The endless emergence of new online shopping formats has brought new challenges to patent infringement disputes, it is difficult to determine the regional jurisdiction of internet patent infringement cases due to the uncertainty of place of infringement. In judicial practice, different courts have different judgment positions on the issue of whether the court in the receiving place of online shopping has jurisdiction. The Supreme People’s Court established the ruling rule of regional jurisdiction excluding the place of receipt in the cases of objection to jurisdiction over patent infringement disputes such as Gree and Aux, which provided guidelines for the judgment of similar cases. Through the analysis of 185 cases of objection to jurisdiction, it is found that the judgment logic of affirming or denying the jurisdiction of the court at the receiving place of online shopping centers on the elements of the information network tort and the identification of the place of tort. It should be made clear that the primary principle followed by the internet patent infringement jurisdiction norms is the certainty of jurisdiction, while taking into account the territorial nature of patent rights. In judicial adjudication, it is first necessary to clarify that Articles 20 and 25 of the Judicial Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law are not the basis for the court in the place of receipt to obtain jurisdiction. Secondly, the online shopping receipt process is an independent process in which the patented product is separated from the actual control of the seller, so the place of receipt cannot be interpreted as the place where the patent infringement is committed, nor is it the place of direct result of the patent infringement. Then there are exceptions to this rule. In some cases, the principle of the closest connection may be applied to the interpretation of the place of infringement, and the place of receipt of online purchase can be regarded as a special conflict rule for the jurisdiction of patent infringement. It is worth noting that in the current legal provisions, the connection point of the regional jurisdiction of network copyright infringement includes the source of information, and Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law can be directly applied, but this article cannot be expanded to cover the acts of network trademark and patent infringement. Finally, the application of the rule should take into account integration with other separate IP laws. It is necessary to clarify the specific connotation of the place where the infringement result occurs in the patent infringement litigation, so as to maintain the formal uniformity of the legal rules of various separate laws of intellectual property rights. In terms of the integration of the regional jurisdiction rules of foreign-related patent infringement, it is a more economical jurisdiction choice to take the place of receipt of online shopping as the jurisdiction connection point.