Patent Evaluation Reports in China: Read the Findings Before Choosing an Enforcement Step

By Pan Jianxing · Published 19 October 2026

A foreign rights holder may obtain a Chinese utility model or design patent and then discover a competing product. Before escalating, review any patent evaluation report and the material it discusses. A certificate, a favourable report and evidence about the accused product answer different questions. Keeping them separate produces a clearer enforcement assessment.

For this purpose, first identify the Chinese patent number, type, current owner and legal status. A patent from another jurisdiction, a pending Chinese application and an already granted Chinese right should not be described interchangeably. The evaluation-report procedure discussed here concerns Chinese utility model and design patents.

Understand what the report contributes

Article 66 of the Patent Law as amended in 2020 allows a court or patent administrative authority handling a utility model or design infringement dispute to require an evaluation report from the patentee or interested party. The report follows a search, analysis and evaluation by the patent authority and serves as evidence in handling the dispute. The patentee, interested party or accused infringer may also submit one proactively.

A report does not itself compare every accused product with the patent, identify every seller or calculate recoverable damages. Those questions require separate material. Likewise, a favourable conclusion should not be presented as a promise that the patent will survive every later challenge.

Keep invalidation separate. Articles 45 and 46 provide for requests to declare a patent invalid and the resulting decisions. An adverse evaluation finding should be reviewed seriously, but it should not be labelled an invalidation decision. Check whether a separate invalidation proceeding or decision exists and record its actual status.

Check whether a report already exists

Article 63 of the Patent Law Implementing Regulations, revised in 2023, provides that only one report is made for the same utility model or design patent where multiple persons request one. Any organisation or individual may inspect or copy the report. Check for an existing report before assuming that a new request will produce a different assessment.

Obtain the complete report and referenced documents, rather than relying on an agent’s cover email or an isolated favourable sentence. Match the patent number and the relevant claim or design to the right being considered. Preserve the report’s date, source and any later official correction or related decision available in the file.

For a utility model, examine which claims each conclusion concerns. For a design, review the registered images or photographs and the report’s reasoning about the relevant design. Summaries should retain qualifications. Where an overseas team needs an English explanation, link each conclusion back to its Chinese passage and the cited material.

Plan a valid request and realistic timing

Article 62 permits the patentee, interested party or accused infringer to request a report after grant is announced. It also allows the applicant to request one when completing patent registration formalities. A request identifies the application or patent number and is limited to one application or patent.

The same provision requires correction of a non-compliant request within the period specified by the authority; otherwise the request is treated as not made. Record the requester’s status and retain the supporting documents required for that status. Keep proof of submission and any correction notice in the same matter file.

Article 63 specifies a two-month reporting period from receipt of the request; where the applicant requests the report during registration formalities, the period runs from the grant announcement. Do not turn this statutory timetable into a guaranteed date for a dispute outcome or a platform response. Track the actual request and processing events and plan around any unresolved formalities.

Prepare the infringement comparison independently

Article 64 defines the scope of an invention or utility model patent by its claims, with the description and drawings available to interpret them. For a design patent, scope is based on the design shown in the images or photographs, with the brief explanation available for interpretation. A marketing image is not a substitute for the granted patent documents.

Collect a traceable sample or reliable product record, the relevant listing and evidence of the operator and transaction. For a hypothetical utility model dispute, a report supporting a particular claim does not establish that a seller’s product contains every relevant feature. Identify what can be seen, what needs examination and what remains unknown.

Article 67 also recognises a defence where the accused infringer proves that the implemented technology or design belongs to prior art or prior design. Review relevant earlier material with counsel and technical advisers rather than treating it as irrelevant merely because a report appears favourable.

Turn the findings into a decision file

• Attach the current patent documents and status record.
• Preserve the full report and its cited material.
• Separate concerns about the patent from gaps in the product comparison.
• Record any invalidation proceeding and its actual stage.
• List evidence still needed before a complaint, negotiation or court step.

Different receiving bodies may have their own procedural requirements. Check the route selected and any case-specific request for a report. Do not describe the report as a universal prerequisite to every action, or assume that supplying it establishes the rest of the case.

To assess the next step, contact Pan Jianxing with the Chinese patent number, report status, a non-confidential description of the product and any deadline. A useful initial review identifies what the report supports, what it leaves unresolved and which evidence will change the enforcement decision.

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