Recently, the Supreme People's Procuratorate selected and compiled 5 typical cases of technical support for intellectual property procuratorial case handling. These cases use technological means to support the performance of legal supervision duties and have inspirational and demonstrative significance for intellectual property procuratorial case handling in the new era.
Case1 The case of infringement of trade secrets by Xia, Li, and two others.
Significance:
Intelligent electronic evidence review software was used to accurately reconstruct the criminal process; prosecutorial technical personnel were assigned to substantively review electronic data and loss assessment reports; and the technical investigator mechanism was relied upon to determine the non-public nature of the technology. This deep integration enhanced evidentiary precision, enabled accurate findings of criminal facts and amounts, and strengthened judicial protection of core technologies.
Case2 The case of counterfeit registered trademarks and infringement of trade secrets by Hong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Zhang, and five others.
Significance:
In response to specialized barriers in chemical engineering, a technical investigator was engaged through hierarchical reporting to assist in case handling. The appraisal opinion was substantively reviewed, the overall non-public nature of combined information and its differences from patents were demonstrated, and the simplified abstract was found to be substantially identical to the original text. This overcame difficulties in ascertaining technical facts, provided key support for accurate conviction and sentencing, and ensured the case’s technical rigor.
Case3 The case of copyright infringement and illegal business operations by Zhong.
Significance:
Through code decompilation comparison, software packing analysis, and simulation experiments, the entire process of circumventing technical measures was accurately reconstructed. Substantive review established that protective measures such as VMProtect constituted technological measures under copyright law, clarifying the nature of the novel infringement. Technical fact-finding supported the additional charge of copyright infringement, achieving full-chain enforcement and comprehensive protection.
Case4 The case of copyright infringement by Zhao.
Significance:
Collaborative efforts resolved online infringement challenges: data recovery and correlation analysis identified the behind-the-scenes operator, overcoming difficulties in identifying the responsible entity; substantive review of video traceability evidence precisely defined “deep linking” as an act of information network dissemination; and random sampling and image authentication comprehensively verified the number of massive infringing works. A technical investigator was applied for to appear in court and explain the technical principles, effectively responding to defenses and ensuring accurate conviction and sentencing.
Case5 The case of supervision over the judgment result of a dispute over infringement of an invention patent between A and a certain construction engineering company
Significance:
Ex officio commissioning of an appraisal and on-site inspection confirmed the silk-screen printing process; an appraiser was applied for to appear in court and explain technical facts, consolidating the basis for supervision. The allocation of the burden of proof was precisely reviewed, the court’s errors in failing to collect evidence upon application and in improperly allocating the burden were identified, facilitating settlement in the retrial and effectively protecting the patentee’s lawful rights and interests. (September 2, 2026, Supreme People’s Procuratorate)
Case1 The case of infringement of trade secrets by Xia, Li, and two others.
Significance:
Intelligent electronic evidence review software was used to accurately reconstruct the criminal process; prosecutorial technical personnel were assigned to substantively review electronic data and loss assessment reports; and the technical investigator mechanism was relied upon to determine the non-public nature of the technology. This deep integration enhanced evidentiary precision, enabled accurate findings of criminal facts and amounts, and strengthened judicial protection of core technologies.
Case2 The case of counterfeit registered trademarks and infringement of trade secrets by Hong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Zhang, and five others.
Significance:
In response to specialized barriers in chemical engineering, a technical investigator was engaged through hierarchical reporting to assist in case handling. The appraisal opinion was substantively reviewed, the overall non-public nature of combined information and its differences from patents were demonstrated, and the simplified abstract was found to be substantially identical to the original text. This overcame difficulties in ascertaining technical facts, provided key support for accurate conviction and sentencing, and ensured the case’s technical rigor.
Case3 The case of copyright infringement and illegal business operations by Zhong.
Significance:
Through code decompilation comparison, software packing analysis, and simulation experiments, the entire process of circumventing technical measures was accurately reconstructed. Substantive review established that protective measures such as VMProtect constituted technological measures under copyright law, clarifying the nature of the novel infringement. Technical fact-finding supported the additional charge of copyright infringement, achieving full-chain enforcement and comprehensive protection.
Case4 The case of copyright infringement by Zhao.
Significance:
Collaborative efforts resolved online infringement challenges: data recovery and correlation analysis identified the behind-the-scenes operator, overcoming difficulties in identifying the responsible entity; substantive review of video traceability evidence precisely defined “deep linking” as an act of information network dissemination; and random sampling and image authentication comprehensively verified the number of massive infringing works. A technical investigator was applied for to appear in court and explain the technical principles, effectively responding to defenses and ensuring accurate conviction and sentencing.
Case5 The case of supervision over the judgment result of a dispute over infringement of an invention patent between A and a certain construction engineering company
Significance:
Ex officio commissioning of an appraisal and on-site inspection confirmed the silk-screen printing process; an appraiser was applied for to appear in court and explain technical facts, consolidating the basis for supervision. The allocation of the burden of proof was precisely reviewed, the court’s errors in failing to collect evidence upon application and in improperly allocating the burden were identified, facilitating settlement in the retrial and effectively protecting the patentee’s lawful rights and interests. (September 2, 2026, Supreme People’s Procuratorate)