In China's standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practice, patent infringement litigation, FRAND rate-setting litigation and patent invalidation proceedings typically dominate the dispute-resolution landscape. For a long time, however, the dispute-resolution function of administrative adjudication for patent infringement disputes has been underrecognized and underutilized. It has often been viewed merely as a supplementary remedy suitable only for cases with relatively straightforward technical facts. Because SEP disputes invariably involve sophisticated technology alongside intricate factual and legal issues, administrative adjudication has not traditionally been regarded as an advantageous mechanism for resolving them.

In recent years, however, as China's patent administrative adjudication regime has continued to mature and SEP licensing practices have increasingly sought more efficient solutions, we have observed a natural synergy between administrative adjudication and SEP dispute resolution. Compared with civil litigation, its expedited timetable allows a patent owner, by strategically focusing on selected Chinese patents, to expeditiously crystallize questions of standard essentiality, infringement and the parties' licensing conduct into a formal legal dispute operating under real-time pressure. This, in turn, can reshape the timetable, risk expectations and bargaining positions in the parties' ongoing licensing negotiations.

Viewed in this light, administrative adjudication is not merely a substitute for conventional litigation, but rather functions as a distinct strategic instrument for SEP holders in global licensing and dispute-resolution frameworks.

Rather than attempting a comprehensive overview of China's patent administrative adjudication regime, this article draws upon our practical insights to examine strategic value and deployment of administrative adjudication in SEP licensing disputes. Specifically, it explores the alignment of administrative adjudication with the evidentiary and negotiation characteristics of SEP cases, its impact on the parties' incentives to negotiate, and its coordinated application alongside patent invalidation, civil litigation and other dispute-resolution mechanisms.

1. From a Long-Standing Administrative Protection Route to an Integral Component of the SEP Dispute-Resolution Toolkit

Article 65 of the current Patent Law of the People's Republic of China has long preserved a dual-track system of judicial and administrative remedies: "where negotiations fail, a patentee may either bring an action before a people's court or request the department responsible for patent administration to handle the dispute; where that department finds infringement, it may order the infringer to immediately cease the infringing act."

From a corporate practice perspective, the most visible form of administrative IP protection in China has historically been enforcement against trademark counterfeiting. Although administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes has existed for many years, it has not traditionally been a preferred route for patent owners in cases involving complex technology and demanding evidentiary requirements. Over the past decade, however, the administrative adjudication system has become increasingly professionalized and standardized. This evolution is evidenced by a series of milestone developments: the 2015-2020 Outline for Building a Law-Based Government re-emphasized the dispute-resolution function of administrative adjudication; in 2019, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) launched pilot initiatives for administrative adjudication of patent infringement disputes; in 2021, a national-level mechanism for administrative adjudication of major patent infringement disputes was formally established; the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes, effective in 2025, introduced specific provisions for SEP-related disputes for the first time; and in 2026, CNIPA further clarified the role of FRAND review in SEP administrative adjudication through Reply No. 68.

Following the implementation of the 2021 Measures for Administrative Adjudication of Major Patent Infringement Disputes, we spearheaded an SEP licensing project in the telecommunications sector, which innovatively applied the national-level major patent infringement administrative adjudication mechanism to an active SEP dispute. The parties had been negotiating a global patent license since 2015 without reaching agreement. Upon being retained, we conducted a comparative analysis of judicial and administrative remedies and proposed an integrated strategy that combines administrative adjudication targeting both SEPs and commercially implemented patents with coordinated responses to invalidation challenges and in-proceeding mediation. Following systematic patent selection, infringement mapping and preparation of evidence establishing "significant nationwide impact," CNIPA accepted the related series of cases in early 2023. Both SEPs that proceeded through invalidation review were upheld as valid, while CNIPA organized multiple rounds of mediation. The parties successfully concluded a global patent cross-license agreement in September of the same year. The significance of the project lies not in a final infringement decision on any single patent, but rather in the formulation and validation of a holistic approach—synthesizing administrative adjudication of infringement, patent invalidation proceedings, and administrative mediation—to generate substantial procedural pressure and facilitate a comprehensive commercial resolution in a complex global SEP licensing dispute.

For SEP holders, the following institutional features are particularly noteworthy.

（1）Administrative adjudication offers a relatively clear procedural timetable

Under the current rules, a patent infringement dispute should, in principle, be concluded within three months from the date of case acceptance. A complex case may be extended by one month with approval, whereas a particularly complex case or one involving special circumstances may be further extended by up to two months. Time periods attributable to suspension, public announcement, inspection or appraisal, jurisdictional objections, extensions of the evidence-submission period, and settlement are excluded from the statutory case-handling timeframe. Accordingly, while this three-month period does not guarantee absolute completion within the precise duration, the procedure remains strictly subject to meaningful temporal constraints.

