Analysis and Review of the 2025 Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Court of China’s Supreme People’s Court
Published 13 February 2026
Sarah Xuan
On January 28, 2026, the Intellectual Property Court (IPC) of the Supreme People’s Court released the Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (2025) (hereinafter referred to as the “Report”). Following established practice, the Report serves to compile typical cases and summarize adjudication rules, while conveying trial policy directions to the legal community through data presentation and the interpretation of key cases.
The Report is primarily divided into three major sections: (i) adjudication rules and typical cases (covering fields such as patents, technical secrets, new plant varieties, and anti-monopoly); (ii) mechanism construction and enhancement of adjudication capacity; and (iii) foreign-related adjudication and opening-up. The Report indicates that since its inception, the IPC has accepted a total of 24,602 cases and concluded 23,069 cases; in 2025, it accepted 4,679 cases and concluded 3,146 cases. Regarding case structure, the proportion of administrative cases involving the grant and affirmation of patent rights, as well as major, difficult, and complex cases, has shown an upward trend. In terms of compensation intensity, since the various specialized intellectual property laws successively established punitive damages systems, punitive damages have been applied in 58 cases, with a total awarded amount of approximately RMB 2.05 billion; 73 cases were awarded compensation exceeding RMB 10 million, totaling approximately RMB 5.24 billion. In 2025 alone, punitive damages were applied in 30 cases, totaling approximately RMB 1.13 billion, and 32 cases received compensation exceeding RMB 10 million, totaling approximately RMB 2.54 billion. The aforementioned data demonstrate that punitive damages and high-value compensation have reached a significant scale and frequency of application in technology-related cases, exhibiting a trend toward normalization.
The following analysis focuses on the primary content of the Report.
I. Upgrading of Protection Intensity and Remedial Tools (A) Punitive Damages: From “Whether to Apply” to “Determination of Specific Multipliers and Articulation of Reasoning”The Report’s discourse on punitive damages consists of two levels: first, the use of statistical data to confirm the frequency of application and the amount of compensation (see the “Basic Data” section of the Report, p. 2); and second, the clarification of tiered standards for the discretion of multipliers through a series of cases, closely linking the multiplier to factors such as misconduct during litigation, persistent infringement methods, and obstruction of evidence (see “Giving Full Play to the Functions of the Punitive Damages System” section of the Report, p. 7).
According to the consolidation, the punitive damages cases cited in the Report demonstrate a clear correspondence between multiplier gradients and behavioral characteristics: (1) the “Metal Protective Net” patent infringement case (1x multiplier): involving high frequency and long duration of infringement and a refusal to admit the manufacture of infringing products; (2) the “Mobile Game” software copyright infringement and unfair competition case (2x multiplier): involving violations of the principle of good faith in operations and litigation, and repeated disregard for court rulings ordering the submission of the source code of the infringing software; (3) the “Infrared Thermal Imager” software copyright infringement case (3x multiplier): where the infringement was concealed and there was a possibility of evading liability; (4) the “Suitcase Middle Board” patent infringement case (4x multiplier): where, after being ordered to bear liability, the party changed entities and organized multiple subjects to continue implementing substantially the same infringing acts (see Report, p. 7). The key to this narrative is not the facts of the individual cases themselves, but rather the court’s use of clear standards for determining circumstances to advise the legal community: the discretion of punitive damages is not a subjective moral characterization, but a comprehensive determination of the circumstances of the infringement and the performance of litigation conduct.
In light of recent judicial trends, when determining “intent” and “serious circumstances”, courts may more frequently refer to “lack of cooperation in litigation (e.g., refusal to submit key technical data or source code)” and “organized conduct to evade liability (e.g., changing entities, dispersing the supply chain)” as factors for measuring the severity of infringement.
(B) Technical Secrets: More Operable Remedies, Clearer Allocation of Liability, and Strengthening the Focus on “Core Technology and Original Innovation”The Report presents three noteworthy judicial orientations in the section concerning technical secrets.
First, more operable adjudication tools have emerged regarding the specific methods of bearing the liability to cease infringement: in the “Inorganic Hybrid Resin” technical secret infringement case, it was clarified that the people’s courts may treat the “return of the right to apply or the patent right” as a specific method of bearing the liability to cease infringement (see “Technical Secrets” section of the Report, p. 9).
Second, regarding the rules of evidence and the handling of the relationship between civil and criminal proceedings, the Report emphasizes that in civil trials, the court may independently ascertain the scope of infringement and the facts of damage based on civil litigation evidence rules and standards of proof, without being restricted by the scope determined in prior criminal judgments (see Report, p. 9). This implies that right holders should avoid basing civil claims entirely on criminal judgments, while defendants cannot use the scope not covered by criminal proceedings as a sole basis for exemption from liability.
Third, regarding the structure of joint infringement liability, the Report clarifies that based on the degree of subjective fault of each infringer, the intentional infringer may be ordered to bear punitive damages, while other infringers bear joint and several liability for compensatory damages within the corresponding scope (see Report, p. 10). The importance of this rule lies in providing a “determination method for punitive damages” in cases involving complex supply chains or multi-party collaborative infringement: punitive damages do not necessarily require all joint infringers to collectively bear the same punishment; instead, they allow the court to make a fine distinction between “compensatory joint and several liability” and “punitive attribution of liability”. This means that in practice, the litigation strategy of right holders can focus on identifying specific links involving subjective intent and utilizing joint and several liability mechanisms to ensure the overall realization of compensation claims; conversely, the focus of corporate compliance should be on proving their own degree of subjective fault through systems and records to avoid being ordered to bear punitive damages in multi-party infringement cases.
