On April 21, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published its Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases of Courts Nationwide (2025) (全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2025）摘要), identifying 45 legal application issues drawn from intellectual property cases concluded by courts at all levels during 2025. The issues are organized into nine categories: patent cases (covering both civil and administrative adjudication), trademark cases (civil and administrative), copyright cases, competition cases (anti-unfair competition and anti-monopoly), new plant variety cases, integrated circuit layout design cases, technology contract cases, criminal cases, and intellectual property litigation procedures and evidence. Each entry identifies the case number and sets out the corresponding judgment summary, addressing matters such as claim construction, infringement determination, burden of proof, damages calculation, trade secret protection, data rights, jurisdictional review, and service of process in foreign-related proceedings. 
A translation follows. The original is available here (Chinese only).
I. Patent Case Adjudication
(I) Adjudication of Patent Civil Cases
1. Specific technical solutions excluded by the claims should not be included in the scope of patent protection.
Case Number
（2025）最高法民再354号
【Judicial Summary】
After reading the claims and the specification, a person skilled in the art would recognize that specific technical solutions deliberately emphasized and intentionally excluded by the patentee in the background technology should not be incorporated into the scope of patent protection by applying the doctrine of equivalents.
2. Determination of the nature of pesticide patents in pesticide registration
Case Number
（2023）最高法知民终1511号
【Judicial Summary】
If a manufacturer of generic pesticides provides the necessary experimental data for applying for pesticide registration with the pesticide administrative authority, and manufactures and uses the allegedly infringing products that fall within the scope of pesticide patent protection on a limited basis, without causing unreasonable damage to the normal exercise of patent rights or unreasonable damage to the legitimate interests of the patentee, it constitutes a scientific research exception in the sense of patent law and is not considered as an infringement of patent rights.
3. Incorporating patents into standards in violation of the principle of good faith is not protected by law.
Case Number
（2023）最高法知民终2875号
【Judicial Summary】
Patent holders must adhere to the principle of good faith and exercise their patent rights in a bona fide and reasonable manner, and must not abuse their patent rights. If a patent holder, either independently or by instructing standard setters to incorporate the technical solutions of their patents or patent applications into national, industry, or local standards, regardless of whether the standards are mandatory or recommended, and if the patent holder fails to truthfully disclose patent applications and authorizations during the standard-setting process, and then files a patent infringement lawsuit against a standard implementer who is subjectively without fault after the standard’s publication, their actions violate the principle of good faith, constitute an abuse of patent rights, and should not be protected by law.
4. Determination of Damages for Maliciously Filed Intellectual Property Lawsuits
Case Number
（2023）最高法知民终869号【裁判要旨】
【Judicial Summary】
Liability for damages arising from malicious intellectual property litigation falls under general tort liability. The scope of damages should be determined according to the principle of full compensation, considering the causal relationship between the damage and the infringing act. Losses incurred due to the plaintiff’s application for asset preservation to freeze the victim’s funds can be included in the scope of damages, calculated based on the difference between the Loan Prime Rate (LPR) and the benchmark interest rate for demand deposits during the preservation period. Reasonable expected profit losses incurred by the victim in voluntarily forgoing business opportunities to avoid legal risks after being subjected to malicious litigation can also be included in the scope of damages. Reasonable expenses incurred by the victim in responding to malicious litigation should also be considered losses caused to the defendant by the malicious litigation and can be included in the scope of damages.
5. Determination of contributory infringement in patent infringement litigation
Case Number
（2023）沪73知民初1054号【裁判要旨】
【Judicial Summary】
In patent infringement litigation, the constitutive elements of contributory infringement include: (1) the “specialized” nature of “products specifically designed for implementing patents,” which refers to their objective exclusivity for patent implementation without substantial non-infringing uses; and (2) the “others” in “others committing infringement” encompassing end consumers.
6. Determination of the burden of proof for allegedly infringing products when inspection conditions are not available.
Case Number
First Instance: （2024）湘01知民初548号
Second Instance: （2025）湘知民终93号
【Judicial Summary】
For allegedly infringing products for which objective conditions for inspection are not available, if the patentee has submitted preliminary evidence proving that there is a high probability that the product falls within the scope of patent protection, the burden of proof generally shifts to the alleged infringer. If the alleged infringer cannot submit evidence to refute this, they shall bear the corresponding adverse consequences.