The strategic value of this expedited timetable in SEP cases lies not merely in procedural efficiency, but equally in preventing an implementer from indefinitely maintaining a posture of non-response, declining to make a license offer, or evading substantive negotiations. Administrative adjudication creates defined procedural milestones within a compressed timeframe—including the respondent's reply, evidence submission, oral hearings and the potential issuance of an injunction—thereby fundamentally altering the costs and risk profile of prolonged delay for the implementer.

（2）The adjudicative remedy is centered on cessation of infringement rather than damages

In an administrative adjudication of a patent infringement dispute, once the competent patent administration authority finds infringement, it may order the infringer to immediately cease the infringing act. As for damages, however, the authority may only mediate the amount at the parties' request; if mediation fails, damages must still be pursued through civil litigation.

This institutional distinction is significant for conventional patent cases, where financial compensation is often a primary objective, yet it aligns particularly well with SEP disputes, where injunctive-type relief is frequently central. In ordinary patent infringement litigation, a patentee typically seeks not only cessation of infringement, but also substantial damages to compensate for market loss and to deter infringement. In SEP cases, by contrast, because the exclusivity of patent rights intersects with the broader function of technical standards, injunction relief often constitutes the SEP holder's core remedy: an implementer subject to such an order may be effectively barred from practicing the relevant SEP and, as a practical matter, the standard itself, thereby creating substantial commercial leverage. The damages attributable to infringement of a single SEP are generally not the paramount objective. Administrative adjudication enables the patent owner to address standard essentiality, infringement and whether the negotiation process complied with FRAND principles (see Section I.E below), thereby informing the determination of whether injunction relief should be granted. In other words, an SEP holder does not forfeit its core form of relief in administrative adjudication; rather, it can concentrate its efforts on securing injunction-like relief capable of exerting substantial negotiating pressure.

（3）Mediation can run throughout the administrative adjudication and constitutes a statutory means of concluding the case

Administrative adjudication and administrative mediation are not mutually exclusive procedural routes. Article 35 of the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes provides: "When handling a patent infringement dispute, the department responsible for patent administration may conduct mediation in accordance with the wishes of the parties. If the parties reach agreement, a mediation agreement for the patent infringement dispute shall be prepared, affixed with the official seal of the department responsible for patent administration, and signed or stamped by both parties. If mediation fails, an administrative adjudication shall be issued promptly."

The current rules expressly recognize "conclusion by mediation" alongside the issuance of an administrative adjudication and dismissal of the case as formal methods of closing a proceeding. Mediation is therefore not merely informal communication taking place outside the administrative adjudication framework, but rather a statutory mode of case disposition. In addition, any settlement period requested by the parties is excluded from the statutory case-handling timeframe, thereby preserving procedural space for active negotiations while the proceeding remains pending.

As a general principle, the performance of a mediation agreement remains voluntary. Where a mediation instrument embodies payment obligations and records the parties' mutual consent to compulsory enforcement, the parties may apply to a notarial institution for an enforceable notarial instrument in accordance with law. Should a party fail to perform, or improperly perform, such a notarized mediation instrument, the opposing party may subsequently petition a competent People's Court for judicial enforcement.

（4）Patent invalidation proceedings do not necessarily eliminate the timing advantage of administrative adjudication

The initiation of patent invalidation proceedings does not automatically trigger a stay of administrative adjudication. In major patent infringement disputes examined by CNIPA, once an invalidation request has been accepted, a party may formally petition for a stay and CNIPA retains the discretion to stay the proceeding ex officio. Whether a stay is granted, however, remains contingent upon the specific circumstances of the case. Even where the administrative adjudication is stayed pending the outcome of invalidation, its temporal advantage does not necessarily dissipate. In 2024, the average pendency of patent invalidation cases in China stood at 5.9 months; when combined with the three-month case-handling period inherent to administrative adjudication itself, the cumulative procedure often remains more compressed and predictable than a first-instance civil proceeding involving complex patent infringement or SEP-related controversies.

（5）Injunction relief in SEP cases is subject to FRAND review

CNIPA's Reply No. 68, issued in 2026, explicitly establishes that when handling SEP-related administrative adjudication cases, the authority should consider factors including whether the parties have fulfilled disclosure obligations, engaged actively in negotiations and proposed reasonable licensing terms. Only when the patent owner has complied with the FRAND principle and the infringing party is demonstrably at fault may the authority, where appropriate, order cessation of infringement.

