On the Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Patent Infringement_Vol. 2 No. 6 (JEL 2025)_Journal of Economics and Law (ISSN: 3005-5768)

Home > Journal of Economics and Law (ISSN: 3005-5768) > Vol. 2 No. 6 (JEL 2025) >

On the Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Patent Infringement

Download PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202514602

Author(s)

Anna Dai

Affiliation(s)

Law School, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Abstract

The legislative purpose of patent law is to protect the rights and interests of inventors, encourage creation and innovation, promote the dissemination and progress of technology, and achieve a balance between the private interest protection of the patentee and the public interest in the dissemination of technology. This is the fundamental principle upheld by patent legislation. The element “for production or operational purposes” in the constitutive elements of patent infringement in China limits patent protection to a certain scope, implementing and reflecting the inherent requirements of the purpose and principles of patent legislation. However, due to the lack of a clear definition of its specific scope during legislation, the concept remains ambiguous, leading to divergent judicial standards, a lack of uniform adjudication scale, and inconsistent judgments in similar cases. Therefore, this paper explores the legal connotation of “for production or operational purposes,” revealing the basic meaning and criteria for determining the term “production or operation” in the application of patent infringement law, aiming to clarify the reasonable boundary between the protection of private rights and the non-infringing use by the public.

Keywords

Patent Infringement; Production or Operational Purposes; Criteria for Determination

References

[1]Li Anna. Research on Several Issues Concerning “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Patent Law. Southwest University of Political Science and Law, 2018. [2]Zhu Jialin. Doctrinal Analysis of the “For Production or Operational Purposes” Element. People's Judicature, 2022, (31): 101-105. DOI:10.19684/j.cnki.1002-4603. 2022.31.011. [3]Mao Liping, Liu Ying. Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes”. People's Court Daily, 2012-02-01(007). [4]Ding Wenjie. The “For Production or Operational Purposes” Element in the Patent Law and Its Interpretation------Appeal Case of Mo Wencai v. Guiyang Chess Academy et al. for Patent Infringement Dispute. China Invention & Patent, 2018, 15(12): 109-111. [5]Fu Lei, Bin Yuecheng. Understanding and Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes”. People's Judicature, 2021, (20): 79-82. DOI: 10.19684/j. cnki.1002-4603.2021.20.012. [6]Kong Xiangrui, Wen Gang. TRIPS Agreement and the Second Revision of China's Patent Law. Journal of Pingyuan University, 2000, (03): 61-62. [7]Zhang Peng. Extraterritorial Law Application in Cross-Border Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes. Intellectual Property, 2024, (01): 106-126. [8]Du Xinnian. Comparison between TRIPS Patent Provisions and China's New Patent Law. Journal of Huazhong Agricultural University (Social Sciences Edition), 2003, (02): 67-69+80. [9]Yu Beiyu, Zhao Buzhen. Analysis of the Relationship between the Application of China's Bolar Exception and Production or Operational Purposes [C] // “Shanghai Law Research” Collection (Vol. 18, 2020, Total Vol. 42)——Collection of Haihua Yongtai Law Firm. Shanghai Haihua Yongtai Law Firm; Shanghai Haihua Yongtai Law Firm; 2020: 95-100. DOI: 10.26914/ c.cnkihy. 2020.046966. [10]He Lianhong. The Extraterritorial Expansion of U.S. Patent Protection and China's Countermeasures——From the Perspective of the WesternGeco Case. People's Tribune · Academic Frontiers, 2018, (17): 47-55. DOI: 10.16619/j.cnki.rmltxsqy. 2018.17.005. [11]Merges, R.P. The Concept of “Commercial Scale” in TRIPS: A New Interpretation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2021, 34(1), 1-45. [12]Zhang Taolue. Whether Offering to Sell Patented Products After Patent Term Expiration Constitutes Infringement——Starting from the German Federal Supreme Court's “Simvastatin” Case. Electronics Intellectual Property, 2010, (07): 81-86. [13]Zhao Chengyin. Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Patent Law. East China University of Political Science and Law, 2011. [14]Tanaka, Y. Patent Infringement and Non-Commercial Use: A Comparative Study of Japan and the EU. IIC, 2020, 51(3), 287-310. [15]Tang Yani. On the Abolition or Retention of “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Article 11 of the Patent Law. Zhejiang Gongshang University, 2022. DOI: 10.27462 /d.cnki.ghzhc.2022.000020. [16]Sitorus, W. (2016). Public interest in patent protection: The need of criteria. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 45. http://www.iiste.org [17]Zhu Jianjun. Conditions for the Establishment of the “Non-Production or Operational Purposes” Defense in Patent Disputes. People's Court Daily, 2014-07-23(007). [18]Huang Danyue. Determination of “For Production or Operational Purposes” in Patent Infringement. Tsinghua University, 2015. [19]Shen Rui. Case Analysis of Apple and Samsung Patent Dispute. Chinese & Foreign Entrepreneurs, 2016, (02): 181 [20]Lei Xingling. Research on the Standards for Determining Intellectual Property Infringement. China Brand and Anti-Counterfeiting, 2025, (11): 23-25. [21]Prunus salicina Ling. The Chinese Landscape of Two-Stage Litigation for Patent Infringement. Law Review, 2024, 42(05): 70-80. [22]Xie Xiaoyong. Digital Empowerment and Institutional Innovation: Theoretical Interpretation and Practical Breakthrough of Intellectual Property Governance Modernization in the Context of Chinese-Style Modernization. Intellectual Property, 2025, (09): 27-51.