Recently, Shandong Swan Cotton Industrial Machinery Stock Co., Ltd. issued a litigation progress announcement, stating that it had received a civil ruling served by the Supreme People’s Court: because the patent at issue had been declared entirely invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration and the validity of the right was in an unstable state, the first-instance court’s dismissal of the lawsuit filed by the U.S. company Deere was not clearly improper, and the Supreme People’s Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original ruling, and this ruling is final. At this point, this invention patent infringement lawsuit over cotton pickers, initiated by the global agricultural machinery giant Deere and claiming 20 million yuan in damages, came to an end approximately five years after case filing.
The case began at the end of 2021. Deere filed a lawsuit with the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court on the grounds that Swan Shares’ three-row and six-row packaged cotton picker products infringed its invention patent No. ZL200410085674.2, requesting an order to stop manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling the infringing products, destroy inventory, and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10 million yuan.
Thereafter, Swan Shares filed a request for invalidation of the patent at issue with the China National Intellectual Property Administration. The invalidation procedure went through the CNIPA’s preliminary examination decision, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Supreme People’s Court administrative litigation. In the administrative litigation, the Supreme People’s Court ruled that some claims of the patent at issue lacked inventiveness, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration was ordered to reissue an examination decision.
On December 31, 2025, the Urumqi Intermediate Court ruled to dismiss Deere’s lawsuit on the basis that the stability of the patent right at issue was clearly insufficient. During the same period, Deere amended its litigation request and raised the claimed amount to 20 million yuan, but this did not change the direction of the case.
Later, the CNIPA re-examined the matter and issued an invalidation request examination decision, declaring the patent right at issue entirely invalid. Deere was dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, but the appeal was ultimately rejected and the original ruling was upheld. (October 10, 2026, IPRdaily Chinese Website)
The case began at the end of 2021. Deere filed a lawsuit with the Urumqi Intermediate People’s Court on the grounds that Swan Shares’ three-row and six-row packaged cotton picker products infringed its invention patent No. ZL200410085674.2, requesting an order to stop manufacturing, offering for sale, and selling the infringing products, destroy inventory, and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 10 million yuan.
Thereafter, Swan Shares filed a request for invalidation of the patent at issue with the China National Intellectual Property Administration. The invalidation procedure went through the CNIPA’s preliminary examination decision, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Supreme People’s Court administrative litigation. In the administrative litigation, the Supreme People’s Court ruled that some claims of the patent at issue lacked inventiveness, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration was ordered to reissue an examination decision.
On December 31, 2025, the Urumqi Intermediate Court ruled to dismiss Deere’s lawsuit on the basis that the stability of the patent right at issue was clearly insufficient. During the same period, Deere amended its litigation request and raised the claimed amount to 20 million yuan, but this did not change the direction of the case.
Later, the CNIPA re-examined the matter and issued an invalidation request examination decision, declaring the patent right at issue entirely invalid. Deere was dissatisfied with the first-instance ruling and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, but the appeal was ultimately rejected and the original ruling was upheld. (October 10, 2026, IPRdaily Chinese Website)