Jie CHEN
Chinese Attorney-at-Law
Wei Chixue Law Firm
Chinese Attorney-at-Law
Wei Chixue Law Firm
Introduction
China’s judicial system for determining patent infringement has long strictly adhered to the judicial doctrine of the “All Elements Rule”, which requires that an accused infringing technical solution must fully reproduce all technical features of a patent claim to constitute infringement. However, as industrial division of labor becomes increasingly refined and specialized, splitting product structures and supplying separate components has become a normalized business model in the manufacturing industry. Against this backdrop, the source and principal perpetrator of an infringing act may not be the manufacturer of the final product, but professional producers specializing in core patented components. The contributory patent infringement system serves as a critical legal tool for the judicial system to address such new forms of infringement arising from industrial chain division. Its institutional value lies in closing loopholes in the traditional patent protection framework and enabling more comprehensive protection of patent rights.
Pursuant to Article 21 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Infringement of Patent Rights by the Supreme People’s Court, the establishment of contributory infringement requires simultaneous satisfaction of three constituent elements: first, the product supplied by the actor is materials, equipment, components or the like specially designed for implementing the patent, with no other substantial non-infringing uses; second, the actor knows that others will use such specialized goods to commit patent infringement; third, a direct patent infringement act has actually been committed by another party. In judicial practice, cases involving indirect infringement are more complex than ordinary patent infringement cases, as proof and argumentation are required for all three constituent elements above, making it relatively harder to secure a finding of indirect infringement. This discourages some patent holders from pursuing legal remedies.
The automobile clutch invention patent case concluded by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court in 2025 (Second Instance Case No. (2025) SPC IP Final No. 570) is a typical case of contributory infringement. The patent in question covers an automobile clutch assembly composed of Component A and Component B. Defendant 1 only manufactured Component A (the accused infringing product) and did not produce Component B. On the market, Component B produced exclusively by the patentee is the only part compatible with the accused infringing Component A. The assembly formed by combining the accused Component A with the patentee’s Component B falls within the scope of protection of the patent in suit. Our law firm represented the patentee throughout the proceedings and claimed that Defendant 1’s manufacturing and sale of the specialized Component A constituted contributory infringement. Both the first-instance and second-instance courts upheld our claims and ruled that infringement was established. The Supreme People’s Court further selected this case for inclusion in its annual judicial summaries of rulings from the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The judicial rules derived from this case provide important references and guidance for trials of similar cases involving component patent infringement and contributory infringement. Taking this case as the research object, this paper combines statutory provisions, judicial policies and relevant precedents to conduct an in-depth analysis on judicial standards for determining the constituent elements of contributory infringement, aiming to provide references for patent holders’ rights protection practices.
I. Identification Standards for the “Specialized Goods” Element and Its Judicial Practice.
Pursuant to Article 21 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Infringement of Patent Rights by the Supreme People’s Court, the establishment of contributory infringement requires simultaneous satisfaction of three constituent elements: first, the product supplied by the actor is materials, equipment, components or the like specially designed for implementing the patent, with no other substantial non-infringing uses; second, the actor knows that others will use such specialized goods to commit patent infringement; third, a direct patent infringement act has actually been committed by another party. In judicial practice, cases involving indirect infringement are more complex than ordinary patent infringement cases, as proof and argumentation are required for all three constituent elements above, making it relatively harder to secure a finding of indirect infringement. This discourages some patent holders from pursuing legal remedies.
