor does not necessarily prove that connection. The corresponding row should say that the connection remains unverified and identify the investigation needed. Repeating the product’s promotional description would conceal the gap rather than resolve it.

Similarly, distinguish an asserted literal match from an equivalence argument. Explain the technical basis for the latter and the evidence needed to support it; do not use “equivalent” as a label for every difference. Relevant claim history and other legal limitations require review before a final position is adopted.

Use the chart to choose the next step

Prepare a short issue list alongside the chart: missing internal features, inconsistent versions, unclear terminology and evidence obtainable from another source. This helps determine whether a targeted purchase, technical inspection, expert input or procedural evidence request is justified. The chart itself does not authenticate the underlying records or guarantee that a court will accept the proposed comparison.

Technical coverage also leaves other questions open, including patent status, the responsible entity and the acts alleged under Article 11. Keep those questions in the enforcement file rather than treating a completed chart as the entire case. A narrower, well-supported allegation is more useful than a confident table containing unsupported conclusions.

Contact Pan Jianxing with the patent number, the relevant product link and a non-confidential explanation of the suspected technical match. Detailed files can follow after the conflict check and secure document arrangements.

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