II. Seed Industry Intellectual Property: Parallelism of High Win Rates and Record Punitive Damages, and Normalization of “Technical Fact-Finding” The Report’s summary of the seed industry provides a systematic expression through data, typical precedents, and work mechanisms. In 2025, the IPC concluded 181 cases involving new plant varieties, with the win rate for variety right holders reaching 90%. In the “NP01154” new maize variety infringement case, punitive damages were applied with an award of over RMB 53.54 million, setting a new record for compensation in new plant variety infringement cases in China (see “Protection of Seed Industry Intellectual Property” section of the Report, p. 4).
Simultaneously, the Report notes that to improve the scientific nature, accuracy, and standardization of technical fact-finding, the Guidelines for Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of New Plant Variety Right Dispute Cases by People’s Courts have been drafted (see Report, p. 5). This indicates that new plant variety cases will rely more heavily on standardized paths for technical fact-finding, thereby increasing the predictability of adjudication, but also placing higher requirements on parties for evidence preparation. Enterprises should adjust their evidence management systems for compliance and rights protection accordingly: for example, strengthening sample retention, source traceability, and testing arrangements in the breeding, commissioned production, warehousing, and distribution stages to adapt to future, more standardized technical fact-finding requirements. Attorneys need to incorporate the “technical fact-finding route” into the core design of litigation plans rather than as a temporary response during trial.
III. “Refinement” of Grant and Affirmation Examination: Adjudication Philosophies for New Technology Subjects, Boundaries of Inventiveness, and Supplemental Experimental Data (A) Algorithms and Blockchain-Related Inventions: Shifting from “Abstract Rules” to “Comprehensive Technical Solutions”In the “Fault-Tolerant Algorithm Blockchain Consensus Method” patent application case, the Report clarified: although blockchain is a data structure, where it integrates other technical means for specific application scenarios to provide a comprehensive technical solution, it may constitute subject matter protected by patents (see “Grant and Affirmation” section of the Report, p. 6). This statement has high practical significance for the drafting and invalidation of patents for new technologies: it does not simply discuss “whether blockchain is patentable”, but rather proposes a path to patentability characterized by “scenarization + integration of technical means + comprehensive solutions”. For R&D managers, this means patent layouts should emphasize the causal relationship between system architecture, data processing links, and technical effects; for attorneys, in grant and affirmation litigation, evidence must be prepared around whether a “closed loop of technical problem-technical means-technical effect” has been formed.
(B) Determination of Inventiveness: Emphasizing the Boundary Definition between “Combinatorial Innovation” and “Simple Superposition/Reorganization”In the “User Terminal Multimedia Communication Method and Apparatus” patent invalidation case, the Report proposed standards for defining “combinatorial innovation” versus “simple superposition and reorganization of existing technical means” in the field of Internet of Things (IoT) communication technology, to promote “innovation under regulation and development through innovation” in related fields (see Report, p. 6). The value of this description lies in the fact that the court’s examination of inventiveness does not stop at the level of technical feature comparison under the traditional “three-step method”, but emphasizes whether the combinatorial relationship produces a new technical contribution. Given the Report’s focus on “standard definition” as a key adjudication point rather than a general restatement of inventiveness rules, the court may in the future place more emphasis on substantive examination of “constrained relationships, synergistic relationships, and unexpected technical effects after combination” in fields intensive in combinatorial innovation—such as communications, IoT, and software-hardware synergy—rather than finding a lack of inventiveness based solely on the “juxtaposition of multiple known means”.
In terms of practical response, enterprises should actively accumulate experimental, simulation, or performance comparison materials that can prove “synergistic effects” during R&D verification and technical document management; secondly, the technical logic of the “combinatorial relationship” should be clarified during the patent drafting stage to prevent the description from merely listing modules, which would make it difficult to support “substantive contribution” during the affirmation stage.
(C) Supplemental Experimental Data: Continued Contention in the Pharmaceutical Field and Integration with the Principle of Good FaithIn the “Semaglutide” patent invalidation administrative dispute case, the Report noted that the adjudication rules and philosophies regarding the acceptance of supplemental experimental data were further clarified (see “Foreign-Related Adjudication” section of the Report, p. 11). Meanwhile, in the “Talazoparib” patent case, the standards for accepting supplemental experimental data and claim amendments based on the principle of good faith were clarified (see Report, p. 7). These two statements point to a trend where the issue of supplemental data is no longer merely a technical dispute over “admissibility of evidence”, but is increasingly combined with the applicant’s or right holder’s duty of good faith, the degree of original disclosure in the specification, and the legitimate boundaries of claim adjustments.
For pharmaceutical enterprises and investment due diligence, the most important practical implication is: the stability assessment of patent assets should distinguish between two risk structures: “the original specification has provided sufficient disclosure and supplemental data is used only for verification” versus “key technical effects rely on supplemental data and the original disclosure lacks sufficient support”. For R&D managers, the compliance governance of supplemental data should be advanced to the project initiation and filing stages—specifically, which data must be generated before the application date and correspond to the specification, and which can serve as subsequent verification and reinforcement, all of which must form auditable internal records. For attorneys, in invalidation or affirmation litigation, the issue of supplemental data should be integrated into three lines of argument: “sufficiency of disclosure and support for claims”, “whether claim amendments exceed the scope”, and “good faith and procedural justice”, rather than being handled solely at the level of evidence rules.
