In a significant victory for procedural justice in Chinese patent litigation, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) released the case (2024) SPC IP Administrative Final No. 1287 in February 2026. It affirmed that the right to cross-examine evidence is absolute, even when that evidence involves "confidential” administrative records. The case centers on the CNIPA’s attempt to invalidate a patent based on a withdrawn, non-public priority document that was never disclosed to the patentee for defense.

The SPC's ruling establishes that while the Patent Office can verify priority ex officio, it cannot use "secrecy" to bypass due process. This decision serves as a critical precedent for practitioners, signaling that any evidence used to strip a party of their IP rights must be brought "into the light" through formal cross-examination.

Case Background

The dispute involves an invention patent for "**** Greenery Brick" owned by Sun. In January 2023, Ningbo Plastic Technology Co. (the "Petitioner") filed for invalidation, arguing the patent lacked novelty, inventiveness, and a valid priority claim.

The CNIPA (the "Respondent") issued Decision No. 563889, declaring the patent invalid in its entirety. To reach this conclusion, the CNIPA independently retrieved and verified a non-public, withdrawn priority application (Evidence 15). Based on this internal verification, the CNIPA ruled the priority was invalid, allowing Evidence 1-14 to be admitted as prior art or conflicting applications to defeat the patent's novelty and inventiveness.

The Arguments

The Patentee (Sun): Argued that the CNIPA lacked authority to review priority once an application is withdrawn and that the denial of priority was factually incorrect.

The CNIPA: Maintained that verifying priority is necessary to determine the "prior art" status of evidence. They argued the documents were "confidential" under Patent Law Article 21 and could not be disclosed to the parties for cross-examination.

The Petitioner (Ningbo): Supported the CNIPA, asserting the agency has the right to verify priority to ensure patent validity.

The Judicial Decisions

First-Instance (Beijing IP Court)

The court revoked the CNIPA’s decision. It ruled that the CNIPA violated the Patent Examination Guidelines by failing to organize a cross-examination of the priority documents it retrieved.

Second Instance (Supreme People's Court)

The SPC affirmed the first-instance judgment, focusing on two key legal principles:

1. Due Process vs. Confidentiality: The SPC held      that while the CNIPA can verify priority ex officio to determine      the state of the art, it cannot bypass the principle of a fair hearing.      The "confidentiality" of a withdrawn application is not a valid      excuse to deny a party the right to cross-examine evidence used against      them.
   
2. Evidentiary Burden in Litigation: Under the Administrative      Litigation Law, the agency must provide the evidence it relied on to      the court. Because the CNIPA refused to submit the priority document      during litigation, the SPC ruled that the invalidation decision      effectively lacked a factual basis.
   

The Legal Significance of the SPC's Ruling

The Supreme People's Court has used this case to draw a "red line" between administrative efficiency and the fundamental right to a fair trial. By affirming the Beijing IP Court's decision, the SPC sent a clear message that "internal verification" processes within the CNIPA cannot bypass the statutory requirement for evidence to be cross-examined.

Why a "Confidential" Document Can Be Prior Art

As addressed in the judgment, the document in question (Evidence 15) was a withdrawn domestic priority application. Under Chinese law, such documents are treated as follows:

• Confidential Status: Per Article      21 of the Patent Law, the CNIPA must keep non-public applications secret.
  
• Legal Function: These      documents verify whether a patent is entitled to its claimed priority      date, which determines the "effective date" for assessing      novelty and inventiveness.
  
• The Conflict: In this case,      the CNIPA argued that because the document was "confidential",      it could not be shown to the parties.
  
• The SPC’s Resolution: The Court      ruled that "confidentiality" is not an excuse for procedural      illegality. If a document is used to determine a patent's fate, it must be      subjected to cross-examination, even if the CNIPA must use      "appropriate methods" such as closed sessions to maintain its      secrecy.
  

Practitioner Checklist

• Scrutinize "Ex Officio"      Evidence: When the CNIPA independently verifies priority or other facts,      practitioners must demand a formal cross-examination session if the      underlying documents are not disclosed.
  
• Procedural Over Technicality: Even if a      patent is "invalid" based on secret records, the decision is      legally void if those records were not properly introduced and challenged      in the administrative proceeding.
  
• Litigation Strategy: In      administrative litigation, if the CNIPA refuses to submit the      "confidential" evidence to the court, the SPC confirmed that the      court should treat the decision as lacking a factual basis.
  

Conclusion

This ruling represents a significant step toward judicial supremacy in Chinese IP law. It ensures that the "secret" internal databases of the Patent Office cannot be used as an invisible weapon against patent holders. For global companies, this provides a needed layer of procedural predictability when litigating or defending patents in China.