(II) Adjudication of Patent Administrative Cases
7. Determination of inventiveness in superimposed or recombined technical solutions; handling of cases where some co-owners of patents refuse to appear in court; determination of valid extraterritorial service.
Case Number
（2024）最高法知行终141号
【Judicial Summary】
1. In the assessment of inventiveness of IoT communication technology solutions, if the disputed technology solution merely superimposes and recombines existing technical means through permutation and combination, and endows hardware devices with conventional communication functions, either individually or in combination, by using conventional network settings and conventional means of signal transmission, reception, reading, and processing, thereby achieving a wider communication range or more communication functions, without introducing new technical means or solving new technical problems, and if its role in the prior art and the disputed patent is not substantially different, and it does not produce any unexpected technical effects overall, then it should not be considered to have inventiveness.
2. In administrative cases concerning the granting and confirmation of patent rights, if some co-owners of the patent rights, knowing or having reason to know of the court hearing arrangements, refuse to appear in court without justifiable reason after the people’s court has taken service measures in accordance with the law, this shall not affect the continued hearing of the case.
3. When serving documents to parties in foreign-related cases who are difficult to locate, the People’s Court should strike a balance between the principles of “taking all reasonable efforts” and “preventing abuse of procedure,” and focus on improving the overall efficiency of foreign-related trials. In accordance with the Hague Service Convention and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law regarding service of process in foreign-related cases, various available domestic and international service methods may be used, including mail, electronic, substituted, public notice, and requests for forwarding by co-owners or persons acting in concert, etc., with all reasonable efforts made. However, except for service by public notice, there is no mandatory order among the other methods of service. Service to the foreign mailing address provided by the party or to an email address that the party has expressly agreed to, and where the destination country has no objection to such service, constitutes valid service.
8. Determining whether a genetic engineering patent is fully disclosed
Case Number
（2024）最高法知行终1241号
【Judicial Summary】
If an invention patent relates to an engineered strain obtained through gene overexpression in the field of microbial genetic engineering, and its synthetic product has a clear connection with existing known strains or processes, and the feasibility of the technical solution can be proven by means of the preserved strains recorded in the specification, the gene sequences transferred into the prior art, functional verification, etc., then the specification can usually be considered to be fully disclosed.
9. Verification of national priority ex officio
Case Number
（2024）最高法知行终1287号
【Judicial Summary】
In patent invalidation proceedings, if a patent claims domestic priority based on a first application that is deemed withdrawn and not published, and whether the prior art submitted by the invalidation requester constitutes prior art or conflicts with the application depends on whether the domestic priority of the patent is established, the patent administration department under the State Council may, ex officio, introduce the domestic priority documents and verify the domestic priority, but should give the parties the opportunity to cross-examine and state their opinions.
10. Overcoming Technological Bias
Case Number
（2024）最高法知行终681、682号
【Judicial Summary】
If a particular technical means is rejected due to a common misconception among those skilled in the art, and the patented technical solution adopts that technical means based on a correct understanding of the technology, then the patent may possess inventiveness by overcoming technical bias. However, if those skilled in the art reject the technical means based on economic considerations rather than a misconception of technical understanding, then the adoption of that technical means in the patented technical solution does not constitute overcoming technical bias and cannot be considered inventiveness on this basis.
II. Trademark Case Adjudication
(I) Adjudication of Trademark Civil Cases
11. The proper use of terminology in group standards and enterprise standards does not constitute infringement.
Case Number
（2025）最高法民再346号
【Judicial Summary】
Using terms from group standards or enterprise standards to describe the characteristics of a product’s raw materials, processes, etc., without prominently using the registered trademarks contained therein, and based on the common understanding and perception of the relevant public, not recognizing the trademarks as others’ registered trademarks, constitutes legitimate use of the terms and does not constitute infringement.
12. Standards for determining trademark infringement when both parties legally hold registered trademarks
Case Number
（2025）最高法民再345号
【Judicial Summary】
When both parties legally hold registered trademarks, whether trademark infringement has occurred should be determined by comprehensively considering the actual market situation of both parties’ registration and use of the trademarks, respecting and protecting prior rights, and using the likelihood of confusion or misidentification among the relevant public as the core criterion. If the relevant public can distinguish the source of goods using the two trademarks, it should be determined that no trademark infringement has occurred.
