China’s recent global FRAND determination in ZTE v. Samsung has attracted attention because it valued ZTE’s SEP portfolio at nearly twice the level of a contemporaneous English court decision. This article argues that the more important issue is not the royalty rate itself, but the methodology used to measure technological contribution. The Chongqing court relied heavily on declared SEP-family shares, portfolio metrics, territorial weighting, and other quantitative indicators that are closely associated with longstanding Chinese innovation policies encouraging patent accumulation, standards participation, and portfolio expansion. By comparing the decision to earlier Chinese FRAND jurisprudence, the English Samsung decision, USPTO research, and broader debates over Chinese patent statistics, the article explores whether these metrics accurately measure technological contribution or instead reward portfolio scale and geographic concentration. The case may signal an important shift in Chinese FRAND adjudication from disputes over the meaning of FRAND to a deeper debate over how FRAND value itself should be measured.
Using and Misusing Chinese Patent Data
Patent statistics are frequently cited as evidence of China’s growing technological strength, but patent counts by themselves do not address qualitative concerns. Moreover, they often measure much more than innovation alone. They can reflect commercialization strategies, export orientation, government incentives, and differences in patent systems across countries. This article examines how patent data of various kinds can be used to assess China’s competitive position, while also highlighting the limitations of relying on patent counts alone. Drawing on recent U.S.-China filing data, design patent trends, overseas filing behavior, and common measures of patent quality, it argues that patent statistics are most useful when interpreted in context and alongside other indicators of technological and commercial performance.
Post-Filing Data in Chinese Pharma Patents: Why It Took So Long — and What Finally Worked
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) upheld a decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversing a China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidation decision and confirming the validity of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide compound patent. Although the final written decision has not yet been publicly released, official summaries indicate that the court accepted post-filing experimental data where “the technical effect can be derived from the original specification” (技术效果可由原说明书得出), reversing an administrative invalidation decision. Public reporting further indicates that the dispute turned on whether CNIPA would accept post-filing experimental data demonstrating semaglutide’s surprising pharmacokinetic effects in animal models, where the application as filed contained no experimental data.
Reforms to China’s Patent Injunction Practice in a Domestic Comparative Perspective
Injunctions in Chinese patent are deeply rooted in Chinese IP civil and administrative practice. Due to the complex nature of China’s legal system, any analysis of the need for reforms to China’s patent litigation system should also take into account the nature of China’s civil patent system, the availability of injunctive-type relief from its administrative system, the potential impact of such reform on other civil remedies., as well as the potential impact on foreign litigants.
China’s Patent Injunction Report: Key Insights and Recommendations
Should China make injunctions more difficult in patent civil cases? A recent report from a Chinese think tank makes the argument for such changes. The change, if implemented, could particularly impact foreign rights holders.
China’s Many Translations of FRAND
My article on China’s Many Faces of Frand has recently been published in the European Intellectual Property Review (July 2025). Note that this article was first published by Thomas Reuters, trading as […]
My Testimony and Video From October 8, 2025 On PERA, Now Available On-Line
I was honored to have testified on October 8, 2025 at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act – Restoring Clarity, Certainty, and Predictability to the U.S. Patent […]
Impact of China on U.S. Patent Policy: Events and Papers
The Hudson Institute just released the recording of its recent webinar on Patents and China: What Is the Right Policy for the America First Agenda? | Hudson Institute. Prof. Adam Mossoff moderated […]
House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Patents, Standards and Lawfare
On December 18, 2024, I was honored to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. These hearings were on “IP and Strategic Competition with China.” […]
Acess Advance and TCL: A Submission to the Shenzhen Court
Access Advance and TCL have settled their patent pool dispute. An Amicus Brief filed with the Shenzhen Intermediate Court by Randall Rader, David Kappos and Mark Cohen discussed the problems raised by a court asserting global jurisdiction over a patent pool, which may remain a contentious issue despite this recent settlement.
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 