Win in Cross Jurisdiction! USD 20.2 M Awarded to Harbour BioMed in Patent Infringement Case Against Amgen
Harbour BioMed recently announced that it has prevailed in a patent infringement lawsuit against Amgen in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The jury found Amgen liable for willful infringement, upheld the validity of the patent-in-suit, and awarded damages of $20.2 million. Under U.S. patent law, damages for willful infringement may be increased by up to three times, potentially reaching $60.6 million.
The lawsuit, which began in 2021, involves core technology of Harbour BioMed’s antibody discovery platform. Harbour BioMed’s founder called the verdict an “epic victory,” and the case is a benchmark for Chinese pharmaceutical companies in enforcing intellectual property rights overseas.
Separately, Harbour BioMed’s patent infringement lawsuit against Biocytogen in China remains pending, and the patent involved was previously upheld as valid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). (June 16, 2026, IPRdaily)
Cases
Supreme People’s Procuratorate Releases Typical Cases on Punishing Malicious IP Litigation
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) recently released five “Typical Cases of the Procuratorial Authorities in Punishing Malicious Intellectual Property Litigation,” covering procuratorial supervision cases in multiple IP fields, including utility model patents, design patents, trademark rights, and unfair competition.
Intellectual property rights play a vital role in fierce market competition. However, some individuals, under the name of “rights enforcement,” engage in “profit-seeking” or “unfair competition” by maliciously filing IP lawsuits. Such conduct not only harms the lawful rights and interests of others but also disrupts judicial order and undermines judicial authority. For example, in Case One, a Foshan-based company, knowing that its rights basis was flawed or lacked factual grounds, still filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a Wuxi-based company claiming a compensation of RMB 23 million at a critical juncture when the latter was applying for an IPO, causing the IPO process to be suspended. The Wuxi Municipal People’s Procuratorate, upon discovering clues during its duties, conducted an investigation and transferred them to the court, urging the court to timely identify and duly penalize such conduct.
Maliciously registering and hoarding trademarks, and then suing the genuine trademark owners for damages, is a typical pattern in malicious IP litigation. Among this batch of typical cases, three involve such practices. For instance, in Case Four, a technology corporation, with “electricity” as its core business, had used “长高” as its trade name as early as 1998 and registered a series of trademarks in 2006. A digital technology company applied for the registration of 12 trademarks of “长高电新” in 2022 and specifically incorporated a trading company to file infringement lawsuits. The Changsha Municipal People’s Procuratorate, after investigation and verification, found no signs of business operations by the technology company or the trading company, deemed that there was an obvious intent of malicious squatting and seeking improper gains through litigation, and lawfully carried out legal supervision.
How to review and determine “malice” is a challenge in judicial practice in handling such cases, and it is also the highlight of this batch of typical cases. These typical cases analyze the review methods and criteria for determining malice from different perspectives. For example, Case Two establishes that “where a right holder deliberately conceals the fact that the patent-in-suit has been declared invalid and continues with the litigation, such conduct violates the principle of good faith and constitutes malicious litigation”; Case Four establishes that “where a person, knowing that its trademark is maliciously squatted and its rights basis is flawed, still initiates litigation to seek improper gains, such conduct shall be deemed to constitute malicious litigation.”
An official from the IP Procuratorial Department of the SPP stated that in recent years, procuratorial authorities have continued to intensify special supervision over malicious IP litigation, actively fostering a social atmosphere that protects and encourages innovation, and promoting the core values of good faith. This batch of typical cases provides replicable and scalable practical models for preventing and punishing malicious IP litigation nationwide, in areas such as clue referral, procedure initiation, investigation and verification, and follow-up supervision. (June 29, 2026, Supreme People’s Procuratorate)
Statistics
CNIPA Releases National Patent Data for January–May 2026
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently released its monthly statistical report on examination, registration, and grant for January–May 2026. Compared with the same period in 2025, the number of invention patents granted increased by 12.14% year-on-year, while utility model patents declined by 12.99% and design patents rose by 10.47%.
The specific figures are presented in the table below. (June 17, 2026, IPRdaily)
CNIPA Releases the “2025 Statistical Monitoring Report on China’s Patent-Intensive Industries”
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently released the 2025 Statistical Monitoring Report on China's Patent-Intensive Industries. According to the data, the value added of China’s patent-intensive industries reached RMB 18.04 trillion in 2024, accounting for 13.38% of GDP, exceeding the “14th Five-Year Plan” target of 13% one year ahead of schedule.
The data shows that patent-intensive industries attract 7% of the nation’s total employed population, concentrate approximately 50% of R&D expenditure of all enterprises, and generate around 70% of the total number of invention patents. The R&D intensity of these industries stands at 2.62%, 2.4 times that of non-patent-intensive industries; labor productivity reaches RMB 348,600 per person, roughly twice that of the latter; and the number of invention patents granted per 10,000 employed persons over a five-year period is 476, which is 10 times the national average.
Among the seven major categories, new equipment manufacturing ranks the largest in scale, with RMB 5.14 trillion, accounting for 28.5% of the total. The information and communication technology (ICT) manufacturing and services sectors together amount to nearly RMB 8 trillion, representing over 40% of the total, highlighting the dominant position of the digital economy.
By comparison, the GDP share of patent-intensive industries in the United States (24%), South Korea (24.6%), and the European Union (18.4%) remain significantly higher than that of China. The report notes that China still has ample room for growth and will continue to strengthen statistical monitoring and industrial cultivation during the “15th Five-Year Plan” period. (July 7, 2026, CNIPA)
Policy
Newly Revised Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China Officially Promulgated
The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress recently voted to adopt the newly revised Trademark Law, marking the first comprehensive revision since the law came into effect in 1983. This revision represents a transition from piecemeal adjustments to systematic restructuring. The new law will take effect on January 1, 2027, with its structure expanded from 8 chapters and 73 articles to 9 chapters and 87 articles.
This revision achieves a fundamental transformation in legislative purpose, restoring the Trademark Law to its proper value orientation as property law. The new law broadens the boundaries of registrability, explicitly recognizing online use as trademark use, and adds dynamic marks as registrable elements, responding to the demands of the digital economy. In combating bad-faith registration, the new law refines the grounds for refusal to “use not being the intent, and clearly exceeding normal business needs,” and introduces administrative fines of up to RMB 100,000 for bad-faith applicants. The protection of well-known trademarks is extended to unregistered well-known marks, and a domestic well-known trademark recognition mechanism is newly added to assist enterprises in safeguarding their rights overseas. In addition, the new law grants administrative authorities the power to actively cancel trademarks that are “registered but not used,” and strengthens supervision over trademark agencies.
This revision returns to the core value of “use” in Trademark Law, strengthens rights protection, and imposes stricter penalties on improper conduct, providing a more robust institutional framework for enterprises’ trademark strategies and international brand development. (June 26, 2026, National People’s Congress Website)
