The Supreme People’s Court has issued a final judgment in a case concerning the right to be named as the inventor of a patented invention. The ruling clarifies that in disputes over inventor attribution, the party claiming to be the inventor bears the burden of proving that they made a substantive contribution to the invention. The court should make an overall assessment based on factors such as the individual’s professional background, job responsibilities, and familiarity with the invention in question. This case serves as a warning against falsely claiming inventor status and against dishonest conduct in innovation activities and patent application procedures.
A, a chip architecture engineer at a company, prepared a draft technical document in July 2022 and uploaded it to the company’s internal system in September 2022. In December 2023, A discovered that B, an employee from a different department, had used part of that technical document as the basis for four patent applications filed with the company’s patent system between October 2022 and March 2023. B had listed himself and two others as the inventors, all without A’s knowledge. All four patent applications were later granted.
A filed a lawsuit, asking the court to confirm that he was the true inventor of the four patents, that B was not an inventor, and that B should compensate him for financial losses and publicly apologize. B argued that he was the rightful inventor of the four patents.
The court of first instance compared the patent specifications and technical disclosure documents with A’s technical document, and found that the two were highly overlapping, with no substantive differences in the technical solutions. The two other individuals listed as inventors also testified in court that they were not the actual inventors.
The court held that A had made a creative contribution to the essential features of the four patents and should be recognized as the true inventor. B had not made any creative contribution and therefore was not an inventor. By claiming otherwise, B had infringed A’s right of attribution. The court confirmed A as the inventor, ruled that B was not an inventor, and ordered B to issue a public apology. B appealed.
During the second instance, B requested that the court obtain his work laptop from the company, claiming it contained research materials related to the patents. The company handed over the laptop in court. However, B did not attend the hearing without a valid reason and was unable to provide the correct password to access the laptop. As a result, the court could not review its contents, and B could not substantiate his claims.
The Supreme Court made the following findings:
First, on the question of creative contribution, the evidence showed that the technical document was independently prepared by A and uploaded to the company’s internal system before B started the patent application process. The patent documents were either identical or substantially similar in key aspects to A’s document, including the background, technical problem, intended purpose, beneficial effects, specific embodiments, and drawings. B could not explain these similarities. The fact that some technical content was already publicly known did not affect the determination of inventorship. Given the timing, B’s access to A’s document, the lack of evidence showing B’s own research and development work, the testimony of the other named inventors that they had not participated in the R&D, as well as B’s professional background and conduct during the proceedings, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish B’s substantive contribution to the patents.
Second, on the question of liability, B had used his position to file patents based on A’s technical work without permission, and listed himself and others as inventors despite having made no creative contribution. This conduct seriously violated the principle of good faith, and B must bear corresponding civil liability.
The appellate ruling clarifies how courts should assess creative contribution in inventor attribution disputes and reinforces the importance of honesty and respect for others’ intellectual property rights in innovation activities.
(2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 491
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