The automobile clutch invention patent case concluded by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court in 2025 (Second Instance Case No. (2025) SPC IP Final No. 570) is a typical case of contributory infringement. The patent in question covers an automobile clutch assembly composed of Component A and Component B. Defendant 1 only manufactured Component A (the accused infringing product) and did not produce Component B. On the market, Component B produced exclusively by the patentee is the only part compatible with the accused infringing Component A. The assembly formed by combining the accused Component A with the patentee’s Component B falls within the scope of protection of the patent in suit. Our law firm represented the patentee throughout the proceedings and claimed that Defendant 1’s manufacturing and sale of the specialized Component A constituted contributory infringement. Both the first-instance and second-instance courts upheld our claims and ruled that infringement was established. The Supreme People’s Court further selected this case for inclusion in its annual judicial summaries of rulings from the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The judicial rules derived from this case provide important references and guidance for trials of similar cases involving component patent infringement and contributory infringement. Taking this case as the research object, this paper combines statutory provisions, judicial policies and relevant precedents to conduct an in-depth analysis on judicial standards for determining the constituent elements of contributory infringement, aiming to provide references for patent holders’ rights protection practices.
I. Identification Standards for the “Specialized Goods” Element and Its Judicial Practice.
1. Interpretation of the Connotation of the Element
The “specialized goods” element constitutes the objective constituent element of contributory infringement. Its core requirement is that the components, intermediate products or raw materials supplied by the actor must be exclusively used to implement the patented technical solution, without large-scale, commercial non-infringing applications. This element serves to reasonably delimit the scope of patent protection, prevent undue expansion of patent rights from hindering the free circulation of general products in the market, and balance intellectual property protection with public interests.
In its judgment (2021) SPC IP Final No. 1258, the Supreme People’s Court clarified the identification standard for “specialized goods”, stating that “generally speaking, specialized goods are indispensable for realizing the patented technical solution and lack substantial non-infringing uses — meaning they have no other reasonable applications outside the patented technical solution.” This definition encompasses two layers of judgment criteria, both of which must be satisfied to establish that a product qualifies as specialized goods: First, the product shall not be a general or common product, and shall have no other economically or commercially valuable reasonable applications outside use in the patented technical solution. Second, the product must play a substantive role in realizing the patented technical solution, i.e., it is an indispensable and prominent key component. These two layers of criteria jointly form the complete standard for identifying “specialized goods”, neither of which is dispensable.
Determining whether a product qualifies as specialized goods is often the core dispute in most contributory infringement cases. Given the dual judgment criteria governing this element, patent holders asserting that an accused product constitutes specialized goods must fully adduce evidence and arguments addressing both aspects. On the one hand, they shall rely on the patent claims and specification to demonstrate that the accused product is a key component for realizing the patented technical solution. On the other hand, they shall submit evidence proving that the accused product has no reasonable applications outside implementation of the patented technical solution. Since the absence of substantial non-infringing uses is a negative factual allegation, once the patent holder has presented prima facie evidence and arguments, the burden shifts to the accused infringer to prove other economically and commercially valuable reasonable uses exist if they deny the specialized nature of the product.
In its judgment (2021) SPC IP Final No. 1258, the Supreme People’s Court clarified the identification standard for “specialized goods”, stating that “generally speaking, specialized goods are indispensable for realizing the patented technical solution and lack substantial non-infringing uses — meaning they have no other reasonable applications outside the patented technical solution.” This definition encompasses two layers of judgment criteria, both of which must be satisfied to establish that a product qualifies as specialized goods: First, the product shall not be a general or common product, and shall have no other economically or commercially valuable reasonable applications outside use in the patented technical solution. Second, the product must play a substantive role in realizing the patented technical solution, i.e., it is an indispensable and prominent key component. These two layers of criteria jointly form the complete standard for identifying “specialized goods”, neither of which is dispensable.
Determining whether a product qualifies as specialized goods is often the core dispute in most contributory infringement cases. Given the dual judgment criteria governing this element, patent holders asserting that an accused product constitutes specialized goods must fully adduce evidence and arguments addressing both aspects. On the one hand, they shall rely on the patent claims and specification to demonstrate that the accused product is a key component for realizing the patented technical solution. On the other hand, they shall submit evidence proving that the accused product has no reasonable applications outside implementation of the patented technical solution. Since the absence of substantial non-infringing uses is a negative factual allegation, once the patent holder has presented prima facie evidence and arguments, the burden shifts to the accused infringer to prove other economically and commercially valuable reasonable uses exist if they deny the specialized nature of the product.
