CNIPA Calls for Comment on Draft Guidelines for Patent Adjudication and Mediation, the Framework Huawei Used to Settle With Xiaomi and Transsion
May 26, 2026
Released on Monday, CNIPA’s Draft Guidelines on Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes (AAMPD) are now open for public comment. Huawei previously used AAMPD to reach settlements with Xiaomi and Transsion outside court. Comments are due by June 9, 2026. Feedback can be emailed to zhifa@cnipa.gov.cn. The draft guidelines and relevant explanatory notes are set out below.
Why AAMPD？
AAMPD serves as another key channel for patent dispute resolution in China. Administrative adjudications are primarily issued by CNIPA and local intellectual property administrations. It acts as a vital supplement to judicial proceedings. AAMPD is faster, cheaper, and more technical than litigation, enabling quick, nationwide enforcement.
On June 1, 2021, the CNIPA implemented the Measures for Administrative Adjudication of Major Patent Infringement Disputes, in an effort to strengthen administrative adjudication in major patent cases. Despite being in effect for several years, however, very few cases have been accepted under the Measures. This is not due to lack of demand from companies, but rather because CNIPA has been extremely cautious in accepting cases for filing.
The first and only formal administrative adjudication to date are Boehringer Ingelheim v. Sunshine Lake Pharma (PRIP Wechat, Aug 7, 2022). CNIPA found Sunshine Lake Pharma had infringed the patent and issued an injunction ordering the removal of the drug from all national pharmaceutical procurement platforms.
Another case, Huawei v. Xiaomi (PRIP Wechat, May 27, 2023), was accepted by CNIPA but later withdrawn following a global cross‑license settlement. CNIPA played a key role in mediating between the two parties, and no formal administrative adjudication was issued.
Although CNIPA rarely accepts such AAMPD cases, local intellectual property administrations have handled a large number of them. According to statistics released by CNIPA, around 50,000 to 70,000 AAMPD cases have been handled nationwide each year over the past five years.
Who benefits？
Pharmaceutical company
Many foreign pharmaceutical companies have used to the AAMPD mechanism to resolve patent disputes in China. Before filing an AAMPD application with CNIPA, Boehringer Ingelheim had already submitted a similar request to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration on the same grounds.
In addition, Gilead submitted a patent infringement petition to the Nanjing Intellectual Property Administration on September 23, 2024. It alleges that Kaigen Technology’s Sovri® (Sofosbuvir Tablets) infringes its patent (PRIP Wechat, Oct 5, 2025).
Gilead is not the only party choosing to file AAMPD applications at the Nanjing Intellectual Property Administration. AstraZeneca has brought cases against Sino Universal Pharmaceutical, and Nutricia has initiated proceedings against Nanjing Tongrentang. A number of domestic Chinese enterprises have also chosen this venue for AAMPD actions, including Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs Jewim Pharmaceutical (Shandong) Co., Ltd., and Jiangsu Yuyue Medical Equipment & Supply Co., Ltd. vs Jiangxi Aicare Medical Technology Co., Ltd. (PRIP Wechat, Oct 17, 2025)
Huawei & Co.
Companies including Huawei appear to have long trialled China’s administrative adjudication as a means to secure patent royalties for a long time.
PRIP’s earliest coverage dates to 2020 (PRIP Wechat, June 12, 2025). iPEL founder Brian Yates purchased patents from Huawei and ZTE and established a Global Innovation Aggregator (GIA) to administer them. GIA filed AAMPD claims with the Beijing and Hefei Intellectual Property Administrations against Netgear for infringement of ZL2011103890196 (Huawei) and ZL2007101180340 (ZTE). The Beijing authority ruled on May 28, 2020 that Netgear’s products did not infringe Patent No. '196. PRIP analyzed this trend in an article published in March 2023 (PRIP Wechat, Mar 1, 2023).
The Huawei v. Transsion AAMPD case is featured as a typical case in China’s 2025 White Paper on Intellectual Property Protection. This SEP dispute, involving an H.265/HEVC patent in the Access Advance (AA) pool, saw Huawei file an AAMPD claim against Transsion with the Guangdong Intellectual Property Administration in July 2025. During the oral hearing in November 2025, the parties reached a mediation agreement on the spot. Transsion subsequently obtained a license from the AA patent pool, prompting Huawei to withdraw the case.
Conclusion
The CNIPA issued the Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes (33 pages) in December 2024. This 566-page draft guideline details the measures from a practical, operational perspective.
PRIP learned that the CNIPA has prioritized AAMPD cases as a key area of work and will increase adjudication of such cases in the future. Therefore, patent holders may pay more attention to this avenue for patent protection in China.