According to data released by the Supreme Peoples Court, since its establishment on January 1, 2019, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Peoples Court has accepted 24,602 cases and concluded 23,069 cases, achieving remarkable results in incentivizing and safeguarding scientific and technological innovation, maintaining fair market competition, serving high-level opening up, and deepening the reform of the judicial system. Among them, 6,745 cases involving strategic emerging industries...

Details

Recently, the State Council Information Office held a press conference where relevant leading officials of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) introduced the intellectual property work in 2025, as detailed below: (I) Patents A total of 972,000 invention patents, 1.461 million utility model patents and 666,000 design patents were granted throughout the year. 96,000 patent reexamination and invalidation cases were concluded. The examination cycle for invention patents w...

Details

Recently, according to the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), in 2025, market supervision authorities continued to launch the special campaign to rectify online unfair competition acts. Market supervision authorities at all levels across the country investigated and handled a total of 1,932 online unfair competition cases, with fines and confiscations totaling CNY 71.5294 million. In addition, eight typical cases were selected: 1. The Shiqi Branch of Zhongshan Municipal Administr...

Details

Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Peoples Court announced a patent infringement case involving electronic-grade copper oxide, which set a record of over CNY 120 million in compensation awarded to a natural person in a patent litigation case. The court of first instance ruled that Company L shall be liable for compensation of CNY 120 million, considering the factors such as the role of the patent involved in the production process of the infringing products, the comparison...

Details

The CNIPA recently released the statistics related to royalties for patent licensing for the year 2024 and the period from 2020 to 2024, aiming to support local intellectual property administration departments, relevant centers, and companies and organizations in strengthening the use of such statistics, providing references for assessment, pricing in intellectual property licensing and transactions, and determination of infringement damages. The statistics covers patent licensing agreements fil...

Details

Recently, a judgment was issued in a case involving Company A infringing upon the trade secrets of a well-known company, which was handled by Shanghai procuratorial organs under the guidance of the Supreme Peoples Procuratorate. The illegally obtained technical information in this case was valued at CNY 317 million. The defendant, Zhang, was originally the head of the radio frequency chip development department of a well-known company. After leaving the company, he founded Company A and successi...

Details

Recently, the Supreme Peoples Court issued a final judgment in an infrared thermal imaging software copyright infringement case, increasing the first-instance damages award from CNY 15 million to over CNY 55 million, applying punitive damages. The Supreme Peoples Court held that when determining the multiplier for punitive damages, the possibility of the infringer evading accountability should be considered. In determining the multiplier for punitive damages in intellectual property infringement...

Details

Recently, the Supreme Peoples Court released the Report of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Peoples Court on Strengthening Integrity and Curbing Malicious Litigation and five typical cases in this regard. 1. Malicious Litigation Case Involving Dashcam Patent - (2023) SPC IP Civil Final No. 869 2. Malicious Litigation Case Involving Utility Model Patent Target Flowmeter - (2022) SPC IP Civil Final No. 1861 3. Malicious Litigation Case Involving Utility Model Patent Guide Rail - (202...

Details

In the invalidation procedure, there have always been disputes over whether amendments should be allowed after grant to correct a mistranslation in PCT applications, and whether such mistranslation would cause a patent to be declared invalid as being challenged of go-beyond-scope amendment. It seems inequitable to deny a patent of its technical contribution due to a mistranslation. On the other hand, permitting unconditional corrections after grant undermines the principle of public notice, harm...

Details

Case No.: (2023) SPC IP No. 913 (Invention Patent Grant Case concerning Tissue Occlusion Agent) [Judgment Digest] The so-called reference documents introduced in the patent reexamination decision were not used to corroborate the content disclosed in...

Details