In December 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) [delivered a landmark ruling in the trade secret dispute between Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group and Shenzhen Genesis Machinery, a subsidiary of Guangdong Create Century Intelligent Equipment Group Corporation Limited (stock code: 300083.SZ). The court imposed RMB 382 million (approximately USD 53 million) in damages - the highest trade secret compensation ever awarded in China - and established a significant precedent regarding the presumption of 100% technical contribution in calculating infringement profits.
The case involves a former Jingdiao employee who allegedly stole 37,340 technical drawings over a fourteen-year employment period before resigning and joining Shenzhen Genesis, where he continued working on competing CNC machine tool products.
As of May 2026, the SPC has accepted the defendant’s application for retrial, and we will continue to monitor this development closely.
Background and Procedural History
The case involved both criminal and civil proceedings over several years. In July 2019, the Beijing Mentougou District Court convicted Mr. Tian, a former Jingdiao product manager, of trade secret misappropriation and sentenced him to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, together with a RMB 100,000 fine.
Following the criminal judgment, Jingdiao filed a civil lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in November 2019, initially seeking RMB 92 million in damages. In February 2022, the claim was increased to RMB 382 million.
The first-instance judgment, issued in May 2023, awarded only RMB 12.8 million (including legal costs), prompting appeals from both sides.
The case reached the SPC as a direct second-instance appeal pursuant to China’s specialized appellate mechanism for technically complex intellectual property disputes established under the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Several Issues Concerning Litigation Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases and the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal. Since January 2019, appeals in technically complex IP cases including certain trade secret disputes have been centrally heard by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the SPC, bypassing provincial high courts under China’s so-called “leapfrog appeal” system. The mechanism was introduced to promote nationwide consistency, technical expertise, and uniform adjudication standards in technology-related intellectual property cases.
In December 2025, the SPC reversed the lower court’s approach and awarded the full RMB 382 million, including punitive damages. Enforcement proceedings began shortly afterward. By March 2026, courts had frozen Genesis bank accounts and equity interests in two subsidiaries.
Genesis later disclosed that:
RMB 10 million had been paid toward enforcement; approximately RMB 91.5 million had been frozen or deducted; and the SPC had formally accepted its retrial application.
Alleged Misappropriation
According to the court record, Mr. Tian worked at Jingdiao for fourteen years. Shortly before resigning, he allegedly downloaded large volumes of confidential technical materials from the company’s internal systems. Evidence presented in court included:
162 downloads from the company server database; more than 70,000 file transfers through network sharing; and subsequent copying to USB drives and other portable storage devices.
The materials reportedly included 37,340 CNC machine design drawings and related technical documents covering Jingdiao’s core glass-processing machine technology.
After joining Shenzhen Genesis under an alias, Mr. Tian became Deputy General Manager of the company’s glass machine project, directly competing with Jingdiao’s products.
The SPC’s Second-Instance Judgment
One of the central issues in the case concerned the calculation of damages.
The defendants argued that their products incorporated numerous technologies beyond the misappropriated trade secrets and that damages should therefore be apportioned according to the actual contribution of the trade secrets.
The SPC rejected this argument. The court held that where the accused infringing products are fundamentally built upon the misappropriated trade secrets, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove the independent contribution of other technologies to the product profits. Failing such proof, the court may presume that the trade secrets contributed 100% of the relevant technical value and profits.
This burden-shifting approach and the presumption of “100% technical contribution” represent a significant departure from traditional apportionment methodologies and substantially increase potential liability in trade secret infringement cases.
The SPC also rejected the first-instance court’s narrower approach of protecting only specific technical points identified during the criminal proceedings. Instead, the court held that the 37,340 drawings did not constitute isolated technical documents, but rather formed a complete and systematic technical information database that should be protected as an integrated trade secret. Even if certain individual technical elements may have entered the public domain, the overall combination retained trade secret status.
Applying Article 17 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law as revised in 2019 concerning punitive damages, the SPC ultimately imposed treble punitive damages. The court found several aggravating circumstances in the case, including:
organized and continuous theft conducted during employment; infringing production and business operations lasting approximately six years; continued infringement after the initiation of criminal proceedings; and litigation misconduct, including incomplete disclosure of evidence during the civil proceedings.
The court estimated that the defendants’ profits during the infringement period could have reached as high as RMB 677 million. Accordingly, even without applying punitive damages, the RMB 382 million award remained within the statutory range.
The SPC’s ruling was remarkably detailed in its remedial orders. Regarding the scope of injunctive relief, the court stated the following:
“From the date this judgment is served, Mr. Tian and Shenzhen Genesis Machinery shall immediately cease disclosing, using, and permitting others to use the trade secrets at issue belonging to Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group. The specific means, content, and scope of cessation shall include but not be limited to the following: within thirty days from the date this judgment is served, under the supervision of the people’s court or under the review of Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group, destroy all drawings and technical documents (including both paper and electronic versions) containing the trade secrets at issue that are in the possession or control of Mr. Tian or Shenzhen Genesis Machinery. Within fifteen days from the date this judgment is served, Shenzhen Genesis Machinery shall, by means of an internal company notice, inform its shareholders, directors, supervisors, senior managers, and all employees of this judgment and the requirements regarding cessation of infringement, and shall require such notified persons and entities to cooperate in the execution of this judgment and to sign confidentiality and non-infringement undertakings.”