IV. Fair Competition and Anti-Monopoly: Strengthening Judicial Supervision with “Governance of Malignant Competition” as a Thread Another prominent theme of the Report is elevating the judicial function of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition to the height of serving the national unified large market and healthy industrial competition, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in industrial governance through the expression “comprehensive rectification of malignant competition” (see “Fair Competition” section of the Report, p. 8); furthermore, the Report immediately provides operable boundary cues through multiple categorized cases.
Regarding the conduct of industry associations, the Report uses the “Cement Association Horizontal Monopoly Agreement Case” to emphasize “correctly delineating the boundaries of industry association conduct”, and mentions multiple horizontal monopoly agreement cases involving cement enterprises where administrative penalty decisions were legally supported to form synergy between law enforcement and the judiciary (see “Anti-Monopoly” section of the Report, p. 9). For industry associations and member enterprises, this means that collaborative acts under the guise of “industry self-discipline” or “industry guidance” will more easily be subjected to anti-monopoly review; association meeting minutes, proposal texts, and implementation aspects will become key objects of compliance review.Regarding the platform economy, the Report notes that “competition red lines” were delineated for large platform enterprises through cases involving the abuse of market dominance by mobile payment platform enterprises, with an emphasis on promoting cross-platform interconnectivity (see Report, p. 9). For platform enterprises, anti-monopoly compliance will be more closely integrated into product rule design and ecosystem governance; for upstream and downstream enterprises affected by platform rules, greater importance should be placed on utilizing anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition tools for rights relief.
A more groundbreaking signal comes from the field of administrative monopoly: in a “Shared Electric Bicycle” administrative monopoly case, according to the Report, it was the first time an administrative organ’s illegal setting of franchise rights was found to constitute an abuse of administrative power to restrict transactions (see Report, p. 9). This has direct significance for enterprises participating in local franchising, access, and resource allocation projects; specifically, enterprises need to evaluate not only commercial feasibility but also whether the transaction structure might be identified as an administrative monopoly, thereby affecting contract stability and project continuity.
V. Standard Essential Patents (SEP) and Standardization Governance: Disclosure Obligations Elevated to a “Legitimacy Prerequisite for Exercising Rights” In the section related to Standard Essential Patents (SEP), the Report puts forward a viewpoint with significant rule-declaring implications: where a patentee provides a patented technical solution during the standard-setting process but intentionally fails to disclose patent information, and subsequently asserts patent rights after allowing standard implementers to use the solution, the relevant infringement claims may not be supported as they constitute an abuse of rights (see “Standard Essential Patents” section of the Report, p. 17).
The practical value of this viewpoint is that it elevates information disclosure in standardization scenarios from an “industry practice or contractual obligation” to a key factor affecting whether judicial support for rights relief can be obtained. In other words, the disclosure obligation relates not only to the good-faith basis of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) negotiations but may also directly determine the availability of infringement remedies. For enterprises participating in Standard Setting Organizations (SSO), the most operable response is not to abstractly emphasize “the need to disclose”, but to establish auditable disclosure governance mechanisms: patent search and disclosure judgment processes prior to meetings, proposals, and voting; internal assessment records of proposed technologies and patent portfolios; and consistency management of disclosure strategies and external communications. For litigation attorneys, this adjudication orientation also provides an important path for defense: in SEP infringement and licensing disputes, the counterparty’s disclosure defects and claims of abuse of rights can be included as core points of contention and proven through timeline evidence and standardization process materials.
VI. Litigation Good Faith and Regulation of Abuse of Rights: Clearer “Determination Standards” for Malicious Litigation and Damage Compensation Paths In the “Assisting the Construction of Integrity” section, the Report clarifies that since the establishment of the court, 8 cases have been found to constitute malicious litigation, with 2 such cases identified in 2025 (see “Construction of Integrity” section of the Report, p. 16). More importantly, the Report refined the method for identifying malicious litigation through a “Driving Recorder” patent malicious litigation case: by comprehensively considering factors such as the origin of the right, litigation claims, timing of the lawsuit, and litigation conduct, the court determined the existence of malicious litigation and fully supported the victim’s claim for damages (see Report, p. 16).
This adjudication signal exerts a binding effect on “bulk enforcement”, “enforcement of marginal rights”, and “strategic litigation layouts”. It implies that the court’s review of the legitimacy of the exercise of rights is no longer satisfied with formal legality (registration of rights, complete chain of title) but may further examine whether the purpose, timing, and behavioral mode of the acquisition and exercise of rights involve obvious impropriety. Combined with the exploratory value emphasized in the Report regarding “overall analysis and judgment of malicious litigation and clarifying the scope of damages”, it is noteworthy that in cases where the basis of the right is clearly weak, the acquisition process is questionable, or the enforcement model exhibits high levels of industrialization and procedural manipulation, counterclaims for malicious litigation and damages are more likely to be treated seriously by the court.