2. Judicial Findings in the Clutch Case
In the clutch case, we argued that Component A constituted a component specially designed to implement the patent, and supported this position with two core arguments grounded in the connotation of the specialized goods element outlined above. First, the patent specification records that the primary technical problem solved by the patent and its corresponding solution relate to Component A, which delivers the core technical effects of the patented technical solution and forms its substantive part. Second, from a technical perspective, Component A is a component of the clutch assembly, and has no reasonable applications other than being combined with Component B to form a complete clutch assembly. Defendant 2, the distributor of the accused infringing product, repeatedly stated during sales that the two parts were always sold as a matched set with no other compatible counterparts. Although the defendant contended that Component A could potentially be assembled with other products, it failed to submit any supporting evidence. This demonstrated that the defendant never considered alternative commercial applications for Component A during manufacturing and sales, and failed to submit counterevidence proving uses outside implementation of the patented technology. Accordingly, Component A should be deemed a component exclusively manufactured for implementing the patent in suit.
The first-instance court accepted our arguments, and held while the defendant claimed that Component A was a common clutch assembly part that could be fitted to non-patented products to form clutch assemblies outside the patent’s protective scope, the defendant failed to submit evidence to substantiate this assertion. In addition, evidence on file showed that staff of Defendant 2 explicitly stated during sales that Component A was only matched with the patentee’s Component B. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the first-instance court ruled that the accused infringing product was a component specially designed for implementing the patent.
On appeal, the defendant reasserted that alternative uses might exist but again failed to provide supporting evidence. The second-instance court therefore held that the accused infringing product was not a general part; it constituted one of the two subassemblies defined by the patent claims and was a specialized component exclusively matched with the patentee’s clutch products. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that the product could be assembled with third-party clutches for alternative uses, as no evidence was submitted to back this claim.
The first-instance court accepted our arguments, and held while the defendant claimed that Component A was a common clutch assembly part that could be fitted to non-patented products to form clutch assemblies outside the patent’s protective scope, the defendant failed to submit evidence to substantiate this assertion. In addition, evidence on file showed that staff of Defendant 2 explicitly stated during sales that Component A was only matched with the patentee’s Component B. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the first-instance court ruled that the accused infringing product was a component specially designed for implementing the patent.
On appeal, the defendant reasserted that alternative uses might exist but again failed to provide supporting evidence. The second-instance court therefore held that the accused infringing product was not a general part; it constituted one of the two subassemblies defined by the patent claims and was a specialized component exclusively matched with the patentee’s clutch products. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that the product could be assembled with third-party clutches for alternative uses, as no evidence was submitted to back this claim.
II. Identification Standards for the “Knowledge” Element
1. Interpretation of the Connotation of the Element
Subjective fault forms the foundation for liability for contributory infringement, requiring that the actor knows the components they supply will be used to commit patent infringement yet continues to supply them. This element comprises two layers of meaning: first, the actor knows the supplied product qualifies as specialized goods; second, the actor knows that use of such specialized goods will infringe another party’s patent rights.
Generally, if an actor cannot prove that the product has alternative uses, a presumption arises that the actor knew the product constituted specialized goods. As for knowledge that use of the specialized goods will result in patent infringement, actors typically operate within the relevant technical field or industry, so courts may presume familiarity with patented technology publicly disclosed in the industry. That said, some commentators argue that mere publication of patent gazettes cannot alone establish a presumption of knowledge of impending infringement, requiring comprehensive assessment of the actor’s cognitive capacity, industry norms and commercial dealings.
In judicial practice, few rulings dismiss contributory infringement claims solely for failure to satisfy this element. Nevertheless, patent holders cannot disregard this element and should collect supporting evidence where possible, including the actor’s public promotional statements and prior communications with the patent holder. Proof of prior infringement warnings, negotiations or mediation between the patent holder and the actor strongly supports a finding of actual or constructive knowledge. Issuing a warning letter is not, however, a mandatory prerequisite to proving knowledge.
