I. Patent Case Adjudication

1. Characterization of Patent Valuation Reports in Infringement Disputes

  Case No. (2024) Min Zai 244, Supreme People’s Court

  Essence of the Ruling:

  In patent-infringement disputes, a patent-valuation report may serve as one piece of evidence, but the validity of the patent must still be assessed against the language of the granted patent and any effective decision by the administrative authority. Where a patentee sues for infringement on the basis of a valid patent, a valuation report’s negative conclusion—asserting the patent fails to meet the statutory grant conditions—cannot alone deprive the patentee of standing and warrant dismissal of the suit.

2. Coordinating Infringement Findings Across Related Cases

  Case No. (2023) Zhi Min Zhong 740, Supreme People’s Court

  Essence of the Ruling:

  For the same accused product, the same patent right, and the same non-infringement defense, related cases must reach consistent conclusions to avoid conflicting judgments. Even if the alleged infringer did not appeal one trial court’s decision, the appellate court may, based on a final judgment in a companion case recognizing that defense, revise its own ruling to hold the same defense valid.

3. Conditional Judgments with Performance Preconditions and Interest on Delayed Performance

  Case No. (2024) Zhi Min Zhong 370, Supreme People’s Court

  Essence of the Ruling:

4. If property-preservation measures suspend an invalidation proceeding—so that the CNIPA cannot decide an invalidation request before an infringement judgment—the court may attach reasonable conditions to the judgment’s performance (e.g. requiring a CNIPA decision upholding patent validity before injunction or damages obligations take effect) and award interest to balance the parties’ interests.

5. In such conditional judgments, the court may also award interest on the money-damages obligation for the period from delivery of the final judgment until the condition is satisfied, computed at the prevailing loan-market quotation rate; if the judgment debtor still fails to pay after the condition is met, interest doubles for the continued delay.

6. Handling Executed Infringement Judgments after a Subsequent Invalidation Decision

  Case No. (2024) Zhi Min Zai 1, Supreme People’s Court

  Essence of the Ruling:

7. Execution of an infringement judgment following a decision invalidating the patent is not subject to the non-retroactivity rule of Patent Law Art. 47(2). The executing court should, in a “reversal of execution” proceeding, order the judgment-creditor to return any property and fruits obtained; in a retrial, the same remedy may be ordered.

8. Where multiple defendants face judgment at different times—yielding inconsistent applicability of Art. 47(2) and unfair results—the court may invoke Art. 47(3) to achieve equity.

9. Treatment of a First-Category Patent-Linkage Declaration Made Before Patent Registration

  Case No. (2023) Zhi Min Zhong 1593, Supreme People’s Court

  Essence of the Ruling:

  If the marketing authorization holder timely records the patent but the generic-drug applicant filed a Category I declaration before such recordation, the holder may, within a reasonable period, require the applicant to convert it to a Category IV declaration. Should the applicant either apply to convert to Category IV, refuse to convert, or convert to another incorrect category, the court must accept and substantively adjudicate any patent-linkage lawsuit brought by the patent holder.

10. Changes in Drug Technical Schemes during Patent-Linkage Disputes

   Case No. (2023) Jing 73 Min Chu 855, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   In drug-linkage disputes, the court must rely on the technical scheme that the drug-approval authority uses to assess marketability when determining whether it falls within the patent’s scope. The marketing-authorization applicant must fully disclose any changes to that scheme affecting scope-of-protection analysis, or bear adverse consequences.

11. Determining Inventorship for a “Second Medical Use” Patent

   Case No. (2022) Su 05 Min Chu 925, Suzhou First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   A “second medical use” patent rests on discovering a new therapeutic use for a known compound. Those who proposed the inventive concept, materially contributed to the technical solution’s formation or substantive improvement, or played a key role in R\&D may be named inventors.

12. Identification of a “Use-Environment” Feature and Infringement Analysis

   Case No. (2022) Hu 73 Zhi Min Chu 223, Shanghai First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Use-environment features are determined by patent title, invention theme, claim language on installation relationships, and the specification. An accused product need not literally include the environment-related component; it suffices that the product can operate in the environment defined by the claim.

13. Refusal of Patents for Inventions Violating Social Morality or Public Interest (e.g., Funeral Goods)

   Case No. (2023) Zhi Xing Zhong 2, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

14. Patents protect inventions that advance science, technology, or socio-economic development; “inventions” lacking such benefit should not be protected, in line with Patent Law’s purpose.

15. Guided by socialist core values and social morality, judicial practice must refuse patents for “inventions” whose use offends public morality or harms the public interest.