13. Determination of Trademark Infringement in the Modification and Refurbishment of Second-hand Goods
Case Number
First Instance: （2023）浙01民初1248号
Second Instance: （2024）浙民终1159号
【Judicial Summary】
Even though the accused infringer has made substantial changes to the shape, color scheme, and overall appearance of the second-hand goods, it still retains the use of the original trademark on the goods without permission, thereby undermining the basic function of the trademark in identifying the source of the goods and causing confusion among the relevant public regarding the source of the goods. Therefore, the accused infringer’s defense of exhaustion of rights cannot be established.
14. Determination of the legitimate use of registered trademarks containing place names
Case Number
First Instance: （2024）内0205民初484号
Second Instance:（2024）内02民终3851号
【Judicial Summary】
The registered trademark holder has no right to prohibit others from legitimately using place names contained in a registered trademark. Whether the use of a place name is legitimate should be determined comprehensively based on factors such as the circumstances of the allegedly infringing mark’s use, whether the relevant party’s use was in good faith and reasonable, whether there was any subjective malice in attempting to exploit the registered trademark, and whether the relevant public would be confused or misled.
(II) Adjudication of Trademark Administrative Cases
15. Determining the inherent distinctiveness of graphic trademarks
Case Number
（2025）最高法行再318号
【Judicial Summary】
1. To determine whether a graphic trademark possesses inherent distinctiveness, the standard should be whether the graphic can be recognized as a trademark by the relevant public at the time of trademark application and whether it can serve to identify the source of the goods. Whether a graphic trademark is actually used and the specific manner of use are not necessarily related to the determination of its inherent distinctiveness.
2. The determination of the inherent distinctiveness of a graphic trademark should be based on the factual state at the time of the trademark application for registration, and generally does not consider factual changes after the application date, unless the graphic trademark has become a generic graphic at the time of approval for registration.
16. Determining the validity of subsequent geographical indication certification trademarks where the production area overlaps.
Case Number
（2025）最高法行申4791号
【Judicial Summary】
When a later geographical indication certification mark shares an inclusive relationship with an earlier one in terms of the production region scope of the identified products, it does not automatically violate the provisions of Article 16 of the Trademark Law. If the applicant of the later mark submits application materials such as production area delineation and quality management that meet the requirements for geographical indication certification marks, and the identified products possess clear usage management rules, meet relevant quality standards, and can be distinguished from those of the earlier geographical indication certification mark, the later application shall be deemed non-compliant with the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Trademark Law.
17. Determination of Actual Trademark Use in Cases of “One Person, Multiple Trademarks”
Case Number
（2024）最高法行再263号
【Judicial Summary】
If a trademark owner holds multiple registered trademarks that are similar in elements to the disputed trademark, the actual use of the trademark on the approved goods or services can be considered as actual use of the disputed trademark, provided that the trademark marks used do not alter the distinctive features of the disputed trademark.
18. Determination of the proper use of trademark symbols in cases of revocation review
Case Number
（2024）最高法行申9043号
【Judicial Summary】
Trademark owners should use their registered trademarks in a standardized manner. If a trademark owner engages in opportunistic use that results in a difference between the actual use of the disputed trademark and the registered trademark, and a greater similarity to other trademarks, which is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public regarding the source of the goods, the trademark owner should be deemed to have altered the distinctive features of the disputed trademark, and this is not considered a standardized use of the disputed trademark.
19. Whether the actual use of a subordinate concept product constitutes use of a superior concept product.
Case Number
（2025）最高法行再80号
【Judicial Summary】
When the approved goods are abstract superordinate conceptual goods and the actually used goods are specific subordinate conceptual goods, if the two constitute the same or similar goods with essentially identical functions and purposes, it can be determined that the disputed trademark has been actually used on the superordinate conceptual goods. Whether the approved goods and the actually used goods constitute superordinate and subordinate conceptual goods can be reviewed and determined based on the general perception of relevant consumers and market practices.
