Supreme People’s Court: Prima Facie Proof of Software Copyright Ownership and Burden Shifting in Infringement Cases (Judgment of December 26, 2025)

Mengchun’s Comments

For companies enforcing software copyrights in China:

No “Perfect Evidence” Requirement
Courts do not require a complete and flawless record of the entire development process. A combination of a registration certificate, contracts, and version control records is generally sufficient to meet the evidentiary threshold.

Version Control Systems as Core Evidence
SVN/Git records, including continuous commits, timestamps, and multiple versions, are highly persuasive in proving development history, completion time, and code integrity.

Speculative Defenses Are Insufficient
Defendants cannot rely on generalized arguments such as “data could theoretically be modified.” Without identifying specific inconsistencies, such challenges carry little evidentiary weight.

Burden Shifting Is Critical
Once the right holder establishes prima facie ownership, the burden shifts to the defendant. Failure to provide concrete rebuttal evidence may result in adverse consequences.

Holistic Approach of Infringement
Courts assess infringement based on overall similarity, including source code, database structure, and even shared defects, rather than isolated comparisons.

I. Key Issue

In software copyright litigation:

What level of evidence is sufficient to establish ownership of software?
How should the burden of proof be allocated between the right holder and the alleged infringer?

II. Court’s Interpretation

The Supreme People’s Court clarified that the ownership of software can be established through prima facie evidence, and that courts should adopt a practical and evidence-based approach.

1. Prima Facie Proof Standard
The right holder may establish ownership by submitting:

• Software copyright registration certificates
• Commercial documents such as sales contracts
• Source code and log records from version control systems (SVN/Git)

The registration certificate constitutes “preliminary evidence” under Chinese law and should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence.

2. Evidentiary Function of Version Control Systems
Version control data can simultaneously demonstrate:

• The time of completion of the software
• Continuity of the development process
• Integrity and consistency of the code

Comprehensive commit logs (e.g., thousands of entries) and system-generated timestamps significantly enhance credibility.

3. Third-Party Corroboration
Evidence obtained from customers, such as installation packages and deployment records, can independently verify the existence and use of the software, forming a corroborative evidentiary chain.

4. Evaluation of Defendant’s Rebuttal
Assertions that data may be altered in theory are insufficient.
Defendants must identify specific contradictions or provide evidence capable of overturning the plaintiff’s proof.

5. Allocation of Burden of Proof
Once the right holder meets the prima facie standard, the burden shifts to the defendant.

Requiring the right holder to prove negative facts, such as that the source code has never been modified, constitutes an improper allocation of the burden of proof.

III. Case Background

The plaintiff, Yingxx, developed the software i-DiaPro Hemodialysis Electronic Medical Record System V3.0, completed in October 2015.

The individual defendant, Wu, served as a project manager at Yingxx and had access to the relevant source code. After resigning in 2016, he joined another company involved in developing a competing system.

The related defendant companies:

• Entered into a high-value contract (RMB 10 million+) to develop a hemodialysis information system
• Rapidly registered software copyrights shortly after establishment
• Delivered software to a hospital for use

During litigation, the defendants failed to produce the source code of the accused software, citing server failure and data loss.

The first-instance court, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, held that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership due to insufficient evidence regarding development records and code integrity, and dismissed all claims.

The plaintiff appealed.

IV. Court’s Holding

1. Ownership and Standing
The Court held that the plaintiff’s evidence, including registration certificates, contracts, and SVN records, was sufficient to establish prima facie ownership.

The defendants’ argument that SVN data could theoretically be modified was rejected, as no specific inconsistencies were identified.

The first-instance court erred by imposing an excessive burden and requiring proof of negative facts.

2. Infringement Analysis

(1) Admissibility of Notarized Evidence
The accused software obtained from a hospital through notarization was accepted as evidence. The defendants failed to rebut its authenticity.

(2) Access
Wu had access to the source code during his employment, supported by internal records and server logs.

(3) Substantial Similarity
The Court found substantial similarity based on:

• Highly similar code segments identified through decompilation
• Identical function names, logs, and unique bugs
• Database structures showing deliberate obfuscation (e.g., renaming tables and fields)
• Identical software defects

The defendants’ comparison reports were found methodologically flawed and insufficient to rebut the findings.

(4) Additional Supporting Factors

• Unusually short development timeline
• Insufficient personnel for a high-value project
• Inconsistent explanations regarding source code management and loss

These factors further supported the conclusion that the accused software was derived from the plaintiff’s software with minor modifications.

3. Joint Infringement
The Court found that all defendants acted with knowledge and coordination, forming a joint infringement.

V. Judgment

The Court ordered that:

• All defendants cease infringement immediately;
• The hospital cease using the infringing software; and
• The defendants jointly compensate the plaintiff:

RMB 22.5 million in damages
RMB 200,000 in reasonable expenses

Court:
Supreme People’s Court

Final Decision Date:
December 26, 2025

Case No.:
（2023）最高法知民终2586号
(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2586