China’s SPC Releases Guiding Cases on Strengthening Judicial Protection of IP for Sci-Tech Innovation
Published 5 March 2026
Yu Du
On 28 February 2026, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) announced a set of topic-focused Guiding Cases on “Strengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property for Scientific and Technological Innovation” at a press conference held as part of its “Two Sessions” briefing series.
The release responds to the fast growth and rising complexity of IP disputes in high-tech and frontier sectors. The SPC highlighted that from 2021 to 2025, courts nationwide concluded over 2.5 million first-instance IP cases, up 64.44% compared with the previous five-year period, and that disputes increasingly involve emerging industries and diverse innovators (large tech firms, SMEs, research institutes, and foreign entities).
The 49th batch of SPC Guiding Cases (Nos. 273-279) aims to provide authoritative guidance for adjudicating new and difficult IP matters, promote consistent application of law, and enhance judicial safeguards for innovation-driven development.
Guiding Case No. 273 - Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Geely Automobile Research Institute Co., Ltd. v. WM Motor Manufacturing (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. et al.(Trade Secret Infringement Dispute)
Case History - Dozens of senior engineers left Geely and joined WM Motor. Geely alleged that WM used its confidential chassis technology and related technical drawings to develop electric vehicles and apply for patents within an unusually short time. The dispute centered on whether WM had misappropriated Geely’s trade secrets.
Key Points - Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, courts may presume trade secret infringement where a company recruits key personnel from a competitor and rapidly develops products related to the competitor’s confidential technology within a time significantly shorter than that required for independent R&D. Courts may also specify detailed obligations to ensure effective cessation of infringement.
Judgment - The SPC found trade secret infringement, ordered WM to cease use of the technology, implement multiple compliance measures, and pay over RMB 637 million in damages and related costs.
Guiding Case No. 274 - Qingdao Qing Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Chen Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. (Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute – Offer for Sale)
Case History - The patentee discovered that the defendant displayed a product on its website that allegedly infringed a utility model patent. The defendant argued it had only “offered for sale” the product and had not actually sold it.
Key Points - Under the Patent Law, “offering for sale” is an independent form of patent infringement. Liability for damages may arise even where no actual sale has taken place, as such conduct may affect market competition and the patentee’s commercial opportunities.
Judgment - The courts held that the defendant’s online display constituted an infringing offer for sale and ordered cessation of infringement and compensation for losses and reasonable enforcement costs.
Guiding Case No. 275 - Jiangsu Jin Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Qin Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (Plant Variety Rights Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The plaintiff, an exclusive licensee of a rice plant variety, alleged that the defendant organized the sale of infringing seeds through a membership platform and WeChat groups while claiming it merely provided information services.
Key Points - Under the Seed Law and relevant SPC judicial interpretations on plant variety rights, a party that organizes transactions and determines key terms such as price, quantity, and delivery conditions may be deemed the actual seller of infringing seeds, even if it claims to act as an intermediary. Courts may look beyond formal arrangements to determine the substance of the transaction.
Judgment - The SPC confirmed that the defendant had effectively organized the sale of infringing seeds and upheld a judgment ordering cessation of infringement and damages.
Guiding Case No. 276 - Novartis AG v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and Dai (Patent Invalidation Administrative Dispute)
Case History - A pharmaceutical patent relating to a drug combination was challenged in an invalidation proceeding before CNIPA. The patent owner argued that the invention involved a creative step beyond prior art.
Key Points - Under Article 22 of the Patent Law, the assessment of inventiveness in chemical and biotechnology patents follows the “three-step approach”. The concept of a “reasonable expectation of success” is relevant when evaluating technical motivation derived from prior art, but not when determining the closest prior art.
Judgment - The SPC upheld CNIPA’s decision invalidating the patent on the ground that the claimed invention lacked inventiveness.
Guiding Case No. 277 - Jiangsu Hong Rotational Compensator Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Yuan Bellows Pipe Co., Ltd. et al. Invention Patent Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The patentee alleged that a pipeline component supplied by the defendant infringed its invention patent. Because the equipment was installed in an operating pipeline, it was difficult to obtain or dismantle the physical product for technical comparison.
