On June 29, 2026, the Supreme People's Court issued its final judgment in a high-profile invention patent infringement case involving Apple Pay

functionality. The Court held that the accused technical solution did not fall within the scope of protection of the asserted patent, and accordingly rejected all claims of the plaintiff.

The case centered on a patent (No.201310049634.1,titled "Mobile Device,  Virtual Valuable ltem Conversion System and Conversion Method"). The plaintiff alleged that Apple's iPhone products featuring Apple Pay infringed the patent.

Key issues examined:

① The technical architecture of Apple Pay

② The meaning of key claim terms such as "electrical connection,” “verification code," "application program," and "personalization information"

③ Whether any features were equivalent or identical to the claimed invention

What the Court found:

· The accused solution was identical or equivalent to some technical features of the patent claims

· However, for at least two critical features - the "verification code" and the application program & personalization information" - the accused solution was neither identical nor equivalent to the patent's claimed technology

· Therefore, the accused solution did not infringe the patent

Key takeaway for lP practitioners: This case highlights the importance of claim interpretation and element-by-element infringement analysis, particularly in software and payment technology disputes. Even when two systems achieve similar commercial functions, the specific technical differences can determine the outcome of infringement analysis.