On April 21, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court released the Summary of the Annual Report on the Application of Law in Intellectual Property Cases (2024) (全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2024）摘要) listing 41 laws derived from 2024 IP litigation cases (and 2 from antitrust). While China is not a common law country, China’s SPC regularly releases guiding or typical cases as well as these summaries to promote uniformity to help ensure similar cases are treated consistently across different courts.
A translation follows. The original text is available here (Chinese only).
1. The characterization of patent evaluation reports in patent infringement disputes
In patent infringement disputes, patent evaluation reports can be used as one of the evidences in the trial of the case, but the validity of the patent involved should still be judged based on the patent authorization text and the effective decision of the administrative department [China’s National IP Administration]. In the case where the patent owner files an infringement lawsuit based on a valid patent, it cannot be determined that the patent owner does not have the basis to exercise the right to sue, and then the lawsuit can be dismissed simply because the patent evaluation report makes a negative conclusion that the patent involved does not meet the statutory authorization conditions.
2. Coordination of patent infringement determinations in related cases
For the same alleged infringing products, the same patent rights, and the same grounds for non-infringement defense, the determination of related cases should be consistent to prevent conflicts in judgment. Even if the alleged infringer does not appeal after the first-instance judgment, the second-instance court can also change the judgment and determine that the relevant defense of the alleged infringer is also established based on the determination of the establishment of the same grounds for defense in another effective judgment.
3. Judgment with performance conditions and interest on debt during the period of delayed performance
1. If the patent invalidation procedure is suspended due to property preservation measures being taken against the patent involved, and the National Intellectual Property Administration fails to make a decision on the invalidation request before the judgment of the patent infringement lawsuit, the people’s court may make corresponding arrangements for the performance of the obligations determined by the judgment according to the specific circumstances of the case, including adding necessary conditions to the performance of the judgment items such as cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. For example, the patent claim based on which the patent right holder filed the lawsuit can be made into a precondition for the performance of the judgment item after the National Intellectual Property Administration makes a decision to maintain the validity of the patent claim, and make arrangements for the debt interest during the period, so as to reasonably balance the interests of all parties.
2. For a judgment with attached performance conditions, the debt interest for the period of delayed performance may be ordered at the same time, that is, after the performance conditions of the judgment are met, interest shall be calculated based on the loan market quotation rate for the same period announced by the National Interbank Funding Center from the date of delivery of the effective judgment to the date when the performance conditions are met; if the obligation to pay money is still not performed after the performance conditions determined by the judgment are met, the debt interest for the period of delayed performance shall be doubled.
4. Handling of patent infringement judgments that have been executed after the examination decision declaring patent rights invalid
1. The enforcement actions after the decision to declare a patent right invalid does not fall under the circumstances stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Patent Law that the invalidation decision does not have retroactive effect on the effective patent infringement judgment. The relevant enforcement funds should generally be ordered by the enforcement court in the execution reversal procedure to order the applicant for enforcement to return the acquired property and interest to the person subject to enforcement. The people’s court may also order the return in the retrial judgment depending on the circumstances.
2. For patent infringement judgments involving multiple alleged infringers, if the different execution times of the compensation obligations of different alleged infringers result in different application results of Article 47, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, which violates the principle of fairness, the People’s Court may apply the provisions of Article 47, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law to deal with it.
5. Treatment of a Class I declaration made by a generic drug applicant before patent information registration
If the drug marketing authorization holder correctly registers the patent information within the prescribed period, but the generic drug applicant has made a Class I statement before the registration, the drug marketing authorization holder should have the opportunity to require the generic drug applicant to promptly apply to change its statement type within a reasonable period. If the generic drug applicant applies to change its Class I statement to a Class IV statement, or refuses to apply for change within a reasonable period, or applies to change to other erroneous statements, the People’s Court shall accept and conduct substantive review of the drug patent linkage lawsuit filed by the patent right holder.
