The patent confirmation system is one of the long-term controversial issues in theoretical and practical circles of China. In the trial of patent infringement cases, for the purpose of improve trial efficiency and proper settlement of disputes, some courts are trying to break through the barriers of "administrative unitary system" right confirmation mode, and there is a gradual transition from fully complying with the presumption of the validity of patent rights to actively examining the validity of patent rights. In Qinghe Co. v. Gongchuang Co., Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the plaintiff’s patent right involved in the case did not meet the authorization conditions for creativity. However, the court did not directly determine that the patent right involved in the case was invalid. The Supreme People’s Court affirmed the practice of limited examination by the court of first instance by resorting to the basic principle of good faith, but sent it back for retrial on the ground that the basic facts of the defense of existing technology are unclear, which highlights the tangle. If the case is sent back for retrial, the possible situation will be the old way of returning to the court to suspend the lawsuit and wait for the result of patent invalidation. The "administrative unitary system" right confirmation mode leads to the long trial cycle of patent infringement cases, which needs to be reformed urgently. The existing reform plans can be divided into two categories: giving the court the power to examine the validity of patent rights and establishing the defense system of the invalidity of patent rights. The existing reform plans have their own advantages and disadvantages, some lack theoretical support, some lack effectiveness, and there are great differences, so it is impossible to reach a consensus. The ideal reform plan should be to give the court the appropriate power to review the validity of patent rights, so that the court can not only completely solve the validity of the patent rights involved in the patent infringement litigation, but also have the theoretical support, and will not lead to practical conflict between judicial power and administrative power. It is complementary rather than alternative when the court and the patent administration department share the power to review the validity of patent rights. Giving the court the power to examine the validity disputes of the patent right involved in the patent infringement litigation will not excessively increase the burden of the court, nor will it have much impact on the exercise of function and power of the patent administration department. At the same time, the allocation of power in China has always followed the principle of functionalism. When allocating controversial power among different institutions, what we consider is to allocate power to the institution with the most functional advantages. It is in line with the principle of power allocation in China to endow the court with the power to examine the validity of patent rights involved in patent infringement litigation. Finally, the current team of Chinese courts to hear patent cases has been relatively large and professional. They have accumulated rich experience in examining the validity of patent rights and improved their professional ability, which is enough to be competent for the examination of validity of patent rights. Therefore, the "dual system" right confirmation model is reasonable and feasible, which is expected to solve the problems caused by current patent right confirmation system in China.