16. Admissibility of Deletion-Type Amendments in Oral Invalidity Hearings

   Case No. (2022) Zhi Xing Zhong 870, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   In oral invalidation proceedings, when the CNIPA rejects amended claims, the patentee must be allowed to delete the unaccepted claims and proceed on the remaining accepted claims. Whether proposed orally or in writing, deletions should be accepted; if replacement pages are not filed on the spot, the CNIPA may set a deadline. Failure to meet that deadline means no lawful amendment, and the CNIPA may act accordingly.

17. Clarity of Drawings in Design-Patent Applications

   Case No. (2024) Zhi Xing Zhong 672, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   If, considering the general consumer’s knowledge and perception and the combination of patent views, use-state figures, and common sense, multiple plausible designs remain, the drawings do not clearly show the design for which protection is sought.

---

II. Trademark Case Adjudication

12. Factors for Recognizing Infringement of a Geographical-Indication Certification Mark

   Case No. (2024) Min Zai 21, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   To decide if a defendant infringed a GI-certification trademark, consider: (1) whether the accused goods meet the geographic-origin requirement; (2) whether they possess the GI’s specific qualities; (3) whether consumers are likely to be confused as to origin or qualities.

13. Recognition of a Prior-Use Defense in Trademark Cases

   Case No. (2024) Min Zai 218, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Balancing the interests of the prior-user and the registered-mark owner, a bona fide user of an identical or similar mark on the same or similar goods who has acquired some influence may continue use within the original scope. But if prior use post-dates the registrant’s use and the user knew or should have known of the registration, the defense fails.

14. Legitimate Use of a Scenic-Spot Name

   Case No. (2024) Min Zai 123, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Using a mark solely to refer to a scenic spot’s name or to describe its features, without exceeding what is necessary, will not confuse consumers and thus is legitimate use, not infringement.

15. Prioritizing Infringer’s Profits When Evidence Exists

   Case No. (2023) Min Zai 178, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Trademark Law Art. 63 provides a three-tier order for calculating damages. Where evidence of actual loss, infringer’s profits, or reasonable royalty exists, courts must apply them in that order; statutory damages are only a last resort.

16. Similarity between Retail Services and “Advertising for Others” (Class 35)

   Case No. (2022) Su Min Zhong 356, Suzhou Final

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Retail services aimed at end consumers are highly similar in purpose, content, means, and targets to Class 35 “advertising for others.” Unauthorized use of a Class 35 mark in retail activities likely confuses consumers and constitutes infringement.

17. Contribution-Rate Calculation and Punitive Damages in Pharma-Trademark Cases

   Case No. (2021) Su 05 Min Chu 437, Suzhou First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

18. Calculate a mark’s contribution rate to infringing-product profits by weighing industry trends, consumer behavior, entry barriers, tech differences between originator and generic, and the trademark owner’s reputation.

19. Where an infringer is a shareholder-turned-competitor who registers a confusing mark after an administrative invalidation but continues using it on high-risk drugs, serious malicious infringement justifies punitive damages.

20. Distinctiveness of Trade Dress Trademarks

   Case No. (2024) Xing Shen 5449, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   A trade dress application for product appearance lacks distinctiveness absent evidence that actual use has enabled consumers to recognize the appearance as a source identifier beyond mere ornamentation.

21. Trademark Registration vs. Prior Domain-Name Rights

   Case No. (2024) Xing Zai 244, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   To find a trademark registration harms a prior domain-name right, the claimant must show: (1) earlier domain registration with some reputation; (2) identical/similar goods or services; (3) sectoral overlap; (4) consumer confusion likely. Use and promotion evidence may prove domain-name notoriety.

22. “Unfair Means” Registration under Art. 44(1) of the Trademark Law

   Case No. (2024) Xing Zai 88, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   A bulk filing of marks alone does not prove unfair registration. Where the applicant shows genuine intent or has already used the mark legitimately and reasonably, a finding of “unfair means” is unwarranted.

23. Determining Goods in a Three-Year Non-Use Cancellation

   Case No. (2024) Xing Zai 51, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   If actual use covers goods outside the Nice-Table terminology but those goods are essentially the same or fall under a subcategory of the registered goods, use counts toward the registered specification. Later table revisions do not affect that conclusion.

24. Whether Game-Streaming Platforms Provide “Advertising for Others”

   Case No. (2024) Jing Xing 6099, Beijing Final

   Essence of the Ruling:

   A game-streaming platform that promotes games via live streams, downloads, forums, and events—thereby boosting downloads and revenue in exchange for sharing fees—provides marketing services for others under Class 35.