20. Overall Examination and Judgment of Evidence of Trademark Use
Case Number
（2025）最高法行再507号
【Judicial Summary】
In administrative disputes involving the revocation and review of trademark rights, a comprehensive understanding of the evidence of use related to the disputed trademark is essential. If the sales contract already displays the disputed trademark, and the sales contract, invoice, and bank receipts are all authentic and correspond to each other, and considering market transaction practices and the fact that the rights holder owns trademarks, it can be determined that the aforementioned evidence forms a complete chain of evidence, thus establishing that the disputed trademark was genuinely and effectively used during the specified period.
21. Factors to consider in determining “registration obtained by other improper means”
Case Number
（2025）最高法行再369号
【Judicial Summary】
Whether a disputed trademark constitutes “registration obtained by other improper means” can be determined by comprehensively considering factors such as the original applicant’s application for trademark registration, related trademark transfers, and the transferee’s application for trademark registration. In appropriate circumstances, applications for trademark registration by related enterprises and related behaviors can also be taken into consideration.
III. Adjudication of Copyright Cases
22. Determination of Originality and Infringement of Adaptation Rights in Copying Works
Case Number
（2025）京0101民初9214号
【Judicial Summary】
1. If a copy of a mural or other artwork that has entered the public domain demonstrates a certain degree of originality through personalized selection and arrangement of lines, colors, and composition during the process of restoring or repairing damage or blemishes in the original work, then the copy constitutes an artwork protected by copyright law.
2. If a two-dimensional artwork is recreated without permission through traditional crafts or other means, and the recreated work retains the original work’s originality, but results in a new mode of expression that differs from the original work, the people’s court shall support the original copyright holder’s claim of infringement of the original work’s adaptation right.
23. Determination of Infringement of the Right to Reproduce and Exhibition of Fine Art Works
Case Number
（2025）陕知民终4号
【Judicial Summary】
If the model maker makes no original contribution to the expression of the artwork during the 3D transformation process, it constitutes a reproduction of the artwork “from two-dimensional to three-dimensional.” Creating a 3D model of another person’s copyrighted artwork without permission constitutes an infringement of the right of reproduction; publicly exhibiting it constitutes an infringement of the right of exhibition.
24. Scope of Protection for Compilations and Application of Punitive Damages
Case Number
（2022）京73民终4681号
【Judicial Summary】
1. Compiling public domain materials such as historical documents that do not constitute works, if the selection or arrangement demonstrates originality, constitutes a compilation work as defined by copyright law. Protection of compilation works is limited to the originality of the selection or arrangement, and does not extend to the compilation method. Unauthorized use of the original expressions within a compilation work constitutes copyright infringement.
2. “Intent” and “serious circumstances” are the subjective and objective requirements for applying punitive damages. Unauthorized use of another’s work after prior consultation but without reaching an agreement can be considered as intent to infringe. The proportion of the work used by the accused infringer, the profits gained from the infringement, and the impact caused by the infringement can be considered as factors in determining the circumstances of the infringement.
25. The impact of open-source licenses on infringement determination and compensation amounts
Case Number
（2024）苏民终581号
【Judicial Summary】
In cases involving infringement of computer software copyright, the fact that the software is bound by an open-source license does not automatically mean that the software has been licensed under that license. If the accused infringer argues that they have not infringed the copyright of the software solely because the software owner did not release it according to the open-source license, the people’s court generally will not support this claim. However, the software owner’s failure to comply with the open-source license can be considered as a factor in determining the amount of damages.
26. Allocation of the burden of proof and determination of direct infringement in software copyright cases.
Case Number
First Instance:（2024）川01知民初184号
Second Instance: （2025）川知民终90号
【Judicial Summary】
1. In cases involving infringement of computer software copyright, where the source code of the allegedly infringing product cannot be obtained, but the software rights holder has preliminarily proven that the relevant information displayed when the allegedly infringing software is running is highly consistent with the rights software, and the alleged infringer cannot provide a reasonable explanation or contrary evidence, the people’s court may presume that the allegedly infringing software is the same as or substantially similar to the rights software.
2. Simply providing download links for the allegedly infringing software does not constitute “directly providing” the allegedly infringing software and does not constitute an act of directly infringing upon the right to disseminate the software via information networks.
27. Determination of an employee’s unauthorized use of their former employer’s work after leaving the company.
Case Number
First Instance:（2024）粤1802民初412号
Second Instance: （2024）粤18民终4422号
【Judicial Summary】
If an employee, without the employer’s permission, publishes artwork design drafts created during their employment that belong to the employer after leaving the company, and the intellectual property rights belong to the employer, the people’s court will not support the employee’s defense that the design drafts are “discarded drafts” and that they have not infringed on the copyright, unless there is evidence that the employer has explicitly waived the copyright of the aforementioned artworks.