Generally, if an actor cannot prove that the product has alternative uses, a presumption arises that the actor knew the product constituted specialized goods. As for knowledge that use of the specialized goods will result in patent infringement, actors typically operate within the relevant technical field or industry, so courts may presume familiarity with patented technology publicly disclosed in the industry. That said, some commentators argue that mere publication of patent gazettes cannot alone establish a presumption of knowledge of impending infringement, requiring comprehensive assessment of the actor’s cognitive capacity, industry norms and commercial dealings.
In judicial practice, few rulings dismiss contributory infringement claims solely for failure to satisfy this element. Nevertheless, patent holders cannot disregard this element and should collect supporting evidence where possible, including the actor’s public promotional statements and prior communications with the patent holder. Proof of prior infringement warnings, negotiations or mediation between the patent holder and the actor strongly supports a finding of actual or constructive knowledge. Issuing a warning letter is not, however, a mandatory prerequisite to proving knowledge.
2. Judicial Findings in the Clutch Case
In the clutch case, we argued that Defendant No. 1 is an enterprise specializing in the auto parts industry. Having been established for a long time and operating on a substantial scale, it undoubtedly had actual knowledge of the function of Component A. Moreover, the fact that Component A can only fit and match with Plaintiff’s Component B proves that Component A is custom-designed and manufactured solely to fit Component B. Accordingly, the Defendant clearly knew that the Component A it produced would be assembled with Component B to form a clutch assembly. The Defendant’s familiarity with Component B inherently entailed its awareness of the patentee company and its patented clutch assembly, yet the defendant continued manufacturing and supplying the component used exclusively for the patented product, establishing obvious actual or constructive knowledge of the infringing use.
The first-instance court held that Defendant 1 operated a dedicated auto parts business and ought to have known its product was designed for implementing the patent, while Defendant 2’s sales staff explicitly confirmed the product was only matched with the patentee’s Component B during sales. The court therefore found both defendants possessed the requisite subjective knowledge.
The second-instance court concurred, noting Defendant 2’s admission that the accused product was exclusively sold paired with the patentee’s Component B, and that private vehicle owners lacked capacity to assemble the components independently. As professional manufacturers and distributors of auto parts, both defendants clearly knew the accused product was exclusively intended for combination with Component B.
This case illustrates that a finding of knowledge may be reasonably inferred from the accused infringer’s professional background, commercial conduct and supporting evidence. Critically, recorded statements from the distributor confirming exclusive compatibility with the patentee’s Component B were pivotal to the court’s finding of the knowledge element in this case.
The first-instance court held that Defendant 1 operated a dedicated auto parts business and ought to have known its product was designed for implementing the patent, while Defendant 2’s sales staff explicitly confirmed the product was only matched with the patentee’s Component B during sales. The court therefore found both defendants possessed the requisite subjective knowledge.
The second-instance court concurred, noting Defendant 2’s admission that the accused product was exclusively sold paired with the patentee’s Component B, and that private vehicle owners lacked capacity to assemble the components independently. As professional manufacturers and distributors of auto parts, both defendants clearly knew the accused product was exclusively intended for combination with Component B.
This case illustrates that a finding of knowledge may be reasonably inferred from the accused infringer’s professional background, commercial conduct and supporting evidence. Critically, recorded statements from the distributor confirming exclusive compatibility with the patentee’s Component B were pivotal to the court’s finding of the knowledge element in this case.
III. Whether Actual Occurrence of Direct Infringement Is Mandatory
1. Theoretical Controversies and Conflicting Doctrines
This element is the most contentious content in the theory of contributory infringement. Within the field of indirect patent infringement, there have long existed controversies between the “subordination doctrine” and the “independence doctrine”. The former holds that indirect patent infringement is subordinate to direct infringement and premised upon the existence of direct infringement, while the latter maintains that indirect patent infringement constitutes an independent type of infringement that does not require the existence of direct infringement as a prerequisite. A compromise doctrine has also been proposed, which states that while the establishment of direct infringement shall generally serve as a prerequisite, liability for indirect infringers may be imposed directly under specific circumstances.
