Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court announced a patent infringement case involving electronic-grade copper oxide, which set a record of over CNY 120 million in compensation awarded to a natural person in a patent litigation case.
The court of first instance ruled that Company L shall be liable for compensation of CNY 120 million, considering the factors such as the role of the patent involved in the production process of the infringing products, the comparison between the patent involved and the prior art identified in the patent invalidation procedure, relevant evidence submitted by Company L on the profit contribution rate of the involved patent to the infringing products, and the agreement on licensing fees between the two parties during the cooperation period. This amount accounts for 80% of the calculated total net profit of CNY 150 million.
Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Company L filed an appeal, claiming that the contribution rate of the patent involved should be adjusted to 14.88% or 5.985%.
In response, the court of the second instance held that the technical solution of the patent involved covers the entire alleged infringing equipment, and Company L has admitted that electronic-grade copper oxide products are its core and sole product. The 80% ratio determined by the first-instance judgment based on the aforementioned factors was not obviously inappropriate. Therefore, the original judgment was upheld. (Feb. 3rd, 2026, IPcode)
The court of first instance ruled that Company L shall be liable for compensation of CNY 120 million, considering the factors such as the role of the patent involved in the production process of the infringing products, the comparison between the patent involved and the prior art identified in the patent invalidation procedure, relevant evidence submitted by Company L on the profit contribution rate of the involved patent to the infringing products, and the agreement on licensing fees between the two parties during the cooperation period. This amount accounts for 80% of the calculated total net profit of CNY 150 million.
Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Company L filed an appeal, claiming that the contribution rate of the patent involved should be adjusted to 14.88% or 5.985%.
In response, the court of the second instance held that the technical solution of the patent involved covers the entire alleged infringing equipment, and Company L has admitted that electronic-grade copper oxide products are its core and sole product. The 80% ratio determined by the first-instance judgment based on the aforementioned factors was not obviously inappropriate. Therefore, the original judgment was upheld. (Feb. 3rd, 2026, IPcode)