IV. Adjudication of Competition Cases
(I) Adjudication of Anti-Unfair Competition Cases
28. Judicial Review of Defenses Against Trade Secret Infringement
Case Number
（2024）最高法民申7705号
【Judicial Summary】
Where the breeding materials protected by the plaintiff as trade secrets are extremely similar to or the same variety as the plant protected by the defendant as a new plant variety right, if the defendant argues that the plant infringing is an authorized new plant variety and therefore does not infringe, the people’s court shall, after ascertaining whether the trade secret is legal and valid, whether the source of the variety authorization is legal, and whether the defendant improperly obtained or used the trade secret, comprehensively determine whether infringement has occurred.
29. Returning patent rights can be used as a way to assume liability for cessation of infringement in trade secret infringement cases.
Case Number
（2023）最高法知民终2738号
【Judicial Summary】
If an individual applies for a patent using another’s trade secrets without permission and fails to make a substantial technical contribution to the patented technical solution, the relevant patent application right or patent right should be returned according to law. If a trade secret holder, in a trade secret infringement dispute, has not explicitly asserted ownership of the patent application right or patent right but has filed a request for cessation of infringement, the people’s court may, after providing clarification, directly adjudicate the return of the patent application right or patent right as a specific means of assuming liability for cessation of infringement.
30. Identification of Commercial Defamation in Live-streaming E-commerce
Case Number
（2024）渝01民初606号
【Judicial Summary】
Live-streaming e-commerce operators have a duty of care to exercise due diligence in their commercial comments, which must be truthful, objective, and comprehensive. If, during live-streaming e-commerce, operators use methods such as one-sided comparisons, inappropriate associations, or vague referencing to compare their own products with similar products from others, and this is sufficient to cause the relevant public to have a mistaken understanding of the competitor’s product quality, thereby damaging the competitor’s business reputation or product reputation, it constitutes commercial defamation.
31. Judicial determination of user-triggered redirect traffic hijacking behavior
Case Number
（2024）沪0107民初4362号
【Judicial Summary】
1. If the behavior of “inserting a link only, with the target redirection triggered by the user” is implemented without reasonable justification, affects user choices, disrupts market competition order, and harms the legitimate rights and interests of other operators and consumers, it can be identified as traffic hijacking unfair competition behavior as stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
2. If the act of setting up a blockchain is reviewed and authorized by the network service provider, and the network service provider has fulfilled its reasonable review obligations regarding the qualifications of the entity setting up the blockchain in advance, and has taken necessary measures in a timely manner after receiving the qualification notice from the rights holder, it does not constitute joint infringement.
32. Review and judgment of data rights for encyclopedia entries
Case Number
First Instance:（2020）京0108民初14281号
Second Instance: （2024）京73民终1424号
【Judicial Summary】
If a platform operator processes and utilizes the massive amounts of user data to create a data set suitable for commercial use, the platform operator’s competitive rights over the data set are protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Other operators who illegally obtain or utilize this data constitute unfair competition.
33. Identification of Data Rights and Unfair Competition in Aggregated Payment Systems
Case Number
（2024）沪民终628号
【Judicial Summary】
1. When allocating internet data rights involving multiple stakeholders, the allocation should be based on the principles of proportional contribution, aiming to encourage data circulation, promote industry development, and improve overall social welfare. This allocation should comprehensively consider factors such as data type, application scenario, generation process, degree of contribution, agreements between the parties, and balance of interests. Based on the principle of fairness, if there is no evidence that the operator of the aggregated payment platform has contributed to the optimization or value-added of the data, it cannot obtain competitive rights simply through data acquisition, possession, or circulation.
2. Developing plugins for competitors’ computer software systems and circumventing system whitelist verification by impersonating third-party software package names or other means, thereby misleading and diverting users, constitutes unfair competition on the internet.