6. Handling of changes in drug technical solutions in drug patent linkage disputes
In cases of disputes over drug patent linkage, the people’s court shall use the technical solution of the drug review and approval department to determine whether the drug falls within the scope of patent protection. The applicant for drug marketing authorization shall promptly and truthfully explain to the people’s court any changes in the technical solution that affect the judgment of whether it falls within the scope of patent protection, otherwise it shall bear adverse consequences in accordance with the law.
7. Identification of the Inventor of a Utility Patent
The invention patent for use is an invention based on the discovery of new uses of known compounds. Its core is not the known compounds themselves, but the discovery and application of new uses of known compounds. If the proposal of the invention concept of “new uses of old drugs” plays a key role in research and development activities, the person who proposes the invention concept, makes substantial contributions to the formation or substantial improvement of specific technical solutions, and makes substantial contributions to phased research and development can be listed as the inventor.
8. Identification of usage environment characteristics and infringement judgment
The identification of the characteristics of the usage environment can be based on the invention title, invention theme, and the claims of the involved patent, combined with the content of the specification for comprehensive judgment. When considering whether the accused technical solution has the relevant usage environment features of the patent claims involved, it is not required that the accused infringing product necessarily has components related to the usage environment features, as long as the accused infringing product can be applicable to the usage environment defined by the usage environment features.
9. Inventions and creations related to sacrificial offerings that violate social ethics and harm public interests should not be granted patent rights
1. The patent system is intended to protect inventions and creations that can promote scientific and technological progress and economic and social development. So-called “inventions and creations” that have no substantial benefits for scientific and technological progress and economic and social development should not be protected by patents. The understanding and application of specific provisions, including the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Patent Law, should be based on the legislative purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the Patent Law.
2. In judicial practice, the core socialist values should be used as a guide to advocate and promote social morality that meets the requirements of the times and is recognized by the people. Even if a certain sacrificial product does not belong to feudal superstitious funeral products, it may still fall under the circumstances of violating social morality or harming the public interest as stipulated in Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law.
10. Acceptance of deletion amendments to claims during oral proceedings of patent invalidation examination
During the oral hearing of patent invalidation examination, if the National Intellectual Property Administration considers that some of the modified claims are unacceptable, the patentee shall be allowed to delete the unacceptable claims in the current claims text and use the remaining acceptable claims as the basis for examination. Regardless of whether the deletion is proposed orally or in writing by the patentee in court, the National Intellectual Property Administration shall generally accept it; if the replacement page is not submitted in court, the National Intellectual Property Administration may require it to be submitted within a certain period of time; if the replacement page is not submitted within the specified period of time, it can be regarded as the patentee has not modified the claims in accordance with the law, and corresponding treatment shall be made accordingly.
11. Whether the scope of the design for which protection is sought is clearly shown
If, based on the general consumer’s knowledge level and cognitive ability, taking into account the patent views, usage status diagrams and general common sense, there are still multiple possible designs for the design shown in the design patent drawings, then it can be determined that the design patent document fails to clearly show the design of the product for which patent protection is sought.
II. Trial of Trademark Cases
12. Factors to be considered in determining infringement of geographical indication certification trademark rights
The following factors need to be considered in determining whether the alleged infringing behavior constitutes an infringement of the geographical indication certification trademark right: first, whether the alleged infringing goods meet the conditions for using the geographical indication trademark, that is, the goods come from a specific place of origin; second, whether the alleged infringing goods have the specific qualities of geographical indication products; and third, whether the alleged infringing behavior is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source and specific quality of the goods.
13. Determination of the Prior Use Defense of a Trademark
The application of the defense of prior use of trademarks requires a balance between the interests of the prior user of the trademark and the exclusive right holder of the registered trademark. If a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is used in good faith on the same or similar goods and has a certain influence, the prior user has the right to continue using it within the original scope; if the prior use is earlier than the trademark application date but later than the use time of the trademark registrant, and there is evidence to prove that the prior user knew or should have known, etc., the prior use defense is not established.