The Reply resolves a critical issue: the administrative adjudication authority is mandated to assess not only whether the patent is implemented, but also whether the parties have engaged in good-faith licensing negotiations. Concurrently, the factors enumerated in the Reply indicate a primary focus on the parties' negotiation conduct and degree of fault, rather than on compelling the authority to calculate a complex global FRAND rate within a compressed administrative timeframe. This approach aligns seamlessly with the institutional approach proposed in recent scholarship[2], which posits that FRAND review within administrative adjudication should focus on whether the patent owner and implementer have demonstrated a genuine willingness to grant and obtain a license, respectively.

2.Insights: Why Administrative Adjudication Is Well Suited to SEP Licensing Disputes

Administrative adjudication can, of course, be utilized for conventional patent infringement disputes. Our observation suggests that certain characteristics inherent in SEPs confer upon this mechanism distinct strategic utility in licensing negotiations.

（1）Standard texts can turn complex infringement issues into a more structured chain of proof

In many conventional technology patent cases, establishing infringement may require comprehensive product teardown, equipment testing, source-code analysis or access to the accused entity's proprietary manufacturing process information. In SEP cases, by contrast, the evidentiary analysis can, at least in principle, be structured around three core relationships:

• the correspondence between the patent claims and the relevant technical requirements in the standard;

• whether the relevant provisions of the standard embody technical solutions that must be adopted in order to implement the standard; and

• whether the accused product implements the standard and the relevant functionality.

This does not imply that a product's stated support for a particular standard automatically establishes infringement of every patent declared essential to that standard. The patent owner must still establish the patent's standard essentiality (i.e., the mapping between the claims and the standard), the implementation requirements of the relevant standard provisions, and the accused product's actual implementation. Compared with conventional patent cases that depend heavily on internal proprietary information concerning the accused product, however, SEP cases can rely on publicly available standard texts, essentiality analysis, claim charts, product documentation, certification information and test results to construct a more standardized and visible evidentiary path.

This structured approach is particularly well suited to administrative adjudication, which operates under a relatively compressed timetable and requires the applicant to articulate specific facts and grounds at the case-acceptance stage. Furthermore, standard texts are generally public, uniform and relatively stable, allowing the parties to share a baseline understanding of the content of the standard and its implementation requirements. Compared with conventional patent cases, where proving infringement may rely heavily on internal proprietary information concerning the accused product, a patent owner can more readily particularize its infringement case through the "patent–standard–product" correspondence. This enables the patent owner to develop a clearer factual and evidentiary basis at the outset, thereby better satisfying administrative adjudication's requirements for a defined dispute and a sufficient prima facie evidentiary threshold.

（2）Administrative adjudication changes the cost structure of delay in licensing negotiations

In SEP licensing practice, legal proceedings are often not the termination of licensing negotiations, but rather an integral component of the negotiation process itself. The core value of administrative adjudication therefore lies not simply in obtaining injunction relief, but in recalibrating the parties' negotiating incentives through a defined procedural timetable and potentially significant legal consequences.

In practice, SEP implementers may broadly be categorized into two typical archetypes:

The first does not explicitly refuse a license, but may remain unresponsive for extended periods, decline to provide necessary information or counteroffers, or repeatedly invoke procedural issues to stall substantive negotiations. For such implementers, administrative adjudication imposes a timetable that is difficult to disregard. The implementer is compelled to formally respond to the infringement allegations, articulate its technical defenses, and account for its conduct during the licensing negotiations. Prolonged silence, blanket denials or a sustained refusal to enter into substantive negotiations may themselves become relevant to the determination of whether the implementer is demonstrably at fault. The aforementioned scholarship[3]  likewise identifies prolonged silence, refusal to engage substantively and procedural delay as critical indicators of an implementer's lack of good faith willingness to negotiate.

The second is not inherently averse to taking a license, however the parties may each hold overlapping patent portfolios and confront highly complex issues concerning license scope, portfolio strength, regional rates and the valuation of cross-licensing. Under such circumstances, administrative adjudication may not directly resolve the pricing of the entire global portfolio. Nevertheless, it can leverage one or several representative Chinese SEPs to address standard essentiality and infringement at an earlier procedural stage, while simultaneously evaluating the application of FRAND principle to the parties' negotiation conduct. This mechanism can provide a concrete negotiating anchor, and the resulting procedural developments and risk assessments can serve as a practical reference point for broader global cross-licensing negotiations.

（3）In-proceeding mediation can convert legal pressure into a licensing solution

Unlike commercial mediation conducted outside a formal dispute-resolution framework, mediation within administrative adjudication takes place against the backdrop of an active legal proceeding that may lead to an injunction order. As a case advances through acceptance, response, evidence submission, technical comparison and oral hearings, the parties must progressively clarify their infringement positions and licensing conduct, thereby rendering the legal risks increasingly concrete.