34. Determination of Civil Tort and Division of Joint Liability in Criminal and Civil Cases Involving Trade Secrets
Case Number
First Instance: （2025）闽02民初11号
Second Instance: （2025）闽民终734号
【Judicial Summary】
In civil disputes involving infringement of trade secrets, there are differences in the standards of proof between criminal procedures and civil litigation. The decision made by the prosecuting authority not to prosecute or the decision made by the investigating authority to withdraw the criminal case does not necessarily mean that civil infringement is not established. If the right holder provides evidence to prove that the infringement facts meet the standard of “high probability”, and the accused infringer does not provide contrary evidence, the people’s court may determine that the civil infringement of trade secrets is established.
2. The liability for compensation in cases of joint infringement of trade secrets should be specifically determined based on factors such as subjective intent, behavioral circumstances, and status. For the main infringing parties with obvious malicious intent, leading infringement, and obtaining major benefits, they can be legally ordered to bear full compensation responsibility for the losses suffered by the rights holders; For minor infringers with minor degree of fault, low degree of participation, and only auxiliary role, the joint and several compensation share can be determined within a certain range.
35. Legality review of administrative penalties for false advertising
Case Number
First Instance: （2025）琼9002行初4号
Second instance: （2025）琼73行终3号
【Judicial Summary】
If a business operator publishes information about goods or services on an online platform and the promotional content contains false or misleading information that deceives or misleads consumers, it constitutes false advertising. If an administrative penalty imposed by a market supervision department is based on clear facts, conclusive evidence, and legal procedures, and the penalty is commensurate with the harmfulness of the conduct, the people’s court will not support a business operator’s request to have it revoked.
(II) Adjudication of Anti-Monopoly Cases
36. Identification of abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition and abuse of administrative power to restrict transactions
Case Number
（2023）最高法知行终1011号
【Judicial Summary】
1. To determine whether the challenged conduct constitutes an abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition, it is generally necessary to examine whether the conduct involved the exercise of administrative power, whether the exercise of administrative power constitutes an abuse, and whether the exercise of administrative power has the effect of excluding or restricting competition.
2. If the challenged conduct meets the specific types of conduct stipulated in the Anti-Monopoly Law regarding the abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition, such as restricting transactions, it can be directly presumed that it has the effect of excluding or restricting competition.
3. The lack of legal basis for administrative agencies to establish franchise rights is itself an illegal exercise of administrative power to interfere with market access, constituting the abuse of administrative power to restrict transactions as stipulated in the Anti Monopoly Law.
37. Identification of Monopolistic Practices by Industry Associations Organizing Business Operators
Case Number
（2024）最高法知行终148号
【Judicial Summary】
If an industry association plays a decisive or leading role in the conclusion or implementation of a monopoly agreement through its establishment, convening, leadership, planning, manipulation, command, or initiation, it should be deemed as an industry association organizing operators in its industry to engage in monopolistic behavior, which is prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law.
V. Adjudication of Cases Involving New Plant Varieties
38. Determination of Variety Identity
Case Number
（2024）最高法知民终1201号
【Judicial Summary】
1. The determination of whether the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety are identical should comprehensively consider all the evidence on file and their probative value. If the evidence on file is highly likely to prove that the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety are identical, and the accused infringer cannot provide sufficient evidence such as the source of breeding to refute this claim, then the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety can be deemed identical.
2. The name used by the accused infringing variety is the core identifying element of the authorized variety name, and the main characteristics recorded in the DUS test report of the authorized variety can be directly observed by visual inspection. Since the main characteristics of the accused infringing variety are highly similar to those of the authorized variety, it can be presumed that the accused infringing variety and the authorized variety are likely to be the same.
VI. Adjudication of Integrated Circuit Layout Design Cases
39. Trial of the first commercial use of the overdue defense
Case Number
（2025）最高法知民终452号
【Judicial Summary】
If the defendant claims that the integrated circuit layout design in question does not meet the statutory requirements, the People’s Court may review whether the layout design has a legal basis and whether it should be protected in the infringement lawsuit. If, based on the evidence on file, it can be determined that the application for registration of the layout design in question was made more than two years after its first commercial use, and therefore does not meet the registration requirements stipulated in Article 17 of the “Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs,” the People’s Court will not protect it.
VII. Adjudication of Technology Contract Cases
40. Examination and determination of the nature and cause of action of technology contracts
Case Number
（2024）最高法民申7291号
【Judicial Summary】
If the contract signed by the parties includes both processing and construction projects, as well as technical services provided by one party to solve specific technical problems for the other party using their technical knowledge, and if the main content of the dispute between the parties is the performance of the technical services, then the cause of action should be determined as a technical service contract dispute.