At the level of practical response, on one hand, right holders should establish “legitimacy self-check” mechanisms for enforcement—especially before selecting a litigation timing, filing an injunction request, or initiating bulk lawsuits—to evaluate the stability of rights and the legitimacy of purpose. On the other hand, when facing high-pressure enforcement, defendants should systematically organize evidence of the other party’s chain of title, timing of the lawsuit, and conduct during the litigation, and utilize malicious litigation damages to counter procedural abuse when necessary.
VII. Mechanism Innovation and Procedural Governance: Institutional Response from “Procedural Repetition” to “Fundamental Dispute Resolution” The third part of the Report treats “mechanism innovation” as an important lever for enhancing adjudication capacity. Most noteworthy is the institutional response to the repetitive nature of patent infringement judgment execution and derived patent invalidation procedures. The Report states that within the framework of current legal systems such as the Patent Law, to resolve the issue of high numbers of cases derived from patent disputes, the Notice on Adding Execution Guidance to the Main Body of Judgment Documents in Patent Infringement Dispute Cases was issued. By adjusting the expression of the main body of judgments and adding content regarding the handling of judgment execution issues in the event the patent in question is invalidated, the court aims to alleviate problems such as “judgment execution issues and repetitive lawsuits arising from the invalidation of a patent after a breakthrough judgment has determined infringement” (see “Mechanism Innovation” section of the Report, p. 19).
For right holders, the filing of litigation claims must henceforth place greater emphasis on the enforceability of the judgment items and the setting of relevant conditions; for defendants, invalidation procedure strategies and execution risk control should be carried out synergistically, rather than viewing invalidation procedures merely as an ex-post remedy. Furthermore, the Report mentions case handling methods that set conditions for the performance of the duty to cease infringement and monetary payment obligations when the validity of the patent is clearly in dispute (see Report, p. 19), reflecting the court’s search for a more practically operable balance between legal procedures and the effect of case closure.
Additionally, the Report refers to the “comprehensive resolution of disputes”, forming work mechanisms such as centralized mediation and holistic mediation, and issuing the Work Guidelines for Judicial Mediation in Technology-Related Intellectual Property Cases, while compiling and selecting typical mediation cases (see Report, p. 14). The implication for enterprises is that in disputes involving high technology and high compensation risks, mediation has become a standardized path for dispute governance; enterprises should introduce a “holistic multi-case resolution” perspective earlier in dispute management, especially in case structures where patent infringement and invalidation are intertwined, and civil and administrative matters overlap.
VIII. Foreign-Related Matters and Opening-Up: Dual Confirmation of Equal Protection and Data Growth In the “Serving the Opening-Up” section, the Report emphasizes the fulfillment of international obligations such as equal protection and national treatment, using multiple foreign-related case examples to showcase a “fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory” judicial environment (see Report, pp. 11-13). In the appendix data, the Report further provides the specific scale of foreign-related cases: in 2025, 449 new foreign-related and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan-related cases were received, accounting for 16.9% of all new cases; 492 cases were concluded, a year-on-year increase of 15.8% (see Appendix Statistics of the Report, pp. 30-31). This set of data suggests that foreign-related disputes have become an important source of case growth for the IPC, and the influence of its adjudication rules has increased accordingly.
Regarding foreign-related procedures and international cooperation, the Report also mentions that by combining the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (i.e., the Hague Service Convention) with domestic procedures, the court “takes all reasonable efforts” to attempt other forms of service even after successful service by mail, to balance the relationship between strictly observing treaty obligations, ensuring due process, and regulating procedural abuse (see Report, p. 17). Such statements are significant for the procedural expectation management of cross-border parties: one must value service rules under the international treaty framework while anticipating that the court may take a more active regulatory stance against procedural delays.
For Chinese enterprises engaged in overseas business and multinational groups, the growth in foreign-related cases implies practical adjustments on two levels: first, dispute resolution strategies must place greater emphasis on enforceability and negotiability within the Chinese court system; second, cross-border compliance and litigation management should emphasize the portability of the evidence system and procedural compliance to avoid falling into a passive position in links such as service, evidence disclosure, and technical fact-finding.
Comment Overall, the signal released by the Report is that adjudication policies and adjudication techniques are forming a closer linkage: at the substantive level, a “strong protection” orientation is reinforced through punitive damages and high-value compensation (see Report, p. 2, p. 7); at the remedial level, the substantive effect of ceasing infringement is enhanced through methods such as the return of the right to apply or the patent right (see Report, p. 9); at the industrial governance level, anti-monopoly, administrative monopoly, and “malignant competition” governance are combined to delineate the boundaries of platforms, associations, and administrative allocations through categorized cases (see Report, pp. 8-9); and at the institutional level, procedural repetitions caused by patent invalidations are addressed through mechanism arrangements such as “execution guidance” (see Report, p. 19).
For enterprises, attention should be paid to implementing the following measures: (i) upgrade “compensation risk” from financial calculation to behavioral compliance and litigation conduct management; (ii) upgrade “patent and trade secret protection” from document compliance to evidence infrastructure construction (logs, samples, traceability, R&D records, disclosure ledgers); (iii) upgrade “competition compliance” from ex-post legal review to pre-emptive review of product rules, industry collaboration, and government cooperation projects; (iv) incorporate “front-end risk management of grant and affirmation” into the R&D and filing process, especially the compliance governance of supplemental experimental data and quality control of patent drafting; and (v) emphasize strategic adjustments for foreign-related disputes to actively construct a favorable evidentiary basis and procedural status within the Chinese court system. For attorneys, it is necessary to use the categorized rules provided in the Report as a framework to establish reusable models of “correspondence between circumstances, evidence, and adjudication standards”, thereby moving case representation toward a standardized and specialized strategic system.
