Thank You

You are now registered for our Rouse Insights Newsletter

News & Cases from China: March 2022

Published on 28 Apr 2022 | 5 minute read

China’s National Copyright Administration (NCAC) Releases Notification on Copyright Registrations in 2021

Date: 22 March 2022

NCAC’s recently issued ‘Notification of the National Copyright Administration on National Copyright Registration in 2021’ shows continued growth in copyright registration in China. In 2021, the total number of copyright registrations nationwide reached 6,264,378, a year-on-year increase of 24.30%.

The details are as follows:

  • There were 3,983,943 copyright registrations nationwide in 2021, up 20.13% over the previous year. Overall, China’s copyright registrations witnessed a steady upward trend. Major contributing filing centers included Beijing with 1,025,511 registrations, 25.74% of the national total, followed by CPCC (Copyright Protection Center of China) (527,432, 13.24%), Jiangsu (371,776, 9.33%), Shanghai (345,583, 8.67%), Shandong (230,814, 5.79%), and Guizhou (200,929, 5.04%). The aforesaid registrations took up 67.82% of the national total.
  • There were copyright registrations for 2,280,063 pieces of computer software in 2021 nationwide, up by 32.34% year on year. In terms of regions of registration, East China stood out with approximately 1.44 million pieces registered, 63.1% of the total.
  • According to the Notification, 372 copyright pledges were registered in 2021 nationwide, down by 3.13% year on year.




  • 全国共完成作品著作权登记3983943件,同比增长13%。全国作品著作权登记量总体呈现稳步增长趋势,登记量较多的分别是:北京市1025511件,占登记总量的25.74%;中国版权保护中心527432件,占登记总量的13.24%;江苏省371776件,占登记总量的9.33%;上海市345583件,占登记总量的8.67%;山东省230814件,占登记总量的5.79%;贵州省200929件,占登记总量的5.04%。以上登记量占全国登记总量的67.82%。
  • 全国共完成计算机软件著作权登记2280063件,同比增长34%。从登记区域分布情况看,计算机软件著作权登记区域主要分布在东部地区,登记量约144万件,占登记总量的63.1%。
  • 全国共完成著作权质权登记372件,同比下降13%。


Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Releases 2021 Work Report

Date: 8 March 2022

According to its 2021 Work Report, the SPC concluded 541,000 first-instance intellectual property rights (IPR) cases during 2021, in support of innovation-driven developments in China. Many of these cases relate to emerging technologies including 5G communication, biomedical sciences and high-end manufacturing. The decisions strengthened the protection of core technologies and original inventions. The SPC addressed various issues that have been associated with IPR cases, including the high evidentiary thresholds required to establish infringement, lengthy hearings, low compensation pay-outs, and high litigation costs. In addition, it issued a judicial interpretation on punitive damages in IPR cases, and imposed punitive damages on IPR infringers in 895 cases. Under the applicable law, patentees may obtain win-win outcomes in IPR infringement cases by obtaining a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing prior to judgment, thus minimizing the impact of the infringing act. In addition, new measures enable reasonable expenses to be claimed from indiscriminate or serial litigants, demonstrating the court’s lack of tolerance towards vexatious proceedings that obstruct innovation.

To support the objective of maintaining fair levels of competition in the marketplace, the anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition laws have been strengthened. Courts of all levels concluded 49 cases concerning monopolies and 7,478 cases concerning unfair competition. Monopoly and unfair competition cases on the "either-or" option required by certain online platforms, scalping, and credit fabricating were also dealt with by the relevant courts. Acts that hinder fair competition and are contrary to the public interest were also punished severely; for example, in the unfair competition action brought by The Modern China Tea Shop (Chayan Yuese) against Chayan Guanse, the Court imposed sanctions on unfair competition actions such as free-riding. In the ‘Qinghuajiao’ trademark infringement case, it made it clear that the trademark owner's rights must not be abused.




在维护市场公平竞争方面,加强反垄断和反不正当竞争司法,各级法院审结垄断案件49件、不正当竞争案件7478件。 审理平台“二选一”、刷单炒信等垄断和不正当竞争案件,严惩妨碍公平竞争、损害群众利益行为。审理“茶颜悦色”奶茶诉“茶颜观色”不正当竞争案,对傍名牌等不正当竞争行为予以制裁。明确“青花椒”等“碰瓷式维权”不受保护,对相关诉讼请求予以驳回。


Beijing Intellectual Property Court Reports Ten Typical Cases of Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition

Date: 16 March 2022

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a press conference to report the top ten typical anti-monopoly and anti- unfair competition cases. The cases concerned not only traditional industries such as manufacturing and service industries, but also important fields such as information security and livelihood assurance, and many new fields such as technological innovation and the digital economy.

It was noted that the Court had, since its establishment in 2014 to the end of 2021, accepted a total of 1,436 anti-monopoly and unfair competition cases and concluded 1,244 of them. There had been 529 first instance cases accepted and 470 concluded; 907 appeal cases accepted and 774 concluded. The concluded cases included 652 cases concluded by way of judgment (52%) and 43 concluded by mediation (3%). Forty-five per cent of the cases were ‘concluded’ by being returned to the lower court, withdrawn, dismissed, or transferred to another jurisdiction.  One hundred and eighty-four anti-monopoly cases were accepted in 2020, 306 in 2021, an increase of nearly 66%.  The number is expected to exceed 500 in 2022.






Valeo Group Wins Patent Infringement Case Against a Shanghai Automobile Sales Company - Damages Award of 5.35 Million Yuan (Approx. US$765,000)

Date: 8 March 2022

Valeo Lighting Group of Belgium (‘Valeo’), a world-famous auto parts manufacturer and owner of an invention patent for "a beam emitting device and lamps with this device, especially for motor vehicles", brought a patent infringement action in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court against Zhuhai Car Lighting Company (Zhuhai) and Shanghai Automobile Sales Company (Shanghai Automobile). Valeo had purchased front fog lamp assembly products from Shanghai Automobile. After carrying out a comparison, it concluded that the products fell within the scope of its patent. Later, on the basis of the product trademark and 3C certification number, it identified Zhuhai as the manufacturer of the products. It alleged that Zhuhai’s manufacture, sale, and offering for sale, and Shanghai Automobile’s sale, of the products constituted infringement.

The Court held that Valeo’s invention patent was valid, the technical solutions of the allegedly infringing products fell within the scope of the patent, and the Defendants had engaged in infringing activity.  It ordered both Zhuhai and Shanghai Automobile to cease the infringement, and Zhuhai Car Lighting Company to indemnify Valeo 5 million Yuan (approx. US$ 765,000) for economic loss and 0.35 million Yuan for reasonable costs.





30% Complete
Rouse Editor
+44 20 7536 4100
Rouse Editor
+44 20 7536 4100