The legal basis for contributory patent infringement, Judicial Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Infringement of Patent Rights by the Supreme People’s Court adopts wording aligned with the “subordination doctrine”, classifying contributory supply conduct as an accessory act to direct infringement. Nevertheless, judicial practice reveals a compromise approach, reflecting courts’ balancing of individual case fairness and unified legal application.
For instance, Article 119 of the Beijing High People’s Court Guidelines for Patent Infringement Determination (2017) provides: “Where an actor knows that products are raw materials, intermediate products, components, equipment or other specialized goods specially designed to implement the patented technical solution in suit, and supplies such specialized goods to others for production and business purposes without the patentee’s permission, and the recipient commits an act of patent infringement, the actor’s supply conduct constitutes contributory infringement as defined in Article 118 of these Guidelines. However, if the recipient falls under the circumstances specified in Article 130 of these Guidelines or Items (3), (4) and (5) of Article 69 of the Patent Law, the actor shall bear civil liability alone.”
At the Fourth National Intellectual Property Trial Work Conference held in July 2018, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan of the Supreme People’s Court stated: “Contributory infringement in patent field is established where the aided party uses the specialized infringing goods to implement acts that cover all technical features of the patent claim. It neither requires the aided party’s conduct to constitute direct infringement in the legal sense, nor does it require joinder of both the aiding party and aided party as co-defendants.” According to this judicial policy, the establishment of indirect patent infringement does not hinge on a finding of direct infringement, but merely on the aided party’s use of specialized goods to implement acts that cover all technical features of the patent claim. However, this viewpoint has rarely been cited in recent judgments.
Even if adhering to the rule that the existence of direct infringement is a prerequisite, patent holders are not obligated to simultaneously sue direct infringers. Pursuant to Article 178 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, where two or more parties bear joint and several liability, the obligee has the right to demand performance from any or all joint and several liable parties, without consent from the other liable parties. Courts shall not compel joinder of direct or contributory infringers as co-defendants.
Nevertheless, some judicial precedents hold that direct infringers must be joined as parties to avoid impairing their procedural rights to argumentation. In (2023) SPC IP Final No. 360, the Supreme People’s Court ruled: “Contributory infringement is predicated on another party committing an infringing act. In this case, Company A alleged that Companies B and C aided Company D in infringing the patent, yet Company A did not institute proceedings against Company D, nor did any prior effective judgment confirm Company D’s patent infringement. Under these circumstances, the first-instance court ought to have ex officio joined Company D as a third party; by instead adjudicating whether Company D’s conduct constituted infringement without joinder, the court seriously impaired Company D’s procedural rights to argumentation and defense. Comparing technical solutions against the patent’s protective scope is merely a question of technical fact. Even if the product’s technical solution falls within the patent’s scope, this does not automatically establish that Company D infringed the patent. Absent participation in the litigation, Company D could not raise potential defenses including: the technical solution depicted in Amazon product screenshots does not represent its actual deployed technology; its technology qualifies as prior art; the patentee previously licensed its use of the patented technology; or counterclaims alleging the patentee improperly filed the patent on technology belonging to Company D, among other potential arguments. Deprived of litigation participation, Company D was unable to address the core issue of whether it infringed the patent. The first-instance judgment therefore suffered from a procedural defect through omission of a necessary party.” In this case, the first-instance court ruled that no contributory infringement was established on the ground that the final products manufactured by Company D, which utilized the accused products, did not fall within the scope of patent protection. While the second-instance court identified procedural irregularities in the first-instance judgment, it declined to vacate the ruling on the grounds that the substantive outcome was correct. Nevertheless, the view expressed in the aforementioned second-instance judgment that the court shall ex officio join the direct actor as a third party differs from the practice adopted in other judicial cases.