The Report is primarily divided into three major sections: (i) adjudication rules and typical cases (covering fields such as patents, technical secrets, new plant varieties, and anti-monopoly); (ii) mechanism construction and enhancement of adjudication capacity; and (iii) foreign-related adjudication and opening-up. The Report indicates that since its inception, the IPC has accepted a total of 24,602 cases and concluded 23,069 cases; in 2025, it accepted 4,679 cases and concluded 3,146 cases. Regarding case structure, the proportion of administrative cases involving the grant and affirmation of patent rights, as well as major, difficult, and complex cases, has shown an upward trend. In terms of compensation intensity, since the various specialized intellectual property laws successively established punitive damages systems, punitive damages have been applied in 58 cases, with a total awarded amount of approximately RMB 2.05 billion; 73 cases were awarded compensation exceeding RMB 10 million, totaling approximately RMB 5.24 billion. In 2025 alone, punitive damages were applied in 30 cases, totaling approximately RMB 1.13 billion, and 32 cases received compensation exceeding RMB 10 million, totaling approximately RMB 2.54 billion. The aforementioned data demonstrate that punitive damages and high-value compensation have reached a significant scale and frequency of application in technology-related cases, exhibiting a trend toward normalization.
The following analysis focuses on the primary content of the Report.
I. Upgrading of Protection Intensity and Remedial Tools (A) Punitive Damages: From “Whether to Apply” to “Determination of Specific Multipliers and Articulation of Reasoning”The Report’s discourse on punitive damages consists of two levels: first, the use of statistical data to confirm the frequency of application and the amount of compensation (see the “Basic Data” section of the Report, p. 2); and second, the clarification of tiered standards for the discretion of multipliers through a series of cases, closely linking the multiplier to factors such as misconduct during litigation, persistent infringement methods, and obstruction of evidence (see “Giving Full Play to the Functions of the Punitive Damages System” section of the Report, p. 7).
According to the consolidation, the punitive damages cases cited in the Report demonstrate a clear correspondence between multiplier gradients and behavioral characteristics: (1) the “Metal Protective Net” patent infringement case (1x multiplier): involving high frequency and long duration of infringement and a refusal to admit the manufacture of infringing products; (2) the “Mobile Game” software copyright infringement and unfair competition case (2x multiplier): involving violations of the principle of good faith in operations and litigation, and repeated disregard for court rulings ordering the submission of the source code of the infringing software; (3) the “Infrared Thermal Imager” software copyright infringement case (3x multiplier): where the infringement was concealed and there was a possibility of evading liability; (4) the “Suitcase Middle Board” patent infringement case (4x multiplier): where, after being ordered to bear liability, the party changed entities and organized multiple subjects to continue implementing substantially the same infringing acts (see Report, p. 7). The key to this narrative is not the facts of the individual cases themselves, but rather the court’s use of clear standards for determining circumstances to advise the legal community: the discretion of punitive damages is not a subjective moral characterization, but a comprehensive determination of the circumstances of the infringement and the performance of litigation conduct.
In light of recent judicial trends, when determining “intent” and “serious circumstances”, courts may more frequently refer to “lack of cooperation in litigation (e.g., refusal to submit key technical data or source code)” and “organized conduct to evade liability (e.g., changing entities, dispersing the supply chain)” as factors for measuring the severity of infringement.
(B) Technical Secrets: More Operable Remedies, Clearer Allocation of Liability, and Strengthening the Focus on “Core Technology and Original Innovation”The Report presents three noteworthy judicial orientations in the section concerning technical secrets.
First, more operable adjudication tools have emerged regarding the specific methods of bearing the liability to cease infringement: in the “Inorganic Hybrid Resin” technical secret infringement case, it was clarified that the people’s courts may treat the “return of the right to apply or the patent right” as a specific method of bearing the liability to cease infringement (see “Technical Secrets” section of the Report, p. 9).
Second, regarding the rules of evidence and the handling of the relationship between civil and criminal proceedings, the Report emphasizes that in civil trials, the court may independently ascertain the scope of infringement and the facts of damage based on civil litigation evidence rules and standards of proof, without being restricted by the scope determined in prior criminal judgments (see Report, p. 9). This implies that right holders should avoid basing civil claims entirely on criminal judgments, while defendants cannot use the scope not covered by criminal proceedings as a sole basis for exemption from liability.
Third, regarding the structure of joint infringement liability, the Report clarifies that based on the degree of subjective fault of each infringer, the intentional infringer may be ordered to bear punitive damages, while other infringers bear joint and several liability for compensatory damages within the corresponding scope (see Report, p. 10). The importance of this rule lies in providing a “determination method for punitive damages” in cases involving complex supply chains or multi-party collaborative infringement: punitive damages do not necessarily require all joint infringers to collectively bear the same punishment; instead, they allow the court to make a fine distinction between “compensatory joint and several liability” and “punitive attribution of liability”. This means that in practice, the litigation strategy of right holders can focus on identifying specific links involving subjective intent and utilizing joint and several liability mechanisms to ensure the overall realization of compensation claims; conversely, the focus of corporate compliance should be on proving their own degree of subjective fault through systems and records to avoid being ordered to bear punitive damages in multi-party infringement cases.
