[IP Practice Online] “Counterfeits defeated even at China's Supreme Court! A thorough explanation of the keys to victory with the actual inventor” (Denka Company Limited / Yasuki Ito and Shunichi Suga
更新日：10月9日
Article information
Article type: Lectures and videos
Categories: China
Topics: Enablement / Litigation procedure
First published on this website: 2026-10-07
Display and classification checked: 2026-10-07
[IP Practice Online] “Counterfeits defeated even at China's Supreme Court! A thorough explanation of the keys to victory with the actual inventor” (Denka Company Limited / Yasuki Ito and Shunichi Sugawara, patent attorney)
The inventor and the IP department's section manager look back on more than seven years of experience leading to victory at China's Supreme People's Court and explain practical lessons.
1. Litigation
In China, invalidity cannot be asserted as a defense in infringement litigation (as in Germany).
When sued for infringement, a defendant typically requests an invalidation trial before the patent office. The civil infringement litigation is “suspended” until the invalidation proceedings are resolved.
In China, evidence submitted to a court requires a notary to witness the entire process, including acquisition, opening, transportation, and analysis of the counterfeit products.
China uses “judicial appraisal,” in which a third-party institution designated by the court conducts the analysis.
To prepare for this appraisal, Denka selected a reliable analytical institution in advance, had the inventor provide technical guidance, and prepared accurate, notarized analytical data.
This preparation helped steer the subsequent judicial appraisal results in Denka's favor.
2. Invalidation proceedings
(1) Enablement was challenged on the basis of another patent for which Denka applied after the patent at issue, and a paper by the inventor.
(2) To enhance the patent's reliability, the specification identified specific manufacturers and product names, such as “manufactured by XX, product name XX” for reagents. This was effectively providing counterfeiters with a “recipe.”
(3) It proved advantageous that, when filing the PCT application, the inventor had added experimental data showing that “although incomplete, even one component can be separated.”
https://lnkd.in/gTrrRRab
Original article (2025-11-10):
https://lnkd.in/gwvDsAaf
Related articles
Update history
Content changes and display maintenance are recorded separately.
2026-10-07: First published from the original LinkedIn post; categories, article information, and consultation navigation added.