---

III. Copyright Case Adjudication

23. Protection of Applied-Art Works as Fine-Art Works

   Case No. (2023) Min Zai 40, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   For designs combining functionality and artistry, parties may elect protection under either Copyright Law (as fine art) or Design-Patent Law. Under Copyright Law, determine only whether the work meets the formal criteria for fine art and has originality—no separate “type” or “originality” test is needed.

24. Exhaustion of Distribution Rights for Computer Software

   Case No. (2022) Zhi Min Zhong 1460, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

25. Where software requires specific hardware, bundled sale of the hardware and software counts as distribution of a tangible copy, exhausting distribution rights. The purchaser then owns that copy and may use or transfer it, though copying beyond personal lawful use remains prohibited.

26. Restrictions on modified-copy distribution apply only if the modified software itself is the principal transaction target; where software merely complements hardware, transfer of the hardware copy exhausts the right.

27. Substantial Similarity of Fine-Art Works

   Case No. (2019) Jing 73 Min Chu 1376, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Assess substantial similarity from an ordinary observer’s standpoint, considering visual features, compositional elements, expressiveness, and overall impression. Minor differences ignored by an untrained eye still support a finding of similarity. When many works are involved, consider them collectively and weigh the author’s style and methods.

28. Right of Screenwriter Credit after Withdrawal

   Case No. (2020) Jing 0108 Min Chu 39696, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Whether a departing screenwriter retains credit rights depends on the contract terms, use of the writer’s unique content, and the content’s substantial contribution. Absent a contractual clause, if the film uses a writer’s original material to a degree that materially shapes the work, credit is warranted.

29. Liability for Infringing Content in In-Car Systems

   Case No. (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu 11731, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Operators of in-car platform servers that provide or promote infringing videos bear direct liability for online-communication infringement. Where the system operator participated in launch, display, or promotion and profited, joint liability with the platform arises.

30. Enhanced Duty of Care Where Algorithmic Aggregation Assists Infringement

   Case No. (2022) Hu 0115 Min Chu 29412, Shanghai First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Courts must distinguish neutral technology from its application. When a platform’s algorithm aggregates infringing clips under topics or categories for users, the algorithmic design and intent heighten the provider’s duty of care and affect willfulness findings.

31. Liability of Generative-AI Service Providers

   Case Nos. First instance (2024) Zhe 0192 Min Chu 1587; Second instance (2024) Zhe 01 Min Zhong 10332, Zhejiang Courts

   Essence of the Ruling:

32. Assess aiding infringement by weighing the provider’s business model, the works’ fame, obviousness of infringement, AI maturity, feasible safeguards, and the broader industry impact—adjusting fault standards dynamically and aligning duties with management capacity.

33. Generative-AI services fall under unfair-competition law only if they breach good faith, disrupt market order, or injure other rights-holders or consumers.

34. Direct Infringement by Cloud-Storage Providers and “Necessary Measures”

   Case No. (2022) Yue Min Zai 59, Guangdong Final

   Essence of the Ruling:

35. A “deduplication” storage technique does not alter the work’s source. If data flows wholly from a third-party node to the cloud and then to the user, the cloud is merely a conduit, not a direct infringer.

36. Where users share infringing content, cloud providers must take steps to stop the ongoing infringement, similar acts, and future recurrences—e.g. disabling links and share-functions for non-hot or minor infringements.

---

IV. Competition Case Adjudication

31. Determining an “Enterprise Name with Some Influence”

   Case No. (2023) Min Zhong 418, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   To decide if a name has “some influence” under Anti-Unfair Competition Law Art 6(2), use the name’s first-use date as a baseline and consider consumer awareness, sales volume/area, publicity duration/intensity, and protection status. Knowledge of prior use by the infringer may imply market notoriety.

32. Overall Assessment of Trade-Secret Misappropriation and Specific Remedies

   Case No. (2023) Zhi Min Zhong 1590, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

33. In large-scale, organized talent or resource poaching, where a defendant quickly produces similar products and had access to the secrets, courts may lighten the claimant’s burden and presume misappropriation unless rebutted.

34. To ensure effective injunctive relief, courts may determine specific measures ex officio—considering harm severity, urgency, and enforceability—and may require: ceasing production/sale, destroying or returning materials, sending internal and external notices, and obtaining non-disclosure and non-infringement undertakings.

35. Courts may also set penalty rates for non-monetary obligations, calculated per diem, monthly, or as a lump sum, to enhance deterrence.