II. Seed Industry Intellectual Property: Parallelism of High Win Rates and Record Punitive Damages, and Normalization of “Technical Fact-Finding” The Report’s summary of the seed industry provides a systematic expression through data, typical precedents, and work mechanisms. In 2025, the IPC concluded 181 cases involving new plant varieties, with the win rate for variety right holders reaching 90%. In the “NP01154” new maize variety infringement case, punitive damages were applied with an award of over RMB 53.54 million, setting a new record for compensation in new plant variety infringement cases in China (see “Protection of Seed Industry Intellectual Property” section of the Report, p. 4).
Simultaneously, the Report notes that to improve the scientific nature, accuracy, and standardization of technical fact-finding, the Guidelines for Technical Fact-Finding in the Trial of New Plant Variety Right Dispute Cases by People’s Courts have been drafted (see Report, p. 5). This indicates that new plant variety cases will rely more heavily on standardized paths for technical fact-finding, thereby increasing the predictability of adjudication, but also placing higher requirements on parties for evidence preparation. Enterprises should adjust their evidence management systems for compliance and rights protection accordingly: for example, strengthening sample retention, source traceability, and testing arrangements in the breeding, commissioned production, warehousing, and distribution stages to adapt to future, more standardized technical fact-finding requirements. Attorneys need to incorporate the “technical fact-finding route” into the core design of litigation plans rather than as a temporary response during trial.
III. “Refinement” of Grant and Affirmation Examination: Adjudication Philosophies for New Technology Subjects, Boundaries of Inventiveness, and Supplemental Experimental Data (A) Algorithms and Blockchain-Related Inventions: Shifting from “Abstract Rules” to “Comprehensive Technical Solutions”In the “Fault-Tolerant Algorithm Blockchain Consensus Method” patent application case, the Report clarified: although blockchain is a data structure, where it integrates other technical means for specific application scenarios to provide a comprehensive technical solution, it may constitute subject matter protected by patents (see “Grant and Affirmation” section of the Report, p. 6). This statement has high practical significance for the drafting and invalidation of patents for new technologies: it does not simply discuss “whether blockchain is patentable”, but rather proposes a path to patentability characterized by “scenarization + integration of technical means + comprehensive solutions”. For R&D managers, this means patent layouts should emphasize the causal relationship between system architecture, data processing links, and technical effects; for attorneys, in grant and affirmation litigation, evidence must be prepared around whether a “closed loop of technical problem-technical means-technical effect” has been formed.
(B) Determination of Inventiveness: Emphasizing the Boundary Definition between “Combinatorial Innovation” and “Simple Superposition/Reorganization”In the “User Terminal Multimedia Communication Method and Apparatus” patent invalidation case, the Report proposed standards for defining “combinatorial innovation” versus “simple superposition and reorganization of existing technical means” in the field of Internet of Things (IoT) communication technology, to promote “innovation under regulation and development through innovation” in related fields (see Report, p. 6). The value of this description lies in the fact that the court’s examination of inventiveness does not stop at the level of technical feature comparison under the traditional “three-step method”, but emphasizes whether the combinatorial relationship produces a new technical contribution. Given the Report’s focus on “standard definition” as a key adjudication point rather than a general restatement of inventiveness rules, the court may in the future place more emphasis on substantive examination of “constrained relationships, synergistic relationships, and unexpected technical effects after combination” in fields intensive in combinatorial innovation—such as communications, IoT, and software-hardware synergy—rather than finding a lack of inventiveness based solely on the “juxtaposition of multiple known means”.
In terms of practical response, enterprises should actively accumulate experimental, simulation, or performance comparison materials that can prove “synergistic effects” during R&D verification and technical document management; secondly, the technical logic of the “combinatorial relationship” should be clarified during the patent drafting stage to prevent the description from merely listing modules, which would make it difficult to support “substantive contribution” during the affirmation stage.
(C) Supplemental Experimental Data: Continued Contention in the Pharmaceutical Field and Integration with the Principle of Good FaithIn the “Semaglutide” patent invalidation administrative dispute case, the Report noted that the adjudication rules and philosophies regarding the acceptance of supplemental experimental data were further clarified (see “Foreign-Related Adjudication” section of the Report, p. 11). Meanwhile, in the “Talazoparib” patent case, the standards for accepting supplemental experimental data and claim amendments based on the principle of good faith were clarified (see Report, p. 7). These two statements point to a trend where the issue of supplemental data is no longer merely a technical dispute over “admissibility of evidence”, but is increasingly combined with the applicant’s or right holder’s duty of good faith, the degree of original disclosure in the specification, and the legitimate boundaries of claim adjustments.
For pharmaceutical enterprises and investment due diligence, the most important practical implication is: the stability assessment of patent assets should distinguish between two risk structures: “the original specification has provided sufficient disclosure and supplemental data is used only for verification” versus “key technical effects rely on supplemental data and the original disclosure lacks sufficient support”. For R&D managers, the compliance governance of supplemental data should be advanced to the project initiation and filing stages—specifically, which data must be generated before the application date and correspond to the specification, and which can serve as subsequent verification and reinforcement, all of which must form auditable internal records. For attorneys, in invalidation or affirmation litigation, the issue of supplemental data should be integrated into three lines of argument: “sufficiency of disclosure and support for claims”, “whether claim amendments exceed the scope”, and “good faith and procedural justice”, rather than being handled solely at the level of evidence rules.
