- in China
On February 28, 2026, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) held a press conference on boosting the judicial protection of intellectual property for technological innovation, publicly releasing seven thematic guiding cases to guide the courts at all levels in hearing new-type and complex cases of intellectual property disputes, further improve the quality and efficiency of trials of intellectual property cases, and boost judicial protection for technological innovation.
According to the information released at the press conference, in 2025, national courts concluded 63,971 first-instance civil cases involving technical intellectual property, including 51,211 patent cases, 1,279 new plant variety cases, 1,079 trade secret cases, and 10,402 technology contract cases; 2,471 first-instance administrative cases involving patents and other technical intellectual property were concluded; 505 intellectual property cases heard with the awarded punitive damages totaling 1.8 billion yuan. In 2025, SPC, together with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, issued a criminal judicial interpretation on intellectual property, further specifying the threshold for criminal liability in cases of trade secret infringement and increasing the severity of penalties. Currently, SPC is drafting the third judicial interpretation on patent infringement, which will lay out regulations on issues such as case jurisdiction determination, trial of overlapping civil and administrative cases, determination of scope of protection, review of non-infringement defenses, and identification of malicious litigation. In addition, in terms of technical fact investigation, by the end of 2025, the national judicial technology investigation talent database established by SPC had 1,327 technical experts included, delivering nationwide resource sharing and dispatch as needed.
The guiding cases released this time actively explore such specific difficult issues as characterization of complex infringement acts, investigation of technical facts, manner of fulfilling obligation to cease infringement, determination of damages amount, and curbing abuse of rights, and will positively impact the technological innovation protection and industry governance promotion.
Case 1: A trade secret infringement case caused by the company's many technical staff leaving within a short period
Case Number: (2018) Shanghai Civil First Instance No. 102； (2023) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final No. 1590
Major Ruling Point:
If the alleged infringer recruits professional staffers from other enterprises, thereby creating a channel or opportunity to obtain technical secrets of that enterprise, and produces products related to the enterprise's technical secrets within a period significantly shorter than the reasonable time that would otherwise require for independent research and development, it is presumable that the alleged infringer has engaged in an act of misappropriating trade secrets, except when the alleged infringer provides contrary evidence that is sufficient to rebut the presumption.
If the court rules that the alleged infringer of the trade secrets must cease and desist from the infringement, it may, based on a comprehensive consideration of factors such as the nature of the protected interests, the severity of the infringement, and the possibility of future continued infringement, lawfully clarify the specific requirements for the alleged infringer to cease and desist from the infringement, including: ceasing the use of the trade secrets to manufacture products themselves or to outsource the manufacture of related products; ceasing the sale of products manufactured using the trade secrets; not implementing or otherwise disposing of related patents applied for using illegally obtained trade secrets without permission, including maliciously abandoning patent rights; destroying the relevant media containing trade secrets held or controlled by the infringer and related units or personnel under court supervision and in the presence of the rights holder, or transferring them to the rights holder; and informing company shareholders, senior management, employees who have left the rights holder to join the infringer or its affiliated companies, personnel involved in relevant R&D work, all employees, affiliated companies, and upstream and downstream manufacturers who may have knowledge of the trade secrets in the case of the court's requirements to stop the infringement, whether by announcement or internal notice, and signing confidentiality agreements regarding the trade secrets involved in the case and non-infringement commitments with the relevant personnel or units.
If the court orders the alleged infringer to cease the infringement, it may comprehensively consider factors such as the nature and circumstances of the infringement and the damage that may result from a delay in fulfilling the obligation to cease the infringement. The court may also explicitly determine the damages for delayed performance by the alleged infringer in ceasing the infringement. The relevant payment standards can be calculated on a daily, monthly, or other period basis, based on the number of product units or other scales, or determined as a one-time fixed amount.
Court Analysis:
The highlight of this case lies in the detailed specification of the concrete method for ceasing the infringement and the strengthening of the enforceability of the judgment. The judgment in this case lists in detail what to cease, how to cease, until when to cease, the consequences of not ceasing, and even the template for the letter of undertaking needed during the process of ceasing the infringement, so that the infringer 'knows how to cease and understands that not ceasing is not an option.' This is key to ensuring that the liability for ceasing infringement is enforced.
Case 2: Clarify how civil liability for infringement in promised sales is assumed
Case Number：(2019) Shandong 02 Civil First Instance No. 169; (2020) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 1658
Major Ruling Point：
An infringer who engages in promised sale without the patentee's permission shall not only bear the civil liability under law for ceasing the infringement and paying for the reasonable enforcement expenses, but also bear civil liability for the damages under law. This liability for damage does not require actual sales to occur. Regarding the amount of damages, when the losses caused to the patentee by the promised sale infringement, the benefits obtained by the infringer, and the patent license fee are all difficult to determine, the court may reasonably determine it within the range of statutory damages, taking into account the infringer’s fault and the circumstances of the infringement.
Court Analysis :
This case makes it clear that the liability for damages for promised sales does not depend on actual sales, providing strong support for moving forward the threshold for ceasing infringement and claiming damages. It allows the right holder to obtain relief even when the infringing seller has not yet actually made sales or when it is difficult to prove actual sales, reflecting the basic legal principle that relief is available when there is damage and damages are due when infringement exists.