36. Recognition of Trade-Secret Infringement and Liability

   Case No. (2022) Zhi Min Zhong 1592, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

37. If evidence shows the defendant unlawfully acquired and used trade secrets and the claimant shows a risk of continued misappropriation, and the defendant fails to rebut, infringement is established.

38. An employee who, via a spouse’s hidden stake, forms a company and misappropriates secrets is jointly liable with that company.

39. Where software and data are inseparable, proof of data use permits inferring software use as well.

40. The statute-of-limitations defense fails if no evidence shows the claimant neglected enforcement and the defendant seeks to limit liability only to the three years pre-suit.

41. Unfairness of Ticket-Snatching Software

   Case No. (2024) Jing 0101 Min Chu 4607, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Ticket-snatching software that uses technology to give users unfair buying advantages undermines platform rules, harms both the platform and consumers, and disturbs fair competition—thus constituting unfair competition.

42. Unfairness of Unauthorized Data Use

   Case No. (2023) Hu 0114 Min Chu 13000, Shanghai First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   A platform owner who lawfully gathers and monetizes user and content data holds property rights in aggregated data. A defendant who uses technical means to scrape nonpublic data and offer paid services exceeds reasonable limits, violates business ethics, and disrupts competition—thus acting unfairly.

43. Non-Publicity of a Trade Secret

   Case No. (2022) E 01 Zhi Min Chu 707, Hubei First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Even if each step or parameter of a technical process is public, the combination as an integrated scheme may still qualify as a protected trade secret. Courts must judge against trade-secret criteria, not patent-law novelty/creativity standards.

44. Standards for a “Technology-Neutral” Defense

   Case No. (2024) Yu 0192 Min Chu 2546, Chongqing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   In unfair-competition suits, alleges of “technology neutrality” must be tested by whether the technology is used legitimately and has substantial non-infringing purposes. Neutral tech that circumvents user intent or platform safeguards is unfair; the defendant must prove genuine non-infringing uses or face liability.

45. Horizontal Monopoly Agreements via Joint Boycotts and Vertical Arrangements

   Case No. (2023) Zhi Min Zhong 653, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   When competitors conspire to boycott rivals, they typically enter both horizontal agreements among themselves and vertical arrangements with suppliers or distributors to reinforce the boycott’s effect. Such vertical ties do not preclude the boycott from being treated as a horizontal monopoly agreement.

46. Judicial Review Standards for Concentrations Likely to Exclude or Restrict Competition

   Case No. (2024) Jing 73 Xing Chu 5180, Beijing First-instance

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Remedies for concentrations threatening competition should not default to prohibition. Courts must weigh case specifics and may accept conditional commitments from parties, evaluating their effectiveness, feasibility, and timeliness in mitigating adverse effects.

---

V. Plant‐Variety Case Adjudication

40. Burden of Proof and Methods for Uniformity and Stability Testing

   Case No. (2022) Zhi Min Zhong 1362, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

41. In uniformity or stability tests, both the rights holder and the accused variety proprietor must diligently produce representative samples, ensure traceability, proper preservation, and credible testing.

42. Where no national or industry standard exists for a molecular-marker method, a qualified institute’s scientifically sound and reproducible method may still serve as admissible evidence.

---

VI. Integrated‐Circuit Layout‐Design Case Adjudication

41. Scope of Protection and Commercial-Use Determination for Layout Designs

   Case No. (2022) Zhi Min Zhong 2133, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

42. A layout showing the three-dimensional arrangement of active elements and interconnections—even without depicting the active elements themselves—falls within the layout’s protected subject matter.

43. If post-layout test-fabrication clearly exceeds what is necessary for performance verification, courts may presume lack of commercial exploitation absent contrary evidence.

---

VII. Procedure and Evidence in IP Litigation

42. Limits on Transferring Jurisdiction

   Case No. (2024) Min Xia 152, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Aside from defects in hierarchical or exclusive jurisdiction, once a party defaults on a jurisdictional objection and participates in defense, the court should not transfer the case even if it later finds lack of jurisdiction.

43. Conditions for Issuing Anti-Anti-Suit (Anti-Enforcement) Injunctions

   Case Nos. (2024) Zhi Min Zhong 914 & 915, Supreme People’s Court

   Essence of the Ruling:

   Where a standards implementer seeks an anti-suit injunction abroad against an SEP holder’s infringement suit in China, and the SEP holder applies for a counter-injunction in the Chinese court, the court may grant it if (a) the SEP holder made FRAND commitments, and (b) the implementer acted improperly in negotiations to obstruct the Chinese court’s process.

Compiled by: Zhang Jing

本文原文为中文，本文由AI辅助翻译

The original text of this article is in Chinese; it was translated with the assistance of AI.