On April 20, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court of China released its 2025 Typical Intellectual Property Cases. The selected cases cover a broad range of issues, including trademark law, patent litigation, trade secret protection, unfair competition, data rights, platform liability, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement.
This article highlights ten practical takeaways that may be relevant to brand owners, technology companies, platform operators, and IP practitioners following developments in Chinese intellectual property law.
The first five cases focus on trademark distinctiveness, semiconductor patent litigation, punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes, trade secret protection, and malicious employee poaching.
1. Creative and Unconventional Trademarks May Still Be Registrable
Key Holding
The SPC held that “The Tragedy of Lord George” was not a common phrase or expression in everyday language and possessed a certain degree of uniqueness in its composition, meaning, and pronunciation. The phrase was neither descriptive of perfumes nor related to the function, purpose, or characteristics of the goods. In light of similar registrations in the perfume industry and evidence showing that consumers had already used the phrase to identify a particular perfume product, the SPC concluded that the mark was capable of identifying the source of goods and therefore possessed inherent distinctiveness.
Significance
The decision clarifies the standards for assessing the distinctiveness of phrase-based trademarks. It reflects a balanced approach that considers both the legal nature of trademark distinctiveness and evolving market realities, while leaving room for brand development and innovation.
Practical Takeaway
In recent years, absolute grounds refusals have become increasingly difficult to overcome in China. It will be interesting to see whether this decision signals a more practical approach to assessing trademark distinctiveness, particularly for creative and unconventional brands. We certainly hope to see this approach reflected in future examination practice.
2. Patent Claims Should Be Interpreted in Light of the Overall Technical Logic
Key Holding
The SPC held that, when interpreting patent claims involving logic circuits, particular attention should be paid to the logical connections among technical features, signal flow, and control timing, rather than isolating individual features from the overall technical solution. The accused circuit module differed from the claimed pulse-signal-generation feature in its means, function, and effect, and therefore neither constituted an identical nor an equivalent feature. As a result, the accused product did not fall within the scope of the asserted claim.
Significance
The decision clarifies important considerations for claim construction and the assessment of equivalent infringement in semiconductor-related disputes, and provides a useful reference for future cases involving similar technologies.
Practical Takeaway
This decision is a useful reminder that claim construction in circuit-related patent cases should be grounded in the complete technical logic of the claimed solution, including signal flow, timing, and the relationship among circuit modules. It also shows that the doctrine of equivalents should not be used to expand protection where the accused solution achieves a similar end result through substantially different signal-generation logic, functional allocation, and technical effects. More broadly, the decision suggests that Chinese courts are becoming increasingly cautious about expanding patent protection through the doctrine of equivalents in highly technical fields such as semiconductor circuits.
3. Criminal Penalties Do Not Necessarily Shield Defendants from Punitive Damages
Key Holding
The court found that the defendants had jointly infringed the plaintiff’s trademarks by purchasing used network switches and components, refurbishing them, affixing trademarks identical or similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, and selling the products as new equipment. Given the defendants’ organized infringement activities, large scale of sales, substantial profits, and malicious intent, the court held that punitive damages were appropriate. Although some defendants had already paid criminal fines arising from the same conduct, the court applied a three-times punitive damages multiplier and awarded RMB 20 million in damages.
Significance
This case is a representative example of applying punitive damages in trademark disputes involving overlapping criminal and civil proceedings. The decision confirms that punitive damages may still be imposed after the same conduct has been found to constitute a crime, while also recognizing that prior criminal penalties may be considered when determining the appropriate punitive damages multiplier.
Practical Takeaway
Refurbished products re-entering the market as purportedly new products remain a persistent enforcement challenge for many brand owners. Although punitive damages have become increasingly common in serious trademark infringement cases, the more interesting aspect of this decision is that the defendants were still exposed to substantial civil liability even after criminal sanctions had already been imposed. For rights holders, a successful criminal prosecution may not be the end of the story. In some cases, it may merely be the beginning of a broader enforcement strategy.
4. Trade Secret Theft in High-Tech Industries May Trigger Severe Criminal Liability
Key Holding
The court found that the defendants unlawfully obtained trade secrets relating to RF chip technology through coordinated recruitment of employees, unauthorized access to confidential information, and collaboration between former and current employees of the rights holder. The court further held that the discounted value of a reasonable royalty, assessed at more than RMB 317 million, could be used to determine the amount of loss. All fourteen defendants were convicted of trade secret infringement and sentenced accordingly.
Significance
This case is a representative example of trade secret protection in the field of advanced technology. The decision clarifies important issues relating to the characterization of trade secret crimes and the determination of losses based on reasonable royalty calculations. It also demonstrates the courts’ commitment to protecting technological innovation through strong enforcement against trade secret misappropriation.
Practical Takeaway
Trade secret cases are often difficult to pursue through civil litigation alone, particularly because of the challenges involved in obtaining evidence. This case illustrates how criminal enforcement can play a critical role in uncovering misappropriation and securing key evidence. It also confirms that reasonable royalty calculations may provide an important basis for assessing losses in trade secret disputes.
5. Organized and Malicious Employee Poaching May Constitute Unfair Competition
Key Holding
The court held that the defendant’s continued recruitment of more than twenty former employees of its competitor, despite a prior settlement agreement, constituted malicious employee poaching. The defendant not only hired employees subject to non-compete obligations but also assisted them in circumventing those obligations through arrangements such as third-party employment contracts, payroll arrangements, social insurance payments, and indemnification for potential breaches. The court found that such conduct weakened the competitor’s competitive advantages, increased its operating costs, and disrupted fair market competition, thereby constituting unfair competition.
Significance
This case is a representative example of judicial efforts to curb malicious employee poaching as a form of unfair competition. The decision confirms that malicious employee poaching may constitute unfair competition where it harms competitors’ legitimate interests and disrupts market competition. It sends a clear signal that competition should be driven by innovation and product quality rather than improper recruitment practices.
Practical Takeaway
The boundary between legitimate employee mobility and malicious employee poaching remains a difficult issue in practice. If the rules are applied too strictly, employee mobility and market competition may be unduly restricted; if applied too loosely, unfair competition and trade secret risks may increase. This decision suggests that Chinese courts are willing to intervene where recruitment activities become organized, systematic, and directed toward circumventing non-compete obligations or harming a competitor’s legitimate interests.
Part II will examine another five cases involving data scraping, civil-criminal enforcement coordination, online commercial defamation, platform liability, and repeated bad-faith trademark filings.
