To fully leverage the demonstrative and guiding role of these model cases, deepen the effectiveness of judicial protection for intellectual property in Shenzhen, and safeguard high-quality development, the Shenzhen courts hereby release the 2024 collection of their Typical Intellectual Property Cases.

These model cases have the following characteristics:

1. Focus on new fields and new business formats to serve the development of emerging productive forces.

  The cases cover IP disputes in emerging sectors such as big data, biopharmaceuticals, cross-border e-commerce, and live-streaming, proactively responding to the public’s evolving judicial needs.

2. Explore adjudicative rules with an innovative mindset, demonstrating the Rule-of-Law commitment of the Special Economic Zone.

  They delve into cutting-edge, complex legal issues—such as implied patent licensing, data migration on internet platforms, and the boundaries of technology neutrality—pioneering new IP-protection rules at the national level.

3. Strengthen a rigorous IP-protection system to ensure that reform achievements take root and bear fruit.

  Through innovative measures—like shifting burdens of proof to resolve seed-industry enforcement hurdles, applying a “cost-backward” method to justify five-fold punitive damages, and supporting counterclaims against malicious litigation—the cases embody the strongest possible judicial protection orientation.

---

Next Steps:

The Shenzhen courts will continue to study and implement General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important instructions on IP protection, technological innovation, and fair competition. Centered on justice and efficiency, they will fully leverage their adjudicative functions—protecting innovation with innovation, empowering the future through the Rule of Law, and delivering top-quality IP judicial services—to ensure Shenzhen becomes both a benchmark city for IP protection and a globally influential center of industrial and technological innovation.

---

Case Directory

1. Case 1: “Jingnuo 6” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement

2. Case 2: Ya Co. vs. Mei Co., Chang Co., Di Co., Zhao & Zhong – Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition

3. Case 3: Tao Co. vs. Xiao Co. – Unfair Competition

4. Case 4: Wei Co. vs. Xiao Co. et al. – Trade Secrets Infringement

5. Case 5: Tong Co. vs. Rui Co. – Design Patent Infringement

6. Case 6: Bei Co. vs. Shenzhen District Market Supervision Bureau & Shenzhen Municipal Government – Administrative Review

7. Case 7: Kuai Co. vs. Zhui Co. – Unfair Competition

8. Case 8: Swiss Co. vs. Big Co. & Zan Co. – Technology Contract Dispute

9. Case 9: Ya Co. et al. vs. Xi Co. – Unfair Competition in a Foreign-Related IP Dispute

10. Case 10: Suo Co. vs. Xin Co. – Utility Model Patent Infringement

---

Case 1: “Jingnuo 6” Corn New Plant Variety Infringement

Key Holdings

1. When a rights holder’s own commissioned test report has ambiguities—such as unclear sources of comparison samples—the court must warn the rights holder of the risks of not requesting a re-examination. If the rights holder nonetheless requests it, the court may order a new test even over the alleged infringer’s objection or failure to agree.

2. Where no national or industry standards exist for determining parentage between an authorized variety and an accused seed, opinions based on analogous authenticity standards still count as evidence. If those test results cannot exclude that the accused seed was repeatedly produced from the authorized variety, the rights holder has made a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the defendant to prove they did not use the authorized variety.

Facts

Beijing Academy of Sciences holds the variety right in “Jingnuo 6,” and Beijing Breeding Co. is its exclusive licensee. “Jingke Nuo 2000” is a hybrid of “Jingnuo 6” and “Bainuo 6.” Beijing Breeding Co. sued Guangxi Seed Co., Shenzhen Seed Co., and a retail seed shop, seeking to stop them producing “Shenke Nuo 8” from “Jingnuo 6” and to recover losses. The trial court ordered authenticity and parentage tests: “Shenke Nuo 8” was found similar to “Jingke Nuo 2000” and suspected to share parentage with “Jingnuo 6.”

Court Proceedings

First Instance (Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court): Concluding that “Shenke Nuo 8” was produced by repeatedly using “Jingnuo 6” as a parent, the court ordered all defendants to cease infringement. Guangxi Seed Co. was ordered to pay RMB 300,000 in damages and RMB 50,000 in costs; Shenzhen Seed Co. RMB 100,000; the seed shop RMB 20,000.

Appeal & Second Instance (Supreme People’s Court): The Court held that, in the absence of formal parentage standards, test opinions by reference to authenticity criteria are admissible. Together with similarity to “Jingke Nuo 2000,” this constituted strong prima facie evidence. The defendants failed to prove legitimate parentage sources, so their non-infringement claims were rejected. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

Significance

As IP protection in seed breeding deepens, safeguarding parental varieties has become critical. This case offers a blueprint for balancing test evidence, breeding science, and burden-of-proof allocation, ensuring effective protection of variety rights and guiding similar disputes.

---

Case 2: Ya Co. vs. Mei Co., Chang Co., Di Co., Zhao & Zhong — Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition

Key Holdings

When awarding punitive damages for trademark infringement, courts may estimate total costs (production plus operating expenses) and, considering the infringer’s scale and duration, infer profits as the punitive-damage base.