IV. Fair Competition and Anti-Monopoly: Strengthening Judicial Supervision with “Governance of Malignant Competition” as a Thread Another prominent theme of the Report is elevating the judicial function of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition to the height of serving the national unified large market and healthy industrial competition, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in industrial governance through the expression “comprehensive rectification of malignant competition” (see “Fair Competition” section of the Report, p. 8); furthermore, the Report immediately provides operable boundary cues through multiple categorized cases.
Regarding the conduct of industry associations, the Report uses the “Cement Association Horizontal Monopoly Agreement Case” to emphasize “correctly delineating the boundaries of industry association conduct”, and mentions multiple horizontal monopoly agreement cases involving cement enterprises where administrative penalty decisions were legally supported to form synergy between law enforcement and the judiciary (see “Anti-Monopoly” section of the Report, p. 9). For industry associations and member enterprises, this means that collaborative acts under the guise of “industry self-discipline” or “industry guidance” will more easily be subjected to anti-monopoly review; association meeting minutes, proposal texts, and implementation aspects will become key objects of compliance review.Regarding the platform economy, the Report notes that “competition red lines” were delineated for large platform enterprises through cases involving the abuse of market dominance by mobile payment platform enterprises, with an emphasis on promoting cross-platform interconnectivity (see Report, p. 9). For platform enterprises, anti-monopoly compliance will be more closely integrated into product rule design and ecosystem governance; for upstream and downstream enterprises affected by platform rules, greater importance should be placed on utilizing anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition tools for rights relief.
A more groundbreaking signal comes from the field of administrative monopoly: in a “Shared Electric Bicycle” administrative monopoly case, according to the Report, it was the first time an administrative organ’s illegal setting of franchise rights was found to constitute an abuse of administrative power to restrict transactions (see Report, p. 9). This has direct significance for enterprises participating in local franchising, access, and resource allocation projects; specifically, enterprises need to evaluate not only commercial feasibility but also whether the transaction structure might be identified as an administrative monopoly, thereby affecting contract stability and project continuity.
V. Standard Essential Patents (SEP) and Standardization Governance: Disclosure Obligations Elevated to a “Legitimacy Prerequisite for Exercising Rights” In the section related to Standard Essential Patents (SEP), the Report puts forward a viewpoint with significant rule-declaring implications: where a patentee provides a patented technical solution during the standard-setting process but intentionally fails to disclose patent information, and subsequently asserts patent rights after allowing standard implementers to use the solution, the relevant infringement claims may not be supported as they constitute an abuse of rights (see “Standard Essential Patents” section of the Report, p. 17).
The practical value of this viewpoint is that it elevates information disclosure in standardization scenarios from an “industry practice or contractual obligation” to a key factor affecting whether judicial support for rights relief can be obtained. In other words, the disclosure obligation relates not only to the good-faith basis of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) negotiations but may also directly determine the availability of infringement remedies. For enterprises participating in Standard Setting Organizations (SSO), the most operable response is not to abstractly emphasize “the need to disclose”, but to establish auditable disclosure governance mechanisms: patent search and disclosure judgment processes prior to meetings, proposals, and voting; internal assessment records of proposed technologies and patent portfolios; and consistency management of disclosure strategies and external communications. For litigation attorneys, this adjudication orientation also provides an important path for defense: in SEP infringement and licensing disputes, the counterparty’s disclosure defects and claims of abuse of rights can be included as core points of contention and proven through timeline evidence and standardization process materials.
VI. Litigation Good Faith and Regulation of Abuse of Rights: Clearer “Determination Standards” for Malicious Litigation and Damage Compensation Paths In the “Assisting the Construction of Integrity” section, the Report clarifies that since the establishment of the court, 8 cases have been found to constitute malicious litigation, with 2 such cases identified in 2025 (see “Construction of Integrity” section of the Report, p. 16). More importantly, the Report refined the method for identifying malicious litigation through a “Driving Recorder” patent malicious litigation case: by comprehensively considering factors such as the origin of the right, litigation claims, timing of the lawsuit, and litigation conduct, the court determined the existence of malicious litigation and fully supported the victim’s claim for damages (see Report, p. 16).
This adjudication signal exerts a binding effect on “bulk enforcement”, “enforcement of marginal rights”, and “strategic litigation layouts”. It implies that the court’s review of the legitimacy of the exercise of rights is no longer satisfied with formal legality (registration of rights, complete chain of title) but may further examine whether the purpose, timing, and behavioral mode of the acquisition and exercise of rights involve obvious impropriety. Combined with the exploratory value emphasized in the Report regarding “overall analysis and judgment of malicious litigation and clarifying the scope of damages”, it is noteworthy that in cases where the basis of the right is clearly weak, the acquisition process is questionable, or the enforcement model exhibits high levels of industrialization and procedural manipulation, counterclaims for malicious litigation and damages are more likely to be treated seriously by the court.
At the level of practical response, on one hand, right holders should establish “legitimacy self-check” mechanisms for enforcement—especially before selecting a litigation timing, filing an injunction request, or initiating bulk lawsuits—to evaluate the stability of rights and the legitimacy of purpose. On the other hand, when facing high-pressure enforcement, defendants should systematically organize evidence of the other party’s chain of title, timing of the lawsuit, and conduct during the litigation, and utilize malicious litigation damages to counter procedural abuse when necessary.