Consequently, in-proceeding mediation is not a compromise reached in the absence of a substantive basis for assessment. Rather, it constitutes an advanced stage of further negotiation driven by the temporal pressure, technical assessment and remedial expectations generated by the administrative adjudication. For SEP disputes, this structural framework—wherein adjudication and mediation proceeding in parallel, with adjudication remaining active should mediation fail—effectively compels an otherwise uncooperative implementer to return to the negotiating table, while concurrently establishing favorable conditions for comprehensive commercial resolutions, such as portfolio-wide licenses and cross-licensing arrangements.

• King & Wood represented a leading communications company in an SEP licensing project in the audio/video codec sector

This project further demonstrates how mediation within an administrative adjudication can advance licensing negotiations. After King & Wood initiated a patent infringement administrative adjudication on behalf of the right-holder client, the implementer filed invalidation requests against the asserted patents while the proceedings were ongoing. Following the oral hearing, the authority organized several rounds of mediation, prompting the parties to resume and advance substantive licensing negotiations against the backdrop of increasingly clarified technical issues and procedural risks. The parties ultimately reached a licensing arrangement through further negotiations, and the related proceedings were brought to an end. Access Advance, a leading patent pool in the audio/video sector, subsequently publicly confirmed that the implementer had joined the HEVC Advance patent pool and stated that a number of enforcement proceedings brought by licensors, including cases related to the administrative adjudication, had been resolved through the patent-pool license. The project illustrates that mediation within administrative adjudication is not a form of general facilitation detached from the merits. It can draw on the procedural pressure and risk expectations generated by the infringement review to help the parties narrow their differences and ultimately reach a license.

（4）Administrative adjudication should form part of the overall dispute-resolution strategy

In cross-border SEP disputes, administrative adjudication will not serve as a substitute for civil infringement litigation, FRAND rate-setting litigation, patent invalidation proceedings or parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions. Instead, it is more accurately conceptualized as one critical component of a coordinated strategy, primarily tasked with creating tangible litigation risk—specifically regarding infringement and injunction relief-linked to the implementation in China.

The functional differentiation between these proceedings is stark: administrative adjudication focuses on infringement comparison and negotiation conduct; invalidation proceedings address patent validity; and rate-setting litigation is reserved for license scope and royalty determination. Meanwhile, domestic and foreign infringement actions serve to maximize leverage across varying markets.

As a matter of procedural framework design, where the same patent infringement dispute has already been brought before a court, it will generally no longer satisfy the acceptance requirements for administrative adjudication. A patent owner should therefore determine at the outset of an overall strategy which patents will be deployed in administrative adjudication, which will be used in civil litigation, and which may be asserted in other jurisdictions, rather than simply duplicating proceedings on the same patent. In portfolio licensing disputes involving multiple SEPs, however, different patents can perform different procedural functions. Administrative adjudication also differs from FRAND rate-setting litigation and antitrust litigation in both subject matter and institutional purpose; the existence of those proceedings should not automatically result in a stay of the administrative adjudication.

• King & Wood represented a leading multinational communications company in an SEP licensing project in the mobile communications sector

This project illustrates the value of administrative adjudication as part of a complex dispute-resolution landscape. The matter involved a series of SEP infringement administrative adjudications, patent invalidation proceedings and licensing negotiations. King & Wood coordinated these proceedings for the client, using administrative adjudication to progressively clarify the technical disputes and create procedural pressure while simultaneously responding to invalidation challenges brought by the implementer. The project ultimately enabled the client to conclude its first licensing transaction in China in a non-traditional mobile communications application—the mobile payments sector. It demonstrates that administrative adjudication need not be used in isolation: it can operate in conjunction with patent invalidation proceedings and commercial negotiations to advance an overall licensing solution in a complex, multi-proceeding dispute.

[1] Reference Cases: GuoZhiBaoCaiZi[2023]No.1;  GuoZhiBaoCaiZi[2023]No.2; GuoZhiBaoCaiZi[2023]No.3; GuoZhiBaoCaiZi[2023]No.4; YueZhiCaiZi[2025]No.0001-0005; YueZhiCaiZi[2025]No.0006-0010; HuZhiFaCaiZi[2024]No.0014; HuZhiFaCaiZi[2024]No.0015; ZheHangZhiFaCaiZi[2025]No.3; ZheHangZhiFaCaiZi[2025]No.4.

[2] Li Yang and Chen Tianyou, “Theoretical Explanation and Institutional Development of Administrative Adjudication of Standard-Essential Patent Infringement Disputes,” Intellectual Property, No. 3 (2026), pp. 3–23.

[3] ibid.

Source: King & Wood Mallesons