Key Points - Under the Patent Law and SPC judicial interpretations on patent disputes, where an accused product cannot reasonably be obtained or dismantled, courts may rely on technical drawings as evidence for infringement comparison if there is sufficient proof that the drawings correspond to the actual product.
Judgment - The courts concluded that the accused product fell within the scope of the patent claims and ordered the defendant to cease infringement and pay damages.
Guiding Case No. 278 - Fujian Heng Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quanzhou Ri Flow Instrument Co., Ltd. (Malicious Intellectual Property Litigation Liability Dispute)
Case History - The defendant repeatedly filed patent infringement lawsuits even though the patent had already been terminated due to non-payment of maintenance fees. The plaintiff claimed the lawsuits caused financial losses and business disruption.
Key Points - Under the Civil Code and principles governing abuse of rights, filing IP lawsuits while clearly lacking a valid legal basis may constitute malicious litigation and give rise to tort liability.
Judgment - The courts held that the defendant’s actions constituted malicious IP litigation and ordered compensation for the losses caused.
Guiding Case No. 279 - Xi Industrial Software Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Wo Mold Co., Ltd. (Computer Software Copyright Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had installed and used unauthorized copies of its industrial software. During court-ordered evidence preservation, the defendant obstructed the process by refusing access to certain computers.
Key Points - Under the Copyright Law, substantial similarity between software may be established through matching names, version numbers, and copyright information without comparing source code. Obstruction of evidence preservation may lead courts to draw adverse inferences against the infringer.
Judgment - The SPC found software copyright infringement and ordered the defendant to stop infringement and pay substantial damages and enforcement costs.
Comment
Guiding Cases 273-279 address several recurring issues in current IP disputes. They clarify evidentiary rules in cases where proof is difficult to obtain, such as trade secret disputes, software infringement, and patent cases where the accused product cannot easily be accessed. They also provide further guidance on assessing inventiveness in technically complex fields such as chemical and biotechnology patents. Further, the cases respond to practical problems seen in litigation, including attempts to conceal infringing sales through “platform” or intermediary arrangements and the filing of IP lawsuits without a valid legal basis. Overall, these cases provide clearer reference points for courts handling similar disputes.
The release responds to the fast growth and rising complexity of IP disputes in high-tech and frontier sectors. The SPC highlighted that from 2021 to 2025, courts nationwide concluded over 2.5 million first-instance IP cases, up 64.44% compared with the previous five-year period, and that disputes increasingly involve emerging industries and diverse innovators (large tech firms, SMEs, research institutes, and foreign entities).
The 49th batch of SPC Guiding Cases (Nos. 273-279) aims to provide authoritative guidance for adjudicating new and difficult IP matters, promote consistent application of law, and enhance judicial safeguards for innovation-driven development.
Guiding Case No. 273 - Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Geely Automobile Research Institute Co., Ltd. v. WM Motor Manufacturing (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. et al.(Trade Secret Infringement Dispute)
Case History - Dozens of senior engineers left Geely and joined WM Motor. Geely alleged that WM used its confidential chassis technology and related technical drawings to develop electric vehicles and apply for patents within an unusually short time. The dispute centered on whether WM had misappropriated Geely’s trade secrets.
Key Points - Under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, courts may presume trade secret infringement where a company recruits key personnel from a competitor and rapidly develops products related to the competitor’s confidential technology within a time significantly shorter than that required for independent R&D. Courts may also specify detailed obligations to ensure effective cessation of infringement.
Judgment - The SPC found trade secret infringement, ordered WM to cease use of the technology, implement multiple compliance measures, and pay over RMB 637 million in damages and related costs.
Guiding Case No. 274 - Qingdao Qing Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Chen Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. (Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute – Offer for Sale)
Case History - The patentee discovered that the defendant displayed a product on its website that allegedly infringed a utility model patent. The defendant argued it had only “offered for sale” the product and had not actually sold it.
Key Points - Under the Patent Law, “offering for sale” is an independent form of patent infringement. Liability for damages may arise even where no actual sale has taken place, as such conduct may affect market competition and the patentee’s commercial opportunities.