14. Determination of legitimate use of scenic spot names
If the logo is only used to refer to the name of a scenic spot, or to illustrate and describe the relevant content and characteristics of the scenic spot, and it does not exceed the necessary limits, and the relevant public pays general attention and combines it with daily life experience, and will not be confused about the source of the goods or services, it is a legitimate and reasonable use of the logo and does not constitute trademark infringement.
15. When there is evidence that the infringement has made profits, the amount of damages should be determined based on the profits made.
Article 63 of the Trademark Law stipulates the order of application of the calculation method of damages. When determining the amount of damages, the People’s Court should give priority to the actual losses of the right holder, the infringement profits of the infringer and the reasonable license fees as the calculation method. Only when the actual losses, infringement profits and license fees are difficult to determine, the statutory compensation shall be applied.
16. Whether retail services and “selling for others” services constitute similar judgments
The retail services provided by commodity sellers to end consumers are highly similar to the services of “selling for others” in Class 35 in terms of purpose, content, method and object. In the process of providing retail services, if the unauthorized use of a mark identical to the “selling for others” trademark in Class 35 is likely to cause confusion and misidentification of the relevant public about the source of the services, it shall be deemed to constitute trademark infringement.
17. Calculation of contribution rate and application of punitive damages in pharmaceutical trademark infringement cases
1. In cases of pharmaceutical trademark infringement, the contribution rate of the mark in question to the profits of the allegedly infringing drug should be reasonably determined by comprehensively considering the macro development trend of the pharmaceutical field, the micro perspective of consumers in purchasing drugs, the different barriers to entry into a specific pharmaceutical industry, the technical distinction between original research drugs and generic drugs, and the reputation of the pharmaceutical company itself.
2. The alleged infringer, as a shareholder of the right holder and an operator in the same industry, applied for registration of a logo similar to the right holder’s trademark for use on the same goods after the termination of the shareholding relationship, and did not stop the alleged infringement after the administrative judgment had determined that the trademark should be declared invalid. The drugs involved have potential side effects and are easily confused , and the infringement may endanger human health. This is a case of “malicious infringement of trademark exclusive rights with serious circumstances” as stipulated in the Trademark Law, and punitive damages can be applied in accordance with the law.
18. Determination of Distinctiveness of Trademark Registration Based on Product Design
If the applicant of a disputed trademark applied in the form of a product trade dress does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that, through its actual use, the relevant public has been able to use the disputed trademark as a mark for identifying the source of goods rather than merely as a product design, then the disputed trademark does not have distinctive features.
19. Determination of whether trademark registration infringes upon the prior domain name rights of others
To determine that the registration of the disputed trademark infringes on the prior domain name rights of others, the following conditions must be met at the same time: the domain name was registered first and has a certain degree of popularity, the goods or services provided by the domain name operator are the same or similar to the goods or services approved for use by the disputed trademark, and the disputed trademark is the same or similar to the domain name, which is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. The publicity and use evidence of the goods or services provided by the domain name operator can be used as the factual basis for determining whether it has a certain degree of popularity.
20. Application of Article 44 of the Trademark Law: “Obtaining registration by other unfair means”
When judging whether a disputed trademark falls under the circumstance of “obtaining registration by other improper means” as provided for in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, it is not appropriate to determine that a trademark applicant has “obtained registration by other improper means” simply because the number of trademark applications has reached a certain scale. For applicants who can prove that they have a genuine intention to use the disputed trademark or have actually put the trademark into commercial use, and that the application for the disputed trademark is reasonable or legitimate, it is generally not appropriate to determine that the disputed trademark falls under the circumstance referred to in this article.
21. Determination of the approved goods for use in the case of cancellation of trademark due to non-use for three consecutive years
If the goods actually used for the disputed trademark do not belong to the standardized product names in the “Classification of Similar Goods and Services”, but they are essentially the same goods as the goods approved for use by the trademark, or the goods actually used belong to a subspecies of the approved goods, it can be determined that it constitutes the use of the approved goods. If the “Classification of Similar Goods and Services” changes after the disputed trademark is registered, it will not affect the above determination.
