In contrast to the Markman hearing in the United States, usually there is no separate procedure for claim interpretation in China. Since China follows a civil law system, China does not have jury trials and does not need to have a separate hearing for claim interpretation. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) suggested that claim interpretation should be conducted first and should then be compared to the scope to the properly interpreted claim to the accused device later, which is consistent with the practice in the United States. But in practice, most judges do not separate the steps of claim interpretation and infringement determination, which is similar to the practice in Japan and Germany. In other words, a judge usually has already reviewed all the information about the accused device before starting claim interpretation. It is very common that a judicial opinion begins by comparing the difference between the patented invention and the accused device and then discusses the disputed claim terms in the context of the comparison.