VIII. Criminal Case Trials
41. Determination of “collusion between internal and external parties” infringement of trade secrets and the amount of illegal gains.
Case Number
First Instance:（2024）赣0402刑初192号
Second Instance: （2025）赣04刑终70号
【Judicial Summary】
When external entities lure employees or those under non-compete restrictions of trade secret holders with high salaries or high positions to obtain trade secrets, and the individuals with confidentiality obligations use their positions to disclose or allow others to illegally use the trade secrets they legally know or possess, this constitutes trade secret infringement. Knowingly assisting an infringer in adjusting or improving their technical solutions after the infringer violates their confidentiality obligations by selling trade secrets, one is an accomplice to the crime of trade secret infringement. Consulting fees, service fees, guidance fees, and other property benefits obtained from disclosing or allowing others to use trade secrets are all illegal gains.
42. Identification of False Litigation in Copyright-Related Criminal Cases
Case Number
（2025）皖1881刑初27号
【Judicial Summary】
The copyright registration authority only conducts a formal review of copyright registration applications. In copyright-related criminal cases, if there is evidence proving that the perpetrator obtained the “Copyright Registration Certificate” by providing false materials, and the registered transferee is aware of this false fact but still files a civil lawsuit based on it, fabricating a false legal relationship in which they are the infringed party, this constitutes a false lawsuit, namely, “filing a civil lawsuit based on fabricated facts.”
IX. Intellectual Property Litigation Procedures and Evidence
43. Applicable conditions for diplomatic service and the burden of translation costs
Case Number
（2024）最高法行再316号
【Judicial Summary】
1. The petitioner for invalidation of the disputed trademark is an interested party in the administrative case and should participate in the litigation as a third party according to law. If the trademark owner, as the plaintiff, initiates litigation and needs to serve relevant litigation documents to a third party located outside the territory, the people’s court shall not dismiss the lawsuit solely on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to translate the litigation documents.
2. Where the Administrative Litigation Law does not provide for procedures for service of process in foreign-related matters, the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply. The People’s Court shall, in accordance with the provisions of laws, judicial interpretations, and the Convention on Service Abroad of Civil or Commercial Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, determine the specific methods of service abroad and whether translation of litigation materials is required.
3. If it is truly necessary to serve documents through diplomatic channels, the People’s Court may send the necessary documents within the scope of service to a translation agency and issue a translation commission, notifying the plaintiff to pay the translation agency within a specified period and explaining the legal consequences of not paying the translation fees. If the plaintiff still refuses to bear the translation fees after explanation, the People’s Court may rule that the case be dismissed as a withdrawal of the lawsuit by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has already borne the translation fees, the People’s Court may, based on the circumstances of the case, determine the subject and method of bearing the translation fees in its judgment.
44. Review of jurisdictional level during the filing stage of intellectual property cases
Case Number
（2025）最高法民再238号
【Judicial Summary】
The review of jurisdiction by the People’s Court at the case filing stage should be limited to a formal review of whether the amount in dispute meets the standards for jurisdiction of the court at that level. Substantive issues such as the calculation method of the amount in dispute and whether there is sufficient evidence to prove it should be reviewed and determined at the substantive trial stage, unless there is evidence proving that the plaintiff intentionally inflated the amount in dispute to circumvent jurisdiction. Even if such circumstances exist, the case should be transferred to a People’s Court with jurisdiction for trial in accordance with the law, and the court should not directly rule to refuse acceptance.
45. Jurisdiction determination in cases of induced criminal intent evidence collection
Case Number
（2025）最高法知民辖终220号
【Judicial Summary】
In cases involving jurisdictional objections in patent infringement disputes, if the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the accused seller purchased and sold the products solely based on the manufacturer and the accused infringing products designated by the rights holder, and there is no evidence to prove that the seller sold the accused infringing products before the rights holder obtained evidence, the seller’s behavior can be deemed to fall under the category of “the accused infringer committing acts of intellectual property infringement solely based on the rights holder’s evidence-gathering behavior” as stipulated in Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation.” In such cases, the seller’s domicile and the place of sale cannot be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction.
