CHANG TSI
Insights
From April 20 to 26, 2026, the National IP Publicity Week concluded with the theme “Strengthen IP Protection in Emerging Fields – Expedite New Quality Productive Forces Growth.” This year’s event saw the most extensive release program in recent years. Notably, the Supreme Court, for the first time, comprehensively updated the judicial interpretation on punitive damages, issued alongside it annual report and a five–year implementation plan. The Supreme Procuratorate released annual report and typical cases, listing trade secrets and malicious litigation supervision as new priorities. Multiple ministries, including CNIPA, Customs, Public Security, and Market Regulation, rolled out administrative protection and enforcement results, while over fifty provincial and municipal authorities issued local reports and cases in parallel. The following are the core highlights of this edition.
In 2025, Chinese courts accepted over 550,000 new IP cases nationwide, with foreign-related cases rising 34.1% year on year. Emerging issues entered the judicial arena, such as AIGC, infringement involving high-tech, and disputes over data ownership.
The Supreme Court also released the Implementation Plan for Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by People’s Courts (2026–2030), outlining priorities for the next five years: advancing legislation for special procedures in IP litigation, refining evidentiary rules, exploring intelligent systems such as “AI assisted copyright adjudication,” and strengthening governance against abnormal mass litigation and malicious litigation.
Of particular note is the first comprehensive update to the Judicial Interpretation on Punitive Damages (effective May 1, 2026, repealing the 2021 version). Key changes include:
• Expanded scope of “intent”: Repeat infringement after settlement, and concealment of liability through affiliated companies, are now expressly covered;
• Clarified “Serious Circumstances” Standard: Provides a clear definition of “engaging in infringement as a business” and broadens the scope of recognized infringement consequences to include serious harm to intangible assets such as goodwill and market share.
• Impact on Litigation Strategy: Adjustments have been made to the calculation of the damages base, the determination of the multiplier, and the ceiling amount. In addition, where the court has provided explanation and the plaintiff still fails to claim punitive damages, such a claim may not be brought separately later, and the court will not accept it.
For right holders, pre litigation strategic planning is now more important.
The Supreme Court also selected Ten IP Typical Cases of 2025 from courts nationwide, covering patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and unfair competition. Cases of particular reference value for multinational and tech companies include:
• Chip patent infringement: Established the principle that claims for logic circuit patents must be construed without severing technical features from the logical chain;
• Malicious “poaching”: Systematic high salary recruitment of a competitor’s core technical staff was found to constitute unfair competition;
• Civil–criminal convergence in counterfeiting: In a civil trademark infringement trial, upon discovering the infringement source, the court referred the matter to public security for investigation, leading to criminal liability and full chain suppression of the source infringement;
• Platform-data scraping: Clarified the boundaries between lawful data acquisition and reasonable use;
• Malicious consecutive trademark applications: An agency assisting in consecutive malicious trademark filings was found to have engaged in unfair competition and held jointly liable.
The Supreme Procuratorate’s annual report shows that procuratorial authorities have institutionalized special supervision of malicious IP litigation and are actively mining supervision clues through big-data models.
The Supreme Procuratorate also released typical cases on IP protection, focusing on emerging industries such as chip manufacturing, photovoltaic new energy, and industrial software. Several cases involve the illegal provision of trade secrets abroad, with some touching upon “bottleneck” critical technologies.
China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA): Issued three batches of typical cases regarding patent re examination and invalidation, trademark opposition review, and administrative protection of intellectual property. Highlights include patents for AI application scenarios, crystalline-form pharmaceuticals, domestic animation IP protection, and regulation of malicious registration of celebrity names.
General Administration of Customs: Annual report shows that in 2025, customs recordals surpassed 35,200, with over 86 million infringing goods seized. Customs also provided targeted support for overseas enforcement by cultural and creative brands.
