The Legal and Practical Landscape of “Strawman” Petitioners in Chinese Patent Invalidation Proceedings

 I. Legal Framework

Article 45 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Patent Law”) provides:

“From the date on which the patent administration department under the State Council announces the grant of a patent right, any entity or individual that considers the grant of the patent right to be non-compliant with the relevant provisions of this Law may request the patent administration department under the State Council to declare the patent right invalid.“

This provision underscores the public supervisory nature of patent invalidation proceedings. Standing to file an invalidation request does not require a direct legal interest in the patent. However, the statute does not expressly prohibit so-called “strawman” petitioners—nominal petitioners who are allegedly directed or funded by others and act merely as figureheads.

In practice, the focus has gradually shifted to the implied requirement of a “genuine expression of intent” under the Patent Law—namely, whether the invalidation request truly reflects the petitioner’s own will. The 2026 amendments to the Guidelines for Patent Examination (“Guidelines”) expressly list invalidation requests that fail to reflect the “true intention of the petitioner” as circumstances under which the request shall not be accepted. This development marks a significant step toward more direct and substantive regulatory intervention.

II. Latest Case

The most representative recent judicial precedent is Case No. (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 71 (“Case 71”), published in February 2026. In this case, an individual, Hao, filed an invalidation request against an invention patent titled “A Data Processing System and Method.” The patentee argued that Hao was merely a strawman, relying on several factors:

1. Hao had no apparent interest relationship with the patentee;
2. The receipt for the invalidation fee bore the name of a third party, 格灵深瞳, rather than Hao’s name; and
3. The representative in the invalidation proceeding was the same attorney who represented the defendant in a separate litigation against the patentee, suggesting a concealed commercial arrangement.

The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“the Court”) held that the central issue was whether Hao possessed a genuine expression of intent. The Court found that the patentee failed to present sufficient evidence demonstrating that the invalidation request did not reflect Hao’s true intention. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (“CNIPA”) declaring the patent invalid.

This case establishes an important principle in current judicial practice: absent conclusive evidence showing a lack of genuine intent, the standing of a nominal petitioner will generally be recognized, and the burden of proof primarily rests with the party challenging the petitioner’s legitimacy.

III. Related Cases

CNIPA Invalidation Decision No. 589012 (November 15, 2025)

In this decision, CNIPA rejected an invalidation request for the first time on the ground of “lack of genuine intent.” The case involved a pharmaceutical patent owned by AstraZeneca. An unrelated individual filed the invalidation request. The patentee submitted a forensic appraisal demonstrating that the signature on the power of attorney had been forged. Based on this evidence, CNIPA concluded that the request did not reflect the nominal petitioner’s true intention and directly rejected it.

This decision set an important precedent for proactive and substantive review of the authenticity of petitioners’ intent, signaling a regulatory shift toward combating procedural fraud and reinforcing the principle of good faith.

Case No. (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 716 (published in 2023)

In this case, the Court revealed that a patent attorney had filed numerous invalidation requests across various technical fields in the name of his mother. The Court determined that this conduct substantively violated the Regulations on Patent Agency, which prohibit patent attorneys from filing invalidation requests in their own names. The arrangement was characterized as using a lawful form to conceal an unlawful purpose and as disrupting the order of patent agency practice.

However, the Court clarified that this prohibition constitutes a regulatory (administrative) provision. Its violation does not automatically invalidate completed invalidation proceedings. Accordingly, the Court ultimately upheld the invalidation decision. This case clarified both the nature and the legal consequences of such misconduct, distinguishing between administrative liability and procedural validity.

IV. Concluding Remarks

China’s regulation of strawman petitioners in patent invalidation proceedings reflects a dynamic trend marked by judicial prudence alongside increasingly stringent administrative enforcement. The “genuine expression of intent” has become the central standard of review.

At the evidentiary level, a distinction has emerged. Where “hard evidence” directly undermines procedural authenticity—such as forged powers of attorney—authorities may reject the request outright. By contrast, where only “soft evidence” exists—such as suspicious affiliations or circumstantial doubts—courts currently impose a relatively high burden of proof on the challenger.

From a policy perspective, CNIPA’s proactive enforcement and the direction set by the revised Guidelines indicate that the regulatory environment is evolving toward greater emphasis on procedural authenticity, transparency, and good faith.

China’s patent invalidation system is entering a new phase—one that seeks to preserve its public error-correction function while simultaneously curbing procedural abuse. Looking ahead, all participants in invalidation proceedings must adjust their strategies accordingly. Patent owners facing suspicious requests should focus on gathering evidence. Petitioners, meanwhile, must prioritize procedural compliance, ensure clarity in authorization chains and documentation, and carefully assess the risks associated with selecting nominal petitioners.