Judgment - The courts held that the defendant’s online display constituted an infringing offer for sale and ordered cessation of infringement and compensation for losses and reasonable enforcement costs.
Guiding Case No. 275 - Jiangsu Jin Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Qin Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (Plant Variety Rights Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The plaintiff, an exclusive licensee of a rice plant variety, alleged that the defendant organized the sale of infringing seeds through a membership platform and WeChat groups while claiming it merely provided information services.
Key Points - Under the Seed Law and relevant SPC judicial interpretations on plant variety rights, a party that organizes transactions and determines key terms such as price, quantity, and delivery conditions may be deemed the actual seller of infringing seeds, even if it claims to act as an intermediary. Courts may look beyond formal arrangements to determine the substance of the transaction.
Judgment - The SPC confirmed that the defendant had effectively organized the sale of infringing seeds and upheld a judgment ordering cessation of infringement and damages.
Guiding Case No. 276 - Novartis AG v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and Dai (Patent Invalidation Administrative Dispute)
Case History - A pharmaceutical patent relating to a drug combination was challenged in an invalidation proceeding before CNIPA. The patent owner argued that the invention involved a creative step beyond prior art.
Key Points - Under Article 22 of the Patent Law, the assessment of inventiveness in chemical and biotechnology patents follows the “three-step approach”. The concept of a “reasonable expectation of success” is relevant when evaluating technical motivation derived from prior art, but not when determining the closest prior art.
Judgment - The SPC upheld CNIPA’s decision invalidating the patent on the ground that the claimed invention lacked inventiveness.
Guiding Case No. 277 - Jiangsu Hong Rotational Compensator Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Yuan Bellows Pipe Co., Ltd. et al. Invention Patent Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The patentee alleged that a pipeline component supplied by the defendant infringed its invention patent. Because the equipment was installed in an operating pipeline, it was difficult to obtain or dismantle the physical product for technical comparison.
Key Points - Under the Patent Law and SPC judicial interpretations on patent disputes, where an accused product cannot reasonably be obtained or dismantled, courts may rely on technical drawings as evidence for infringement comparison if there is sufficient proof that the drawings correspond to the actual product.
Judgment - The courts concluded that the accused product fell within the scope of the patent claims and ordered the defendant to cease infringement and pay damages.
Guiding Case No. 278 - Fujian Heng Technology Co., Ltd. v. Quanzhou Ri Flow Instrument Co., Ltd. (Malicious Intellectual Property Litigation Liability Dispute)
Case History - The defendant repeatedly filed patent infringement lawsuits even though the patent had already been terminated due to non-payment of maintenance fees. The plaintiff claimed the lawsuits caused financial losses and business disruption.
Key Points - Under the Civil Code and principles governing abuse of rights, filing IP lawsuits while clearly lacking a valid legal basis may constitute malicious litigation and give rise to tort liability.
Judgment - The courts held that the defendant’s actions constituted malicious IP litigation and ordered compensation for the losses caused.
Guiding Case No. 279 - Xi Industrial Software Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Wo Mold Co., Ltd. (Computer Software Copyright Infringement Dispute)
Case History - The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had installed and used unauthorized copies of its industrial software. During court-ordered evidence preservation, the defendant obstructed the process by refusing access to certain computers.
Key Points - Under the Copyright Law, substantial similarity between software may be established through matching names, version numbers, and copyright information without comparing source code. Obstruction of evidence preservation may lead courts to draw adverse inferences against the infringer.
Judgment - The SPC found software copyright infringement and ordered the defendant to stop infringement and pay substantial damages and enforcement costs.
Comment
Guiding Cases 273-279 address several recurring issues in current IP disputes. They clarify evidentiary rules in cases where proof is difficult to obtain, such as trade secret disputes, software infringement, and patent cases where the accused product cannot easily be accessed. They also provide further guidance on assessing inventiveness in technically complex fields such as chemical and biotechnology patents. Further, the cases respond to practical problems seen in litigation, including attempts to conceal infringing sales through “platform” or intermediary arrangements and the filing of IP lawsuits without a valid legal basis. Overall, these cases provide clearer reference points for courts handling similar disputes.