The court further emphasized the willful nature of the infringement, stating:
“Genesis, knowing Mr. Tian’s true identity, arranged for Mr. Tian to engage in the development of the JDLVG6XX machine tool. Therefore, Genesis’s conduct constitutes the infringing acts described in Article 9, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 3 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.”
In addition to the substantial monetary award, the SPC ordered the destruction of all technical materials containing the trade secrets and required the company to complete comprehensive internal notification and confidentiality undertaking procedures. Court fees for both instances totaled approximately RMB 3.94 million.
Enforcement Proceedings and the Pending Retrial
As of May 2026, the case has entered the enforcement phase. According to public disclosures by Genesis, which is a listed company trading under stock code 300083.SZ, the company has made an advance payment of RMB 10 million toward the judgment. The courts have cumulatively deducted or frozen RMB 91.5 million from Genesis bank accounts. The Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court has frozen Genesis’s one hundred percent equity interests in Yibin Genesis Machinery and Zhejiang Genesis Machinery, with an aggregate value of RMB 400 million. Critically, on 14 May 2026, Genesis announced that the SPC has formally accepted its application for retrial. The company stated that the frozen equity and deducted funds have a certain impact on daily production and operations but do not constitute a material adverse effect on the company’s overall operations. The acceptance of the retrial application introduces uncertainty as to whether the one hundred percent contribution rule and the threefold multiplier will be upheld, modified, or further elaborated by the SPC. We will continue to monitor the retrial proceedings and provide updates as they become available.
Comment
The Genesis v. Jingdiao case is widely regarded as one of the most significant trade secret decisions in China since the 2019 amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Through its adoption of the “100% technical contribution” presumption and the imposition of substantial punitive damages, the Supreme People’s Court has signaled a markedly tougher judicial stance toward deliberate and long-term trade secret misappropriation. For technology-driven enterprises, the ruling suggests that where defendants cannot adequately prove the independent contribution of other technologies, the profits derived from the entire product may be included in the damages calculation.
The case also reflects a growing trend in Chinese courts toward protecting integrated technical systems rather than isolated technical points alone. The SPC placed considerable emphasis on the commercial value of systematic technical documentation, engineering databases, and combined technical information as a whole. In light of this development, companies should strengthen controls over key technical personnel, implement documented clean room procedures, maintain detailed records of independent development, and improve internal access and data management systems to mitigate future trade secret compliance risks.
The case involves a former Jingdiao employee who allegedly stole 37,340 technical drawings over a fourteen-year employment period before resigning and joining Shenzhen Genesis, where he continued working on competing CNC machine tool products.
As of May 2026, the SPC has accepted the defendant’s application for retrial, and we will continue to monitor this development closely.
Background and Procedural History
The case involved both criminal and civil proceedings over several years. In July 2019, the Beijing Mentougou District Court convicted Mr. Tian, a former Jingdiao product manager, of trade secret misappropriation and sentenced him to one year and ten months’ imprisonment, together with a RMB 100,000 fine.
Following the criminal judgment, Jingdiao filed a civil lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in November 2019, initially seeking RMB 92 million in damages. In February 2022, the claim was increased to RMB 382 million.
The first-instance judgment, issued in May 2023, awarded only RMB 12.8 million (including legal costs), prompting appeals from both sides.
The case reached the SPC as a direct second-instance appeal pursuant to China’s specialized appellate mechanism for technically complex intellectual property disputes established under the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Several Issues Concerning Litigation Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases and the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal. Since January 2019, appeals in technically complex IP cases including certain trade secret disputes have been centrally heard by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the SPC, bypassing provincial high courts under China’s so-called “leapfrog appeal” system. The mechanism was introduced to promote nationwide consistency, technical expertise, and uniform adjudication standards in technology-related intellectual property cases.
In December 2025, the SPC reversed the lower court’s approach and awarded the full RMB 382 million, including punitive damages. Enforcement proceedings began shortly afterward. By March 2026, courts had frozen Genesis bank accounts and equity interests in two subsidiaries.
Genesis later disclosed that:
RMB 10 million had been paid toward enforcement; approximately RMB 91.5 million had been frozen or deducted; and the SPC had formally accepted its retrial application.
Alleged Misappropriation
According to the court record, Mr. Tian worked at Jingdiao for fourteen years. Shortly before resigning, he allegedly downloaded large volumes of confidential technical materials from the company’s internal systems. Evidence presented in court included:
162 downloads from the company server database; more than 70,000 file transfers through network sharing; and subsequent copying to USB drives and other portable storage devices.
The materials reportedly included 37,340 CNC machine design drawings and related technical documents covering Jingdiao’s core glass-processing machine technology.
