Reverse Estoppel: Application of the Rule in the Chinese legal system

This article will discuss the application of the concept of “reverse estoppel” as enshrined in related legal provisions, and the factors considered. This is based on a recent judgment from China's Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) between VMI Holland B.V. (VMI) and Safe-Run Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (Safe-Run) (See Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) Administrative Judgment No. 663 ("Judgment No. 663") of 2021). A relatively new concept of “reverse estoppel”, which seems to be a reversed application of the principle of “estoppel”, is discussed in that case.

In patent invalidation proceedings and the related administrative litigations, the patentee may have to amend the existing claims in order to maintain the validity of its patent rights, or make a restrictive construction of the features in the claims to overcome the prior art documents submitted by the petitioner. On the other hand, in parallel patent infringement dispute proceedings, the patentee might be inclined to interpret the patent claims of its patent to the maximum extent possible, to effectively cover the accused infringing products. In order to maintain consistency in the scope of the same claims in patent administrative and infringement…