VII. Mechanism Innovation and Procedural Governance: Institutional Response from “Procedural Repetition” to “Fundamental Dispute Resolution” The third part of the Report treats “mechanism innovation” as an important lever for enhancing adjudication capacity. Most noteworthy is the institutional response to the repetitive nature of patent infringement judgment execution and derived patent invalidation procedures. The Report states that within the framework of current legal systems such as the Patent Law, to resolve the issue of high numbers of cases derived from patent disputes, the Notice on Adding Execution Guidance to the Main Body of Judgment Documents in Patent Infringement Dispute Cases was issued. By adjusting the expression of the main body of judgments and adding content regarding the handling of judgment execution issues in the event the patent in question is invalidated, the court aims to alleviate problems such as “judgment execution issues and repetitive lawsuits arising from the invalidation of a patent after a breakthrough judgment has determined infringement” (see “Mechanism Innovation” section of the Report, p. 19).
For right holders, the filing of litigation claims must henceforth place greater emphasis on the enforceability of the judgment items and the setting of relevant conditions; for defendants, invalidation procedure strategies and execution risk control should be carried out synergistically, rather than viewing invalidation procedures merely as an ex-post remedy. Furthermore, the Report mentions case handling methods that set conditions for the performance of the duty to cease infringement and monetary payment obligations when the validity of the patent is clearly in dispute (see Report, p. 19), reflecting the court’s search for a more practically operable balance between legal procedures and the effect of case closure.
Additionally, the Report refers to the “comprehensive resolution of disputes”, forming work mechanisms such as centralized mediation and holistic mediation, and issuing the Work Guidelines for Judicial Mediation in Technology-Related Intellectual Property Cases, while compiling and selecting typical mediation cases (see Report, p. 14). The implication for enterprises is that in disputes involving high technology and high compensation risks, mediation has become a standardized path for dispute governance; enterprises should introduce a “holistic multi-case resolution” perspective earlier in dispute management, especially in case structures where patent infringement and invalidation are intertwined, and civil and administrative matters overlap.
VIII. Foreign-Related Matters and Opening-Up: Dual Confirmation of Equal Protection and Data Growth In the “Serving the Opening-Up” section, the Report emphasizes the fulfillment of international obligations such as equal protection and national treatment, using multiple foreign-related case examples to showcase a “fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory” judicial environment (see Report, pp. 11-13). In the appendix data, the Report further provides the specific scale of foreign-related cases: in 2025, 449 new foreign-related and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan-related cases were received, accounting for 16.9% of all new cases; 492 cases were concluded, a year-on-year increase of 15.8% (see Appendix Statistics of the Report, pp. 30-31). This set of data suggests that foreign-related disputes have become an important source of case growth for the IPC, and the influence of its adjudication rules has increased accordingly.
Regarding foreign-related procedures and international cooperation, the Report also mentions that by combining the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (i.e., the Hague Service Convention) with domestic procedures, the court “takes all reasonable efforts” to attempt other forms of service even after successful service by mail, to balance the relationship between strictly observing treaty obligations, ensuring due process, and regulating procedural abuse (see Report, p. 17). Such statements are significant for the procedural expectation management of cross-border parties: one must value service rules under the international treaty framework while anticipating that the court may take a more active regulatory stance against procedural delays.
For Chinese enterprises engaged in overseas business and multinational groups, the growth in foreign-related cases implies practical adjustments on two levels: first, dispute resolution strategies must place greater emphasis on enforceability and negotiability within the Chinese court system; second, cross-border compliance and litigation management should emphasize the portability of the evidence system and procedural compliance to avoid falling into a passive position in links such as service, evidence disclosure, and technical fact-finding.
Comment Overall, the signal released by the Report is that adjudication policies and adjudication techniques are forming a closer linkage: at the substantive level, a “strong protection” orientation is reinforced through punitive damages and high-value compensation (see Report, p. 2, p. 7); at the remedial level, the substantive effect of ceasing infringement is enhanced through methods such as the return of the right to apply or the patent right (see Report, p. 9); at the industrial governance level, anti-monopoly, administrative monopoly, and “malignant competition” governance are combined to delineate the boundaries of platforms, associations, and administrative allocations through categorized cases (see Report, pp. 8-9); and at the institutional level, procedural repetitions caused by patent invalidations are addressed through mechanism arrangements such as “execution guidance” (see Report, p. 19).
For enterprises, attention should be paid to implementing the following measures: (i) upgrade “compensation risk” from financial calculation to behavioral compliance and litigation conduct management; (ii) upgrade “patent and trade secret protection” from document compliance to evidence infrastructure construction (logs, samples, traceability, R&D records, disclosure ledgers); (iii) upgrade “competition compliance” from ex-post legal review to pre-emptive review of product rules, industry collaboration, and government cooperation projects; (iv) incorporate “front-end risk management of grant and affirmation” into the R&D and filing process, especially the compliance governance of supplemental experimental data and quality control of patent drafting; and (v) emphasize strategic adjustments for foreign-related disputes to actively construct a favorable evidentiary basis and procedural status within the Chinese court system. For attorneys, it is necessary to use the categorized rules provided in the Report as a framework to establish reusable models of “correspondence between circumstances, evidence, and adjudication standards”, thereby moving case representation toward a standardized and specialized strategic system.