Ministry of Public Security: Annual report shows that public security authorities registered 31,000 IP-related cases nationwide in 2025. Typical cases cover chip related trade secrets, illicit filming in cinemas during the Spring Festival, and counterfeiting of agricultural supplies, reflecting a new policing model that uses big data tools to combat infringement and counterfeiting.
State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR): Annual report focuses on intensive rectification actions in online markets and consumer goods sectors, and identifies compliance supervision of digital platforms and regulation of AI related unfair competition as priorities for the next phase.
This year’s IP Week featured the most intensive releases from local judicial and administrative bodies. Courts in more than fifty provinces and cities officially published their annual reports or typical cases on IP protection, each reflecting regional industrial strength.
In April, legislative and enforcement developments surrounding data, platform governance, and emerging technologies were intensively rolled out. The National Data Administration issued the Guidelines for Data Property Rights Registration (Trial) for public comments. It unified framework for the confirmation and circulation of data property rights. The guidelines clarify the prudential review responsibilities of registration institutions, and aim to improve the efficiency and credibility of data transactions.
The revised Measures for the Handling of Complaints and Reports by the SAMR took effect on April 15. Changes include optimized the jurisdiction rules for complaints against platform operators, and added regulations on malicious compensation claims involving false materials, forgery, and fraudulent compensation, with serious cases to be transferred to public security. Notably, the new rules removed the provision applying to administrative IP complaints and reports. The scope of relevant references remains to be clarified.
In the field of emerging technology governance, the Cyberspace Administration of China released the Administrative Measures for Digital Human Information Services for public comments. The draft for the first time builds a full process responsibility framework covering four categories of entities, requires that the identity of “digital humans” be prominently marked, and extends personality rights protection to “digital twin” scenarios.
On the judicial side, the Guangzhou IP Court in a case involving the misappropriation of technical secrets relating to digital human, applied triple punitive damages and awarded RMB 4.95 million (approx. USD 724,000) in compensation. It sent a clear compliance and technology protection warning to enterprises.
From April 15, copyright pledge registration for software is now fully handled online, marking a further acceleration of the IP pledge financing process.
On the regulatory front, this month saw several institutional measures regarding AI. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, together with nine other ministries, issued the Measures for Ethical Review and Services of Artificial Intelligence Science and Technology (Trial), introducing a mandatory expert re examination mechanism for high risk AI scenarios and clarifying its connection with existing regulatory frameworks.
The Cyberspace Administration of China released the Interim Measures for the Administration of Anthropomorphic Interaction Services of Artificial Intelligence, prohibiting the use of services aimed at replacing social interaction or inducing user dependence, and banning the provision of virtual intimate relationship services to minors. Together, these rules signal a shift in China’s AI governance from principle based requirements toward scenario specific and procedural implementation.
In judicial practice, AI is entering IP cases in a dual capacity. The Dongguan court, for the first time, used AI tools for source tracing and duplication checking to assist in adjudicating a copyright dispute, finding inconsistencies about the plaintiff’s claimed creation date and that the pattern in question lacked originality. On the other hand, the Shanghai Qingpu court found that artificially “feeding” an AI through high frequency searches to induce it to generate false infringement evidence constituted an abuse of rights, and dismissed all claims. These cases reveal the dual nature of AI evidence and the emerging boundaries of judicial scrutiny.
In industry developments, Jiangsu launched “Suzhihui,” China’s first “AI + IP” application promotion platform. The mainstream social media platform RedNote hosted its first AI Governance Open Day, reporting that it had handled over one million instances of improper AI behavior this year. It designated authenticity and original value as the core benchmarks for content governance.
In addition, Meta’s acquisition of Manus was blocked due to security reviews. Regulators determined, through a “look through” analysis, that its VIE structured restructuring was a deliberate attempt to bypass China’s export control and cross border data review rules. In parallel, the U.S. Department of the Treasury initiated its own review. This marks the first cross‑border acquisition in the global AI sector to face dual national‑security reviews in both China and the U.S., with wide-ranging implications for compliance strategies in high-tech international transactions.
