*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court concluded three appeals regarding administrative disputes over the invalidation of invention patents. It clarified that when serving documents to parties outside the territory who are difficult to locate in foreign-related cases, the people's court must not only take proactive measures to protect the parties' procedural rights but also prevent parties from abusing procedures to hinder the litigation process. While protecting the parties' interests in accordance with the law, it is essential to resolutely avoid improper delays caused by malicious evasion of service.

The three cases involved invention patents all titled "Method and Apparatus for Cross-Layer Optimization in Multimedia Communication with Different User Terminals" (hereinafter referred to as the patent-in-suit). The co-owners of the patent rights were Sai [REDACTED] Company, Wang [REDACTED] ni, and Wang [REDACTED] jun. Among them, Wang [REDACTED] ni is a U.S. citizen, Wang [REDACTED] ni and Wang [REDACTED] jun are biological siblings, and Wang [REDACTED], the legal representative of Sai [REDACTED] Company, is the wife of Wang [REDACTED] jun. In response to the request for a declaration of invalidation of the patent-in-suit filed by Ya [REDACTED] Company, the challenged decision and the first-instance judgment both held that the patent-in-suit possessed inventiveness and did not support Ya [REDACTED] Company's claims. Ya [REDACTED] Company appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

During the second-instance proceedings of the three cases, Wang [REDACTED] ni refused to confirm the service address and declined to participate in the proceedings. The court, in accordance with the law, adopted various methods and channels to serve the second-instance litigation documents, including the court summons, to her. These methods included: Mailing via official postal services between China and the United States to the U.S. address provided by Wang [REDACTED] ni herself in the appeal petition she signed in a series of 52 related civil cases regarding invention patent infringement disputes (including the patent-in-suit) being heard concurrently by the Supreme People's Court, which was successfully delivered and signed for; Serving via the service addresses confirmed by Wang [REDACTED] ni herself during the first-instance of these three cases and the aforementioned related patent infringement civil cases (including the domicile address and email address of Sai [REDACTED] Company, a co-owner of the patents); Forwarding through her relatives involved in the same cases (i.e., her younger brother Wang [REDACTED] jun and his wife) and persons acting in concert (i.e., Sai [REDACTED] Company and Wang [REDACTED] jun, co-owners of the patent-in-suit); Serving via other relevant addresses within China provided by Wang [REDACTED] ni (including the domestic address recorded in the labor contract she signed with Sai [REDACTED] Company and her address registered with public security authorities); and Service by publication was attempted twice, both of which had already expired the statutory period. During the second court session of the second instance, after the court fully explained the service situation concerning Wang [REDACTED] ni, Sai [REDACTED] Company and Wang [REDACTED] jun still withdrew from the courtroom midway without the court's permission, citing the reason that the court had not served Wang [REDACTED] ni in accordance with the law.

The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that: According to relevant laws and judicial interpretations, combined with the provisions of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention concerning service by mail abroad and the fact that the United States has not raised a reservation to this provision, the service by mail abroad in this case should be deemed effective service. The other service measures taken by the court of second instance were also aimed at more fully protecting the litigation rights and interests of the parties concerned. As a co-plaintiff in the first instance and a co-owner of the patent rights in these cases, since the court of second instance had completed service upon Wang [REDACTED] ni in accordance with the law, her failure to appear in court for the proceedings without justifiable reasons, despite knowing or being able to know the trial schedule of these cases, does not affect the adjudication of these cases. Moreover, Sai [REDACTED] Company and Wang [REDACTED] jun, who are Wang [REDACTED] ni's relatives involved in the same cases and persons acting in concert, as well as co-plaintiffs in the first instance and co-owners of the patent rights in these cases, had attended the entire first public hearing of these cases and substantively presented opinions on all disputed issues involved. Therefore, even though Wang [REDACTED] ni did not appear in court for the proceedings, and Sai [REDACTED] Company and Wang [REDACTED] jun withdrew from the courtroom midway during the second court session without the court's permission, this does not affect the substantive hearing and determination of these cases. Accordingly, the Supreme People's Court rendered the second-instance judgment in accordance with the law.

This case further enriches the judicial practice of foreign-related service. While protecting the litigation rights and interests of foreign parties in accordance with the law, it also resolutely says "no" to the dishonest litigation conduct of parties using foreign nationality to deliberately evade service. This is conducive to further enhancing the overall efficiency of foreign-related adjudication work. By combining the Hague Service Convention with domestic civil procedure rules, the Supreme People's Court, even after successful service by mail, still made "all reasonable efforts" by attempting other service methods. This reasonably balances the relationship between strictly complying with international treaties, taking proactive measures to safeguard due process, and combating procedural abuse, effectively avoiding procedural delays caused by malicious evasion while protecting the interests of all parties.