Author | Johnson Li
For years, the "straw man" strategy has been a common tactic in China's patent invalidation proceedings. Because Article 45 of the PRC Patent Law stipulates that "any entity or individual" can file a request to invalidate a patent , true interested parties—such as competitors facing infringement risks—frequently utilized unrelated individuals or shell entities to launch attacks without exposing their own identities.
However, recent shifts in administrative and judicial attitudes indicate that this cloak-and-dagger approach is under intense scrutiny. While the fundamental right of "any person" to challenge a patent remains intact , the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the courts are actively cracking down on requests lacking a "true intention" or violating the principle of good faith.
The Regulatory Shift: The 2026 Guidelines
A significant turning point arrived with the newly revised Patent Examination Guidelines, effective January 1, 2026. The CNIPA has placed a spotlight on the authenticity of the requester's intent.
According to the new rules, an invalidation request must be based on the requester's true expression of intent that the patent grant does not conform to the Patent Law. If the authorities determine that the request does not represent the real intention of the named filer, the foundation for initiating the invalidation procedure is deemed non-existent, and the request will not be accepted.
Furthermore, official explanations have clarified four specific circumstances used to evaluate "bad faith" in invalidation filings:
False Intent: Deliberately filing a request for purposes other than correcting an improper patent authorization.
False Identity: Deliberately misappropriating or borrowing another person's identity to file the request.
False Agency: Deliberately submitting forged patent agency authorization documents to conceal the true requester's identity.
False Evidence/Reasons: Submitting evidence or arguments known to be unusable or untenable.
Recent Case Studies
To understand where the boundaries currently lie, we can examine a few recent milestone cases decided by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) and the CNIPA.
1. Case No. (2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 71 (SPC)
In this case, a natural person filed an invalidation request. The patentee challenged the requester's qualification, alleging the individual was merely a "straw man".
Ruling: The SPC held that according to Article 45 of the Patent Law, anyone has the right to file an invalidation. Because the patentee failed to provide evidence proving that the request was not the requester's true expression of intent , the request was deemed lawful.
2. Case No. (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 716 (SPC)
An individual filed at least 25 invalidation requests across various technical fields. The individual's authorized representative was a family member working at a patent agency. The requester could not reasonably explain these filings.
Ruling: The SPC found that the individual and the agency likely used the individual's name to circumvent the Patent Agency Regulations. However, the court ruled that while the administrative violation should be penalized by the CNIPA, the invalidation procedure itself did not constitute a procedural violation.
3. Case No. 4W119453 (CNIPA)
An individual resident filed an invalidation against a pharmaceutical company's patent. The patentee provided forensic evidence showing that the signature on the Power of Attorney submitted by the agent likely differed from a notarized statement provided by the requester.
Ruling: The CNIPA rejecteded the request. It held that an invalidation based on forged legal documents lacks a true expression of intent, violates the principle of good faith, and should not be accepted. Even though the requester later submitted a statement ratifying the action, the CNIPA ruled this could not cure the illegal nature of the initial forgery.
4. Case No. 4W120605 (CNIPA)
A tech company filed an invalidation request. The day after the CNIPA issued the acceptance notice, the requester published a public post on social media stating that the reason they filed the invalidation was to establish contact with the patentee's IP department.
Ruling: The CNIPA dismissed the request. The panel concluded the request was not aimed at correcting an improper patent right, meaning it lacked true intent and blatantly violated the principle of good faith.
Conclusion and Practical Advice
The "straw man" strategy is not entirely dead in China. Natural persons and unrelated entities still possess the statutory right to challenge patents. However, the days of utilizing this strategy carelessly are over.
For a patent challenger looking to shield their identity during invalidation proceedings, it is crucial to recognize the substantially higher risks of the request being rejected or dismissed outright. If a party still chooses to employ this approach, they must carefully navigate the following realities:
Flawless Documentation: The CNIPA is actively scrutinizing the authenticity of authorization documents. Any inconsistencies, especially regarding forged or mismatched signatures on Powers of Attorney, can lead to immediate dismissal based on a violation of the good faith principle.
Scrutiny on "True Intent": Authorities and the opposite party may look for evidence that the named requester lacks a genuine intention to invalidate the patent. Any indication that the filing is merely a tactical maneuver or for ulterior motives will likely result in a rejection.
Strict Verification: Challengers must be prepared for the CNIPA to issue formal notices requiring identity verification to confirm true intent. This may require the named requester to appear in person at the CNIPA reception hall or provide a notarized commitment confirming their intention. If a challenger is unable or unwilling to comply with these verification steps to maintain their anonymity, they face the high probability that the invalidation request will be deemed withdrawn or dismissed.
This article represents only the views of the author and should not be regarded as formal legal opinions or advice of GEN Law Firm.