It can thus be seen that there remain certain divergences in judicial practice regarding the specific criteria for determining whether direct infringement is established, and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
The legal basis for contributory patent infringement, Judicial Interpretation (II) on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Infringement of Patent Rights by the Supreme People’s Court adopts wording aligned with the “subordination doctrine”, classifying contributory supply conduct as an accessory act to direct infringement. Nevertheless, judicial practice reveals a compromise approach, reflecting courts’ balancing of individual case fairness and unified legal application.
For instance, Article 119 of the Beijing High People’s Court Guidelines for Patent Infringement Determination (2017) provides: “Where an actor knows that products are raw materials, intermediate products, components, equipment or other specialized goods specially designed to implement the patented technical solution in suit, and supplies such specialized goods to others for production and business purposes without the patentee’s permission, and the recipient commits an act of patent infringement, the actor’s supply conduct constitutes contributory infringement as defined in Article 118 of these Guidelines. However, if the recipient falls under the circumstances specified in Article 130 of these Guidelines or Items (3), (4) and (5) of Article 69 of the Patent Law, the actor shall bear civil liability alone.”
At the Fourth National Intellectual Property Trial Work Conference held in July 2018, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan of the Supreme People’s Court stated: “Contributory infringement in patent field is established where the aided party uses the specialized infringing goods to implement acts that cover all technical features of the patent claim. It neither requires the aided party’s conduct to constitute direct infringement in the legal sense, nor does it require joinder of both the aiding party and aided party as co-defendants.” According to this judicial policy, the establishment of indirect patent infringement does not hinge on a finding of direct infringement, but merely on the aided party’s use of specialized goods to implement acts that cover all technical features of the patent claim. However, this viewpoint has rarely been cited in recent judgments.
Even if adhering to the rule that the existence of direct infringement is a prerequisite, patent holders are not obligated to simultaneously sue direct infringers. Pursuant to Article 178 Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, where two or more parties bear joint and several liability, the obligee has the right to demand performance from any or all joint and several liable parties, without consent from the other liable parties. Courts shall not compel joinder of direct or contributory infringers as co-defendants.
Nevertheless, some judicial precedents hold that direct infringers must be joined as parties to avoid impairing their procedural rights to argumentation. In (2023) SPC IP Final No. 360, the Supreme People’s Court ruled: “Contributory infringement is predicated on another party committing an infringing act. In this case, Company A alleged that Companies B and C aided Company D in infringing the patent, yet Company A did not institute proceedings against Company D, nor did any prior effective judgment confirm Company D’s patent infringement. Under these circumstances, the first-instance court ought to have ex officio joined Company D as a third party; by instead adjudicating whether Company D’s conduct constituted infringement without joinder, the court seriously impaired Company D’s procedural rights to argumentation and defense. Comparing technical solutions against the patent’s protective scope is merely a question of technical fact. Even if the product’s technical solution falls within the patent’s scope, this does not automatically establish that Company D infringed the patent. Absent participation in the litigation, Company D could not raise potential defenses including: the technical solution depicted in Amazon product screenshots does not represent its actual deployed technology; its technology qualifies as prior art; the patentee previously licensed its use of the patented technology; or counterclaims alleging the patentee improperly filed the patent on technology belonging to Company D, among other potential arguments. Deprived of litigation participation, Company D was unable to address the core issue of whether it infringed the patent. The first-instance judgment therefore suffered from a procedural defect through omission of a necessary party.” In this case, the first-instance court ruled that no contributory infringement was established on the ground that the final products manufactured by Company D, which utilized the accused products, did not fall within the scope of patent protection. While the second-instance court identified procedural irregularities in the first-instance judgment, it declined to vacate the ruling on the grounds that the substantive outcome was correct. Nevertheless, the view expressed in the aforementioned second-instance judgment that the court shall ex officio join the direct actor as a third party differs from the practice adopted in other judicial cases.
It can thus be seen that there remain certain divergences in judicial practice regarding the specific criteria for determining whether direct infringement is established, and such determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.