22. Determination of whether the behavior of the game live broadcast platform constitutes “marketing for others” service
The game live streaming platform takes advantage of its own traffic and user resources to promote and advertise the partner games through game live streaming, providing game downloads and forums, organizing promotional activities, etc., thereby increasing the download and in-game purchase volume of the partner games, and thereby obtaining a share of the game revenue. This behavior can be deemed to be providing planning and publicity for the sale of goods or services for others, constituting Category 35 of the “Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services” “sales promotion for others” service.
III. Trial of Copyright Cases
23. Works of applied art can be protected by copyright law as works of fine art
For shapes or designs that may be both practical and artistic, parties may choose to protect them under copyright law or design patents, with different protection focuses. When claiming copyright protection, according to the existing system arrangement of China’s copyright law, it is necessary to judge whether the claimed work meets the formal requirements of works of art and whether it has the substantive requirements of originality. There is no need to establish a separate type of work other than works of art, nor is there a need to make separate requirements for originality.
24. Exhaustion of the right to distribute computer software
1. If computer software must be used in conjunction with specific hardware, the right holder’s sale of hardware and computer software in conjunction with each other can be regarded as the distribution of software in the form of delivering tangible carriers, and the principle of exhaustion of distribution rights can be applied as appropriate. After paying a reasonable price, the buyer obtains the ownership of the original or copy of the corresponding software and has the right to use it himself or transfer it to others for use. The right holder’s restrictions on the scope of use, resale, etc. of the aforementioned software are not necessarily binding on the buyer with no contractual relationship with him and the third party who legally transfers the original or copy of the software from the buyer. However, the buyer or third party shall not copy the software without authorization, except for the purpose of achieving legal use, nor shall they use the copy of the software after transferring the original or copy of the software.
2. The owner of a legal copy of software is prohibited from providing the modified software to any third party without permission, which mainly refers to the situation where the modified software cannot be used as the main subject of the transaction without the permission of the software copyright owner. If the main subject of the transaction is hardware, and the software is only used in conjunction with the hardware, and the ownership of the modified software is transferred together with the transaction of the matching hardware, it is generally not necessary to obtain the permission of the software copyright owner.
25. Determination of Substantial Similarity between Works of Art
When judging whether a work of art is substantially similar, the visual image characteristics of the work of art should usually be considered from the perspective of an ordinary observer, and the artistic expression embodied in the work of art should be identified and comprehensively judged in terms of constituent elements, forms of expression, and overall visual effects. If there are only slight differences between the two as a whole, so that ordinary observers tend to ignore these differences unless they deliberately look for differences, then the two can be deemed to be substantially similar. In the case where there are a large number of both the rightholder’s paintings and the infringing paintings being compared, all the paintings involved can be considered as a whole, and at the same time, a comprehensive judgment can be made based on factors such as the author’s creative experience, creative methods, and creative style to determine whether infringement has occurred.
26. Determination of whether a screenwriter has the right to be credited if he quits writing a film or TV script midway
Whether a screenwriter who quits writing a screenplay for a film or TV work midway can enjoy the screenwriter’s right of authorship for the film or TV work should be judged comprehensively based on the provisions of the screenwriter contract signed by the screenwriter, whether the film or TV work uses the original content of the screenwriter’s script, and whether the proportion of use has made a substantial contribution to the film or TV work. If the screenwriter contract does not clearly stipulate the exercise of the screenwriter’s right of authorship after termination, if the proportion of the original content of the screenwriter’s script created by the screenwriter in the film or TV work reaches the level of substantial contribution to the film or TV work, the screenwriter should be deemed to enjoy the screenwriter’s right of authorship.
27. Determination of copyright infringement by the content provider of the in-vehicle system
The video platform operator shall bear the liability for infringement of the information network dissemination right for the provision of infringing videos on its vehicle-mounted application network server. The operator of the vehicle-mounted system software participated in the launch, display and promotion of the video platform vehicle-mounted application and provided package services. It is a participant and beneficiary of the provision of the works involved in the case and shall bear joint