Packaging-design infringement must be treated separately: punitive damages apply only to trademark infringement, while product-design or packaging claims use statutory damages. When statutory, courts weigh the infringer’s malice and circumstances.

Facts

“Yue Moumou/OR\\\” is a flagship line of high-efficacy natural skincare and cosmetics by Aomu Co., under Ya Group. Its distinctive double-tree logo and packaging, heavily advertised, enjoy high public recognition. Defendants Mei Co., Chang Co., Di Co., Zhao, and Zhong used confusingly similar marks and imitated packaging, adding false claims of “EU Organic,” “USDA Organic,” and “CNCA Organic” certifications to project a high-end image.

Court Proceedings

First Instance (Municipal Intermediate Court): Found the defendants’ marks and packaging likely to confuse average consumers, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition. The false certification claims constituted deceptive advertising. As joint tortfeasors, the defendants were ordered to cease all violations, publish corrective statements in Legal Daily and e-commerce platforms, and jointly pay RMB 10,154,390 in economic losses plus RMB 300,000 in costs (total RMB 10,454,390).

Appeal: The defendants withdrew their appeal, and the first-instance judgment became final.

Significance

This case clarifies (1) how to distinguish and separately compensate trademark infringement versus packaging/design unfair competition; (2) criteria for setting the punitive-damage base and multiplier; and (3) the precision required in damage awards—providing rule-based guidance for brand-counterfeiting disputes.

---

Case 3: Tao Co. vs. Xiao Co. — Unfair Competition

Key Holdings

1. Personal data on a platform that other users can access only by registering or membership—despite a user’s consent to transfer—cannot be obtained and used by a third party without both the data subject’s permission and a lawful migration channel.

2. Whether large-scale harvesting of publicly displayed data by a third party constitutes unfair competition depends on the purpose, manner, and effect of use: if the third party adds no creative contribution or new functionality and merely substitutes for the original platform, it is unfair competition.

Facts

Tao Co. operates a career-networking app. Xiao Co. runs a business-intelligence app that scraped, stored, and analyzed large volumes of Tao Co.’s user data, making it publicly accessible.

Court Proceedings

The court recognized that:

Tao Co.’s user data—profiles, networks, and behavioral data—are core competitive assets protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Personal Information Protection Law.

User consent to transfer one’s own data does not authorize a third party to access other users’ data without the platform’s consent; lawful migration requires a formal request to the original platform and covers only the applicant’s own data.

Xiao Co. failed to prove lawful acquisition, so bore the adverse inference.

 The court held that large-scale unauthorized data scraping and public display substantially replaced Tao Co.’s functionality, harmed market order, and violated good commercial ethics. Xiao Co. was ordered to stop and compensate Tao Co. RMB 5 million in losses plus RMB 172,798.60 in costs. The appeal was dismissed.

Significance

This ruling defines platform operators’ proprietary interest in user data, sets criteria for lawful data migration (authorization, purpose, method, effect), and offers a replicable model for data-governance adjudication in the digital economy.

---

Case 4: Wei Co. vs. Xiao Co. et al. — Trade Secrets Infringement

Key Holdings

Commercial-value information must rest on a lawful basis; information collected or used to facilitate unlawful conduct cannot qualify as a trade secret.

Facts

Wei Co. and Xiao Co. are competing sellers on an e-commerce platform. Former Wei employees—Zheng, Jiang, Xin, Fu—joined Xiao Co., bringing Wei’s proprietary consumer data (names, emails, orders) harvested via warranty and feedback-incentive campaigns. Xiao Co. used this data for paid-review schemes, prompting Wei’s lawsuit.

Court Proceedings

The court held that:

Information collected to evade platform rules on paid reviews and ranking manipulation constituted false advertising and violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Civil Code, making it unlawfully obtained.

Under Civil Code Articles 1, 3, and 8, unlawfully obtained inputs and gains lack legal basis and cannot create a right to trade-secret protection.

 Wei Co.’s claims were dismissed at first instance and on appeal.

Significance

By treating legality as an implicit element of trade-secret value, this case fills a legal gap and supports healthy competition in cross-border e-commerce.

---

Case 5: Tong Co. vs. Rui Co. — Design Patent Infringement

Key Holdings

When a patented design becomes a government-mandated industry standard, lack of explicit restrictions on others can amount to an implied license.

Facts

Tong Co. applied for and obtained an exterior-design patent for a taxi in-vehicle video terminal (ZL\\\), while collaborating with Rui Co. on the same design. Chongqing’s Transport Center then adopted that design as the municipal standard in its “Configuration Guidelines.” Tong subsequently sued Rui for infringement and RMB 15.15 million in damages.

Court Proceedings

The court determined that:

1. The Guidelines represent an official, consensus-driven standard;

2. Tong and Rui co-designed it, knew it would be adopted, and Tong never signaled any use restriction;

3. Rui began manufacture before patent issuance and continued in good faith afterward.

  This amounted to an implied license; Rui’s conduct lacked subjective intent to infringe. The court found no infringement, and the second-instance judgment upheld the first.