2. Judicial Findings in the Clutch Case
A primary defense raised by the defendant in the clutch case was the absence of proven direct infringement. The defendant further argued that patent exhaustion applied once patented products were sold to vehicle manufacturers, and component replacement by vehicle owners during maintenance constituted fair use, eliminating any direct infringement and consequently defeating the contributory infringement claim.
We countered that the accused infringing Component A and the matching assembled clutch products are automotive spare parts. Vehicle manufacturers and aftermarket auto repair shops which assemble the accused infringing Component A with the matching Component B into clutch assemblies and install them on complete vehicles all engage in acts of using and selling the patented products without authorization from the patentee. The sales of the accused infringing Component A and matching clutches by retail stores also constitute sales of patented products, all of which amount to direct infringement. These products have been sold for a considerable period of time on a substantial scale, so it is reasonable to infer that direct infringement has actually taken place.
The first-instance judgment focused its analysis of contributory conduct on the specialized goods and knowledge elements, with no detailed elaboration on the existence of direct infringement. This adjudicative approach may reflect judicial efficiency considerations or implicit factual recognition of underlying direct infringement. On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court did not directly address the defendant’s challenge to the existence of direct infringement, but clarified in its infringement holding that: “Combination of the accused infringing product with other components specified in the patent claims objectively reconstructs all technical features falling within the scope of the patent claims.” This opinion focuses on the realization of full coverage of technical features and reflects attention to the objective aspects of the conduct.
We countered that the accused infringing Component A and the matching assembled clutch products are automotive spare parts. Vehicle manufacturers and aftermarket auto repair shops which assemble the accused infringing Component A with the matching Component B into clutch assemblies and install them on complete vehicles all engage in acts of using and selling the patented products without authorization from the patentee. The sales of the accused infringing Component A and matching clutches by retail stores also constitute sales of patented products, all of which amount to direct infringement. These products have been sold for a considerable period of time on a substantial scale, so it is reasonable to infer that direct infringement has actually taken place.
The first-instance judgment focused its analysis of contributory conduct on the specialized goods and knowledge elements, with no detailed elaboration on the existence of direct infringement. This adjudicative approach may reflect judicial efficiency considerations or implicit factual recognition of underlying direct infringement. On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court did not directly address the defendant’s challenge to the existence of direct infringement, but clarified in its infringement holding that: “Combination of the accused infringing product with other components specified in the patent claims objectively reconstructs all technical features falling within the scope of the patent claims.” This opinion focuses on the realization of full coverage of technical features and reflects attention to the objective aspects of the conduct.
Conclusion
The 2025 automobile clutch invention patent infringement case not only secured liability against the specialized component manufacturer for contributory infringement, but also earned selection by the Supreme People’s Court for its annual judicial summary of rulings from the Intellectual Property Tribunal. This underscores the judiciary’s heightened attention to indirect patent infringement and evolving philosophies governing intellectual property protection. For right holders, although indirect infringement cases are more complex than ordinary patent infringement disputes, they may still maintain full confidence in rights protection: it is entirely feasible to successfully hold alleged infringers supplying core special-purpose components and intermediate products liable for infringement, thereby resolving infringement issues at the source.
That said, the contributory infringement system retains room for further refinement. Emerging technologies and new business models present novel challenges for contributory infringement jurisprudence, including online contributory infringement and liability determination across cross-border supply chains, which await further judicial responses. Patent holders are also advised to adopt comprehensive patent filing strategies during application: separate patent filings for separable components and intermediate products enable direct protection and mitigate risks of unenforceability where components fail to qualify as specialized goods in contributory infringement claims.
That said, the contributory infringement system retains room for further refinement. Emerging technologies and new business models present novel challenges for contributory infringement jurisprudence, including online contributory infringement and liability determination across cross-border supply chains, which await further judicial responses. Patent holders are also advised to adopt comprehensive patent filing strategies during application: separate patent filings for separable components and intermediate products enable direct protection and mitigate risks of unenforceability where components fail to qualify as specialized goods in contributory infringement claims.