Case 3: Clarify the rules for determining the nature of 'organized sales acts' in seed sales industry
Case Number: (2020) Jiangsu 01 Civil First Instance No. 773 (2021); Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final No. 816
Major Ruling Point:
The alleged infringers who organize the buying and selling of the allegedly infringing seeds, and actually take the lead in determining specific transaction conditions such as the transaction price, transaction quantity, and performance time, constitute the organizers and decision-makers of the transaction, it can be determined that they have directly carried out the act of selling the allegedly infringing seeds.
Court Analysis：
This is a typical case of determining and regulating new forms of infringement in the online environment. The case legally determined that the operator of the platform which, under the name of providing 'information matching' intermediary services, organized the platform for the sale and purchase of the allegedly infringing seeds by creating WeChat groups and other trading platforms, actually carried out the seed sales. This reflects the judiciary's timely response and effective regulation of the new forms of illegal online sales of infringing seeds, highlighting the court's full-chain, penetrating protection of plant variety rights, and its judicial orientation to effectively encourage and safeguard agricultural technological innovation.
Case 4: How to apply the 'three-step method' to determine inventiveness of patents in the field of chemistry and biology
Case Number：(2018) Beijing 73 Administrative First Instance No. 6483; (2019) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final No. 235
Major Ruling Point：
In the examination of patent cases in the fields of chemistry and biology, when applying the 'three-step method' to determine whether the patent in question possesses inventiveness, whether a person skilled in the art has a reasonable expectation of success for the relevant invention is a factor for considering the presence of motivation to improve or technical revelation, and not a factor for identifying the closest prior art. If a party attempts to deny the identification of the closest prior art on the grounds of lacking a reasonable expectation of success, the court will not support it.
In the examination of patent cases in the fields of chemistry and biology, when determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of success, the standard should be whether a person skilled in the art would consider it 'worth trying,' rather than requiring 'certainty of success' or 'a high likelihood of success.' If a person skilled in the art is motivated to attempt starting from the closest prior art and can reasonably expect to achieve the patentable technical solution, it can be determined that the patented technical solution does not possess inventiveness.
Case 5: How to determine patent infringement when there are objective obstacles to obtaining or disassembling the alleged infringing product, making it impossible to use the physical product as a basis for technical comparison
Case Number：(2018) Jiangsu 01 Civil First Instance No. 366; (2021) Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3831
Major Ruling Point：
In determining patent infringement, if there are objective obstacles to obtaining or disassembling the allegedly infringing product, making it impossible to use the product itself as a basis for technical comparison, but there is evidence proving that the allegedly infringing product drawings are highly consistent with the physical product, the court may use these drawings as the basis for technical comparison. For the technical features specified in the claims that are present when the product operates normally, a comparison can be made using the technical features exhibited by the allegedly infringing product under normal operation as determined by a person skilled in the art through analysis of the drawings.
Case 6: Acts of malicious litigation resulting from abuse of litigation right shall be subject to infringement liability under law
Case Number：(2022) Fujian 02 Civil First Instance No. 151; (2022) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final No. 1861
Major Ruling Point：
If a party knowingly brings a patent infringement lawsuit against another party despite his claims obviously lacking legal basis or factual grounds, thereby harming the rights and interests of the other party, it constitutes malicious litigation for his abuse of the right to sue; if the other party requests that the malicious litigant bear liability for infringement, the court shall support it under law.
Court Analysis:
Civil litigation is an important channel for parties to enforce their rights, and actions to defend one's rights should not be overly criticized. Therefore, determination of malicious litigation should be conducted with strict caution. This case clearly defines the constitutive elements of malicious litigation, aiming to delineate the boundary between lawful rights enforcement and malicious litigation. In this case, the party knew that his patent right no longer existed but still filed a lawsuit, which was clearly intended to harm the other party, constituting malicious litigation. It can thus be seen that the key to distinguishing between lawful right enforcement and malicious litigation lies in two aspects: first, whether the lawsuit objectively lacks legal basis or factual grounds; and second, whether the party's subjective purpose in filing the lawsuit is to harm others or to enforce his own legitimate rights.
Case 7: How to prove that the allegedly infringing software is substantially similar to the copyrighted software in a case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement
Case Number：(2018) Guangdong 73 Civil First Instance No. 1099; (2020) Supreme Court Intellectual Property Civil Final No. 155; (2021) Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4246
Major Ruling Point:
In a dispute over infringement of computer software copyright, if the software copyright proprietor or owner can provide evidence showing that the allegedly infringing software shares the same specific information as the copyrighted software, such as the name, version number, and ownership information, or that the software interface design is highly similar, the court would generally determine that the two software programs are substantially similar without comparing the software codes, unless the alleged infringer presents contrary evidence sufficient to refute this.
In a dispute over intellectual property infringement, if the alleged infringer obstructs the preservation of evidence by the court through violence, coercion, or other means, the court can make adverse factual inferences against them under the law, including determining that products preservation of which failed under law constitute infringement, and may take the act of obstructing evidence preservation into account as a factor of infringement when determining the specific amount of damages.
Since it issued the Provisions on Case Guidance Work in 2010, SPC has officially established the system of guiding cases, which would serve as a frame of reference for trial and enforcement work of courts at all levels and should be referred to when hearing similar cases. In July 2023, SPC decided to create the People's Court Case Database, which collects guiding cases and reference cases that SPC reviews and deems to have guiding and exemplary value for the trial of similar cases. Up to now, SPC has issued 49 batches of 279 guiding cases, which play an important role in harmonizing the ruling standards, promoting judicial fairness, and enhancing the public's awareness of the rule of law.
(Source: official website of the Supreme People's Court)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]