Recently, Llinks represented Unitech in a dispute over the infringement of interests in inventions against Company S and other entities. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province issued the second-instance judgment: appeal dismissed, original judgment upheld.

The predecessor to this case—a dispute over patent ownership (Supreme People's Court [2021] SPC IP Civil Final No. 2312, 2395)—was selected for the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Annual Report 2023 (Case No. 3). In that prior case, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) established that the invalidation of a patent does not preclude the existence of other civil interests in the underlying invention. This current case is a follow-up infringement lawsuit based on the ownership of "interests in invention" confirmed by the SPC. The second-instance judgment by the Shenzhen Intermediate Court continues and develops these judicial rules.

Key Judicial Points I. The right to apply for a patent is an independent interest; "Squatting" constitutes infringement.

The court clarified that the right to apply for a patent includes the right to file an application for an invention, as well as the right to choose and control whether to apply, how to apply, and whether to make amendments. This right is independent of the patent right itself and is unrelated to whether the invention possesses inventiveness. By filing a patent application for Unitech's technical solution in its own name without authorization, Company S infringed upon Unitech's right to apply for a patent. The act of "squatting" (bad-faith registration) itself warrants liability for infringement.

Key Judicial Points II. The nominal right holder owes a "Duty of Care"; procedural participation rights are protected by law.

The court held that where ownership is in dispute and known to Company S, the company—as the nominal right holder—owes the actual right holder a "duty of care" based on the principle of good faith. Company S failed to respond within the prescribed time during the invalidation proceedings, failed to disclose the ownership dispute, and failed to notify Unitech, causing Unitech to lose the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The court ruled that this omission deprived Unitech of its procedural rights and constituted an infringement of legal interests.

Key Judicial Points III. The right of authorship does not expire with patent invalidation; the identity of the inventor must be respected.

Citing Article 16 of the Patent Law, the court pointed out that the right of authorship is a statutory personal right of the inventor. While patent invalidation means property rights are deemed non-existent from the outset, it does not change the factual identity of the inventor. The SPC's prior case confirmed Mr. Guo as the actual inventor. By registering others as inventors without authorization, Company S infringed upon Mr. Guo's right of authorship. The second instance upheld the original judgment requiring Company S to publish a statement confirming Mr. Guo as the inventor.

Significance of the Case

Providing a recourse path for innovators facing "Squatting + Invalidation" dilemmas.

This judgment further clarifies at the judicial level that: a patent right may be invalidated, but the interests in the invention are not lost; the right of authorship does not vanish due to patent invalidation; and procedural participation is a safeguard for substantive rights—malicious inaction must carry consequences. This breakthrough challenges the traditional perception that "patent invalidation equals zero rights," providing a new legal path for innovators facing bad-faith registrations.

Professional Excellence: Llinks Team Safeguards Core Interests

Llinks' IP team, led by Llinks partner Ms. Cherri Che and Mr. Mingliang Zhao, represented the client in this case. Ms. Che's team has deep expertise in the IP sector, with extensive experience in patent, trademark, and trade secret litigation and non-litigation matters. From ownership disputes to infringement litigation, Llinks provides full-process legal services to help innovators protect their core technological achievements.