In Europe, virtually any third party other than the patent owner may oppose a patent before the European Patent Office (EPO), including through an anonymous “straw man” acting for someone else. In the United States, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) also allows broad standing for inter partes review, but petitioners must disclose all real parties in interest or risk dismissal.
Historically, China was even more permissive. Article 45 of the Patent Law allowed “any entity or individual” to file a patent invalidation request, including unrelated straw persons or even the patentee itself. Until recently, there was no requirement to disclose any interest or principal. This openness encouraged public participation in eliminating weak patents, but it also created room for abuse through proxy challengers, commonly referred to in practice as “straw men” (稻草人).
Genuine-intent requirement: new rule and court guidance
New guidelines (2023)
In late 2023, China tightened its invalidation regime by introducing a “genuine intent” (真实意思表示) requirement. The amended Patent Examination Guidelines, effective in early 2024, now make clear that an invalidation request must reflect the true intention of the named requester, rather than a false or purely nominal one.
In practice, this means a petition filed under a false name or without the named requester’s real authorisation can be rejected as inadmissible. The rule targets situations in which a company covertly attacks a competitor’s patent through a front individual or agency.
Importantly, this is not a standing requirement. The requester still does not need a direct interest in the patent. The new rule only requires that the named requester genuinely intended to file. Put differently, China still permits straw-man filings in principle, but the straw man must be a real and willing participant, not a fabricated or unwilling proxy.
First test case (2025)
In November 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) applied this new standard in a widely noted AstraZeneca-related case. It dismissed an invalidation petition because the request did not reflect the petitioner’s genuine intent, marking the first publicised case in which a straw-man filing was rejected on that basis.
The named petitioner, an individual with no obvious pharmaceutical background, was suspected of acting as a proxy. AstraZeneca challenged the filing’s legitimacy and uncovered several irregularities, including a forged power-of-attorney signature, then submitted more than 20 pieces of evidence regarding the petitioner’s connections to certain IP service providers.
CNIPA agreed that the request did not satisfy Article 45 because the authorisation was falsified and therefore did not reflect the requester’s true will. It further held that a later “ratification” by the named individual could not cure the original defect. The case signals that Chinese authorities are now prepared to investigate and reject sham invalidation requests made through straw men.
Burden of proof on patentees
China’s courts have also clarified who bears the burden of proving lack of genuine intent. In a 2025 Supreme People’s Court decision, case (2025) 最高法知行终71号, the Court emphasised that the patent owner bears the burden of showing that an invalidation request was not filed with genuine intent.
In practice, this means the patentee must produce evidence of straw-man behaviour, such as forged documents, covert control, or other signs of falsity. Without solid proof, even a suspicious filing will still proceed on the merits. This is consistent with earlier Supreme Court reasoning that defects in the requester’s identity do not automatically invalidate the proceeding unless the patentee can show the request was a sham or abusive.
The result is a measured shift: the new Guidelines give patent owners a procedural tool, but the burden remains on them to use it effectively.
No attorneys as straw men
A related reform draws a sharper ethical line for patent intermediaries. Part I, Chapter 1, Section 4.1.6 of the amended Guidelines expressly prohibits patent agencies and patent attorneys from filing applications or invalidation requests in their own names on behalf of clients, echoing Article 18 of the Patent Agency Regulation.
In other words, a patent firm may no longer act as the nominal requester. Such conduct is now a serious violation and may trigger regulatory penalties. This closes a loophole that previously allowed agencies to front invalidation attacks while concealing the real interested party.
Before these changes, China’s invalidation system looked closer to the EPO model in form: anyone could file, and the identity or interest behind the challenger usually did not matter. China even allowed a patentee, through a straw man, to challenge its own patent, often to seek claim amendments.
The 2023–2025 reforms add accountability without abandoning open filing. Any entity or individual may still request invalidation, because the law on who may file has not changed. But the named requester must now genuinely intend to file the request. CNIPA may examine whether an apparently unrelated individual is merely serving as a false conduit.
In that sense, China’s new position can be summarised simply: straw men are still possible, but fake straw men are not. This moves China somewhat closer to the U.S. emphasis on procedural integrity, while stopping short of the USPTO’s real-party-in-interest disclosure requirement. China still does not require disclosure of the true sponsor. Instead, it polices the authenticity of the named requester’s intent.
For patent challengers seeking anonymity
Anonymity remains possible in China’s invalidation proceedings, but the margin for error is now much smaller. The named requester must genuinely consent and properly execute the filing documents. Any sign of fabricated intent, such as a forged signature, weak authorisation, or an implausible nominal filer, may result in the petition being rejected at the threshold.
Challengers should also avoid using their China patent attorney or patent agency as the straw man, because that practice is now expressly prohibited. The selected filer should be prepared to substantiate identity and intent if CNIPA raises questions.
The practical lesson is clear: anonymity is still available, but only through a credible and genuinely authorised requester.
These reforms give patent owners a new procedural defense against dubious invalidation attacks. When faced with a petition filed by an unknown or suspicious party, the patentee can now challenge admissibility on the ground that the request lacks genuine intent.
That challenge, however, must be evidence-driven. Patent owners should look for forged documents, inconsistent signatures, repeated filings by the same nominal party, ties between the requester and a competitor, or other signs of covert control. The AstraZeneca case shows that such arguments can succeed when properly supported.
Patent owners should also check whether the request was filed in the name of a patent agency or patent attorney. If so, that may itself be a regulatory violation and an immediate basis for objection.
Overall, the new rules give patent owners more leverage against harassing or bad-faith invalidation filings, but only where they can build a factual record strong enough to prove the request is not genuine.
References (memberships/logins required):
The AstraZeneca case can be found at this official website: 国家知识产权局
The Supreme Court decision can be found at this official website: 首页
FICPI's view and involvement
FICPI uniquely combines education and advocacy on topics around patents and trade marks, with a focus on developing the professional excellence of its individual members. FICPI Forums, Congress, committees and meetings are opportunities to gather insights from the international IP attorney community on any issue, whether it be practice-related or topics of patent and trade mark law.
Next steps
Explore the FICPI Study & Work Groups and get more involved with FICPI’s work, including its Working Group on International Patent Matters (CET 3).