Significance

By recognizing implied licenses in government-led standard-setting projects, this decision protects reasonable reliance interests, promotes fairness, and encourages the practical application of design patents.

---

Case 6: Bei Co. vs. Shenzhen District Market Supervision Bureau & Shenzhen Municipal Government — Administrative Review

Key Holdings

A product’s mere three-dimensional shape often lacks inherent distinctiveness as a trademark unless secondary meaning is proven; absent such proof, a shape mark cannot function as a source identifier.

Facts

Bei Co. was fined RMB 150,000 for infringing J Co.’s No. 13 toothbrush-head 3D trademark. J Co. had also patented a similar design (expired in 2020). The registered mark combined shape plus “Or\\\,” but the accused products lacked the “Or\\\” lettering.

Court Proceedings

The court found the shape elements—brush head plus handle—were primarily functional, with any color detail too minor to serve as a distinctive mark. Prior design-patent protection for the same shape underscored its aesthetic rather than source-identifying nature. J Co. submitted no evidence of acquired distinctiveness. The court thus invalidated the trademark, revoked the administrative penalty, and dismissed the review decision.

Significance

This landmark clarifies the boundary between design-patent and trademark protection for identical shapes, guarding against monopolies that unfairly leverage technical designs.

---

Case 7: Kuai Co. vs. Zhui Co. — Unfair Competition

Key Holdings

“Auto-click” screen-click technology is neutral and non-infringing when marketed generally.

But marketing it specifically to cheat on live-stream “likes,” thereby distorting user-activity metrics and competition, constitutes unfair competition.

Facts

Kuai Co. operates a live-streaming platform. Zhui Co. sold single- and multi-head clickers, touting uses from e-book page-turning to live-stream “heart” spamming.

Court Proceedings

First Instance: Ordered cessation and RMB 500,000 in damages.

Second Instance: Distinguished (1) manufacturing and general sale—legitimate; (2) marketing for live-stream cheating—unfair competition. The judgment was upheld.

Significance

This ruling demonstrates how to draw a precise line between neutral technological innovation and its abusive commercial misuse, fostering both innovation and fair market order.

---

Case 8: Swiss Co. vs. Big Co. & Zan Co. — Technology Contract Dispute

Key Holdings

A post-termination confidentiality clause must be reasonably limited to protecting disclosed trade secrets; blanket bans on competing R\&D violate Civil Code Article 850 on illegal technology monopoly and are void.

Facts

In 2018, Swiss Co. and Big Co. agreed to co-develop a photochemical pilot process, with a clause banning Swiss Co. for ten years from developing the same product or disclosing secrets after termination. After lab handover, Swiss Co. sought to void the “ten-year prohibition” as overly broad.

Court Proceedings

First Instance: Upheld the clause as valid between the parties and non-monopolistic toward the public.

Second Instance: Interpreted the clause reasonably—prohibiting only unauthorized use of Big Co.’s technical secrets—not an absolute R\&D ban. Confirmed validity based on contract purpose, while noting Article 850’s public-law nature also applies to private parties. The appeal was dismissed.

Significance

In high-investment industries like biomedicine, this decision balances trade-secret protection with legitimate competition by requiring confidentiality clauses to be narrowly tailored.

---

Case 9: Ya Co. et al. vs. Xi Co. — Foreign-Related Unfair Competition

Key Holdings

In foreign-related IP disputes, parties’ choice of law (e.g., to apply forum law) takes priority over the law of the place of protection.

Facts

Ya Co. and its affiliate operate an overseas e-commerce platform. Xi Co. sold services to manipulate platform rankings—fake purchases, likes, and comments—undermining fair competition and misleading consumers.

Court Proceedings

Applying the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the court held that Xi Co.’s services disrupted truthful display information, damaged consumer rights, and violated good faith. Xi Co. and its principal Yang were ordered to cease and compensate Ya Co. RMB 1 million plus RMB 335,637.80 in costs, jointly and severally.

Significance

This case, at the intersection of foreign-related law, jurisdiction, and e-commerce platform order, underscores China’s strict stance on IP protection and fair global competition.

---

Case 10: Suo Co. vs. Xin Co. — Utility Model Patent Infringement

Key Holdings

A defendant’s claim that a plaintiff abused its IP rights—and a request for compensation of reasonable costs—may be raised and adjudicated within the same infringement proceeding, without a counterclaim or separate suit.

Facts

Suo Co. applied (March 2023) and acquired (December 2023) a utility-model patent. In September 2022 and August 2023, it notarized Xin Co.’s online ads showing manufacture and sale of the patented device, then sued for infringement.

Court Proceedings

The court found that all Suo Co.’s evidence predated its patent application and that Suo Co. knowingly sued despite prior public use—violating good-faith principles. Suo Co.’s claims were dismissed, and Xin Co. was awarded compensation for its reasonable litigation expenses.

Significance

By empowering courts to address abusive IP litigation in situ, this ruling deters malicious suits, conserves judicial resources, and upholds innovators’ rights.

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.