After joining Shenzhen Genesis under an alias, Mr. Tian became Deputy General Manager of the company’s glass machine project, directly competing with Jingdiao’s products.
The SPC’s Second-Instance Judgment
One of the central issues in the case concerned the calculation of damages.
The defendants argued that their products incorporated numerous technologies beyond the misappropriated trade secrets and that damages should therefore be apportioned according to the actual contribution of the trade secrets.
The SPC rejected this argument. The court held that where the accused infringing products are fundamentally built upon the misappropriated trade secrets, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove the independent contribution of other technologies to the product profits. Failing such proof, the court may presume that the trade secrets contributed 100% of the relevant technical value and profits.
This burden-shifting approach and the presumption of “100% technical contribution” represent a significant departure from traditional apportionment methodologies and substantially increase potential liability in trade secret infringement cases.
The SPC also rejected the first-instance court’s narrower approach of protecting only specific technical points identified during the criminal proceedings. Instead, the court held that the 37,340 drawings did not constitute isolated technical documents, but rather formed a complete and systematic technical information database that should be protected as an integrated trade secret. Even if certain individual technical elements may have entered the public domain, the overall combination retained trade secret status.
Applying Article 17 of China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law as revised in 2019 concerning punitive damages, the SPC ultimately imposed treble punitive damages. The court found several aggravating circumstances in the case, including:
organized and continuous theft conducted during employment; infringing production and business operations lasting approximately six years; continued infringement after the initiation of criminal proceedings; and litigation misconduct, including incomplete disclosure of evidence during the civil proceedings.
The court estimated that the defendants’ profits during the infringement period could have reached as high as RMB 677 million. Accordingly, even without applying punitive damages, the RMB 382 million award remained within the statutory range.
The SPC’s ruling was remarkably detailed in its remedial orders. Regarding the scope of injunctive relief, the court stated the following:
“From the date this judgment is served, Mr. Tian and Shenzhen Genesis Machinery shall immediately cease disclosing, using, and permitting others to use the trade secrets at issue belonging to Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group. The specific means, content, and scope of cessation shall include but not be limited to the following: within thirty days from the date this judgment is served, under the supervision of the people’s court or under the review of Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group, destroy all drawings and technical documents (including both paper and electronic versions) containing the trade secrets at issue that are in the possession or control of Mr. Tian or Shenzhen Genesis Machinery. Within fifteen days from the date this judgment is served, Shenzhen Genesis Machinery shall, by means of an internal company notice, inform its shareholders, directors, supervisors, senior managers, and all employees of this judgment and the requirements regarding cessation of infringement, and shall require such notified persons and entities to cooperate in the execution of this judgment and to sign confidentiality and non-infringement undertakings.”
The court further emphasized the willful nature of the infringement, stating:
“Genesis, knowing Mr. Tian’s true identity, arranged for Mr. Tian to engage in the development of the JDLVG6XX machine tool. Therefore, Genesis’s conduct constitutes the infringing acts described in Article 9, Paragraph 1, Items 2 and 3 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.”
In addition to the substantial monetary award, the SPC ordered the destruction of all technical materials containing the trade secrets and required the company to complete comprehensive internal notification and confidentiality undertaking procedures. Court fees for both instances totaled approximately RMB 3.94 million.
Enforcement Proceedings and the Pending Retrial
As of May 2026, the case has entered the enforcement phase. According to public disclosures by Genesis, which is a listed company trading under stock code 300083.SZ, the company has made an advance payment of RMB 10 million toward the judgment. The courts have cumulatively deducted or frozen RMB 91.5 million from Genesis bank accounts. The Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court has frozen Genesis’s one hundred percent equity interests in Yibin Genesis Machinery and Zhejiang Genesis Machinery, with an aggregate value of RMB 400 million. Critically, on 14 May 2026, Genesis announced that the SPC has formally accepted its application for retrial. The company stated that the frozen equity and deducted funds have a certain impact on daily production and operations but do not constitute a material adverse effect on the company’s overall operations. The acceptance of the retrial application introduces uncertainty as to whether the one hundred percent contribution rule and the threefold multiplier will be upheld, modified, or further elaborated by the SPC. We will continue to monitor the retrial proceedings and provide updates as they become available.
Comment
The Genesis v. Jingdiao case is widely regarded as one of the most significant trade secret decisions in China since the 2019 amendments to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Through its adoption of the “100% technical contribution” presumption and the imposition of substantial punitive damages, the Supreme People’s Court has signaled a markedly tougher judicial stance toward deliberate and long-term trade secret misappropriation. For technology-driven enterprises, the ruling suggests that where defendants cannot adequately prove the independent contribution of other technologies, the profits derived from the entire product may be included in the damages calculation.
The case also reflects a growing trend in Chinese courts toward protecting integrated technical systems rather than isolated technical points alone. The SPC placed considerable emphasis on the commercial value of systematic technical documentation, engineering databases, and combined technical information as a whole. In light of this development, companies should strengthen controls over key technical personnel, implement documented clean room procedures, maintain detailed records of independent development, and improve internal access and data management systems to mitigate future trade secret compliance risks.