ABSTRACT Civil law indicates that an injunction shall be granted once property rights and personal rights are found to have been violated. In China, intellectual property judicial practice has adhered to this rule, resulting in an initial approach to patent injunctions known as ‘injunctive relief as a matter of course’. However, with a deeper understanding of corrective justice in law and economics theory, the automatic application of injunction for patents has been restricted. Conversely, in disputes over standard essential patents (SEPs), China has shifted its approach to injunctive relief from de facto exclusion to conditional application. Although the approaches to ordinary patents and SEPs have diverged, the underlying theoretical support, i.e. the balance of interest principle and the proportionality principle, remains consistent. An analysis reveals that the balance of interest principle provides guidance in the settlement of SEP disputes, while the proportionality principle serves as an effective tool for implementation.