*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court rendered a final judgment in a dispute concerning infringement of an invention patent for a pesticide. The Court held that where a manufacturer of a generic pesticide, for the purpose of providing itself with test data necessary for applying to the competent pesticide administrative authority for pesticide registration, manufactures and uses, to a limited extent, the accused infringing products falling within the protection scope of a pesticide patent, and such acts do not cause unreasonable prejudice to the normal exercise of the patent right or unreasonably impair the legitimate interests of the patentee, such acts constitute the "scientific research exception" within the meaning of the Patent Law and shall not be deemed as infringement of patent right. However, the act of providing pesticides to parties not involved in the case for registration testing exceeds the reasonable limits of the "scientific research exception" and constitutes patent infringement. Meanwhile, publicly promoting the accused infringing products during the term of the patent through exhibitions, official websites, WeChat official accounts, and other channels constitutes offering for sale and also constitutes patent infringement.

This case involved an invention patent titled "Anthranilamides Arthropodicide," the term of protection of which expired in June 2022. The chlorantraniliprole technical material of the patentee, [REDACTED] Company, obtained pesticide registration in China in 2010. During the term of protection of the patent at issue, the accused infringers Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company, beginning in 2017, in order to obtain test data required for pesticide registration of generic chlorantraniliprole technical material and formulations, manufactured and used pesticide products falling within the protection scope of the patent right at issue. In addition, they also conducted pesticide registration tests for at least 17 companies not involved in the case, and manufactured and provided chlorantraniliprole technical material, as a result of which the parties not involved in the case obtained at least 28 pesticide registrations. After Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company obtained registration for chlorantraniliprole technical material, they also engaged in offering for sale at exhibitions, on web pages, and through WeChat official accounts.

The Court of First Instance held that, in the process by which Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company themselves, and by which they assisted others, applied to the national pesticide administrative authority for pesticide registration, their acts of manufacturing, using, and providing patented pesticide products to others did not unreasonably impair the legitimate interests of the patentee, and did not constitute infringing acts implemented "for production and business purposes" as provided in Article 11 of the Patent Law as amended in 2020. The offering for sale committed by Li [REDACTED] Company, Ling [REDACTED] Company, and others constituted infringement. Therefore, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment ordering Li [REDACTED] Company, Ling [REDACTED] Company, and others to compensate [REDACTED] Company for economic losses of RMB 300,000 and reasonable expenses for rights protection of RMB 200,000. Both the patentee [REDACTED] Company and Li [REDACTED] Company, Ling [REDACTED] Company, and others were dissatisfied and filed appeals respectively.

In the second instance, the Supreme People's Court held as follows. On the one hand, the direct purpose of the acts by which Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company manufactured and used the accused infringing products in order to obtain registration for chlorantraniliprole technical material and formulations for themselves was to provide the competent pesticide administrative authority with the test data required for obtaining pesticide registration. If manufacturers of generic pesticides were not permitted to carry out manufacturing and use before the expiration of the patent term for the purpose of obtaining test data required for administrative review and approval, this would objectively result in generic pesticides still being unable to be lawfully marketed for a considerable period after the expiration of the patent protection term, thereby unreasonably "extending in disguised form" the protection term of pesticide patents, impairing the public interest, and contravening the legislative purpose of the Patent Law. Therefore, where a manufacturer of a generic pesticide, for the purpose of providing the competent pesticide administrative authority with test data necessary for applying for pesticide registration, manufactures and uses, to a limited extent, the accused infringing products falling within the protection scope of a pesticide patent, and such acts do not cause unreasonable prejudice to the normal exploitation of the patent right or to the lawful rights and interests of the patentee, such acts may constitute the circumstance of "scientific research exception" prescribed by the Patent Law under which the acts shall not be deemed as infringement of patent right.

On the other hand, the acts by which Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company manufactured pesticides and provided them to parties not involved in the case for registration testing had the purpose of obtaining improper commercial benefits, exceeded the reasonable limits of the "scientific research exception" prescribed by the Patent Law, impaired the lawful rights and interests of the patentee, and constituted infringement of the patent right at issue. In addition, during the term of the patent, Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company publicly promoted the accused infringing products through exhibitions, official websites, WeChat official accounts, and other channels, clearly expressing their intention to sell the accused infringing products, which had a direct impact on the normal business activities relating to the patented products and constituted infringement by offering for sale. Based on the aforesaid two types of infringing acts, the Court of Second Instance amended the judgment by determining that the acts by which Li [REDACTED] Company and Ling [REDACTED] Company manufactured and provided to others pesticide products falling within the protection scope of the patent right at issue constituted infringement, and further amended the amount of compensation to RMB 600,000 for losses and RMB 200,000 for reasonable expenses for rights protection.

This case clarifies that the manufacture and use of pesticide products for the purpose of obtaining test data necessary for one's own pesticide registration may constitute the "scientific research exception." It also clarifies that the act of providing pesticides to parties not involved in the case for registration testing, as well as the act of offering for sale, constitutes patent infringement, thereby giving due consideration to the reasonable balance between patent protection and the public interest.