Author | Simon Du Sijia Wang
On 31 December 2025, the IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) rendered a final judgment in (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2685, an invention patent infringement dispute between Anhui Xinyi Yanan Cable Co., Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant) and Hebei Hualun Cable Co., Ltd. (defendant/appellant).
The case is significant for companies implementing Chinese national recommended standards (GB/T standards). The SPC treated the dispute as a typical “patent ambush” scenario: the patent owner participated in drafting a national standard, but the patent information was not disclosed during the standard‑setting process. The SPC held that, in such circumstances, later enforcement against standard implementers may be denied on the ground of good faith and abuse of rights.
1. Background and procedural timeline (what happened, and when)
Patent at issue: CN200910116635.7, titled “High elongation aluminum alloy material for cables and its preparation method.”
Claims asserted: mainly Claims 1 and 4, defining an aluminum alloy composition with specified ranges for Fe, Si, and rare earth elements Ce and La.
First instance (trial court): the plaintiff’s infringement claim was dismissed mainly because the evidence submitted did not fully establish all claim elements (the court focused on whether the tested data proved the presence of “aluminum” as required by Claim 1).
Second instance (SPC, final): during the appeal, the SPC retrieved the sealed samples held by the local market supervision authority. The defendant confirmed that the accused technical solution fell within the scope of Claims 1 and 4. The plaintiff then withdrew its request for further testing. As a result, the key question became not “does it infringe,” but “should the patent be enforceable against an implementer of the GB/T standard given the patentee’s conduct in standard setting?”
2. The standard setting facts (GB/T31840 and the disclosure issue)
The dispute centered on the GB/T31840 series, issued on 3 July 2015 and implemented on 1 February 2016 (“GB/T31840 2015”). The standard’s annexes describe the chemical composition ranges for a “rare earth high iron aluminum alloy conductor,” including:
Fe 0.40–1.20%
Si ≤ 0.10%
Rare earth 0.01–0.30%, mainly Ce and La
The SPC found that the patent owner (an affiliate of the plaintiff/licensee) participated in drafting GB/T31840 2015 and that the standard’s chemical composition ranges covered the patented solution’s key parameters.
However, the published GB/T31840 2015 text did not expressly identify the patent. The SPC also relied on a letter issued during the appeal by the competent authority stating that, after checking with the standard’s responsible body, it found no record of patent disclosure or declaration documents submitted by the patentee (or its legal representative) during the standard setting process.
Later developments reinforced the SPC’s view of the patentee’s conduct:
In October 2023, during the revision process, the patentee’s legal representative completed a “Necessary Patent Licensing Declaration Form”, listing the patent and identifying Claim 1 as a necessary claim.
The revised standard GB/T31840 2025 was published on 5 October 2025 and will take effect on 1 February 2026. Its introduction records a licensing commitment on reasonable and non discriminatory terms.
3. The SPC’s core reasoning: good faith and “abuse of rights” as a bar to enforcement
The SPC applied:
PRC Civil Code: Article 7 (principle of good faith) and Article 132 (prohibition against abusing civil rights), and
PRC Civil Procedure Law: the good faith principle in civil litigation.
In substance, the SPC held that:
The patentee helped bring the patented technical solution into the GB/T standard framework;
The patentee did not make a timely disclosure of relevant patent information during the GB/T31840 2015 standard setting process, contrary to the good faith principle and the policy framework on patents in national standards (including the Interim Provisions on Administration of National Standards Involving Patents, effective 1 January 2014);
The plaintiff (as an affiliate licensee) later sued an implementer of GB/T31840 2015 while taking inconsistent positions regarding whether the patent was “standard essential.”
On that basis, the SPC concluded the plaintiff’s enforcement attempt violated good faith and constituted an abuse of patent rights, and therefore the infringement claims should not receive judicial protection, especially where the implementer was not shown to be clearly at fault.
The SPC ultimately dismissed both appeals and affirmed the dismissal, while clarifying that the first instance court’s reasoning was flawed but the result was correct.
4. Practical takeaways for in house counsel (especially non China teams)
If you are a patentee participating in GB/T or industry standards in China
Implement a formal patent identification and disclosure process before and throughout standard work.
Keep dated, auditable records of what was disclosed, to whom, and when (and any acknowledgment).
Decide early whether you will pursue licensing and on what framework; enforcement after “silent” standard inclusion carries a serious abuse of rights risk.
If you are an implementer facing SEP type claims linked to GB/T standards
Investigate whether the patentee had a role in drafting the standard and whether patent disclosure was made at the relevant time.
Consider an abuse of rights / lack of good faith defense alongside invalidity and non infringement. In China, conduct in standard setting can be outcome determinative.
Bottom line: This SPC judgment signals that in China, “SEP disputes” may be resolved not only through FRAND-rate debates, but also through a conduct-based doctrine: whether the patentee acted in good faith during standard setting. Failure to disclose may prevent the patentee (or an affiliate licensee) from enforcing the patent against standard implementers.
