Date: 23 April 2026
China’s State Council Information Office outlined key intellectual property developments for 2025. The summary below highlights substantive progress across legislation, enforcement, commercialisation, and international cooperation.
Continuous Improvement of the IP Legal Framework. In 2025, revised versions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties were promulgated and entered into force. The Trademark Law (Revision Draft) was submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for its first reading. At the level of administrative regulations and departmental rules, the Provisions of the State Council on Handling Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Disputes and the Regulations on the Protection of Trade Secrets were successively issued.
Steady Improvement in the Quality of IP Creation. In 2025, China granted 972,000 invention patents, registered 4.206 million trademarks, and recorded 10.677 million copyright registrations. A total of 104 geographical indication products were recognised, and 51 geographical indications were approved for registration as collective or certification marks. Additionally, 6,986 new plant variety rights were granted.
Strengthened Coordination Between Administrative and Judicial IP Protection. On the administrative enforcement front, market regulation authorities handled 37,000 cases involving violations in fields such as patents and trademarks. Intellectual property administrations concluded 9,341 administrative adjudication cases concerning patent infringement disputes and guided the mediation of 62,000 IP-related disputes. Copyright enforcement authorities investigated 2,713 cases of piracy and counterfeiting in the physical, i.e. non-digital, markets. Nationwide, customs authorities detained 38,000 batches of suspected infringing goods in import and export channels, containing approximately 75.75 million items.
On the judicial protection front, courts across China concluded approximately 540,000 IP-related cases of all categories. Prosecutorial authorities brought charges against 19,000 individuals for IP-related criminal offences and handled 3,658 civil, administrative, and public interest litigation matters concerning intellectual property. Public security authorities initiated investigations into 26,000 cases involving IP infringement including the production or sale of counterfeit and substandard goods.
Accelerated IP Commercialisation. Since the launch of e Special Initiative on Patent Transformation and Industrialisation, cumulative records of patent assignment and licensing filings nationwide have reached 1.458 million. The transaction value of technology contracts involving patents totalled RMB 1.18 trillion (approx. US$173.46 billion). The aggregate value of royalties and other fees related to intellectual property in international trade increased to RMB 425.35 billion (approx. US$62.53 billion). In terms of industrial structure, the value added of patent-intensive industries and copyright-related industries accounted for 13.38% and 7.46% of the national GDP, respectively.
Optimisation and Upgrading of the Public Service System. The network of national-level IP public service institutions expanded to 519 entities. Collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) resulted in 202 operational Technology and Innovation Support Centres (TISCs). The National IP Public Service Platform was fully completed, providing open access to 62 categories of fundamental IP data and establishing 28 specialised patent databases focused on priority industries.
Deepened International Cooperation. China successfully hosted mechanism-based dialogues including the IP5 Directors’ Meeting (involving China, Europe, Japan, Korea, and the United States) and the China-ASEAN IP Directors’ Meeting, contributing substantively to the formulation of global IP governance rules.
Source: State Council Information Office
http://www.scio.gov.cn/live/2026/38414/index.html
日期：2026年4月23日
国新办介绍了2025年中国知识产权领域的关键进展，涵盖概述立法、执法、转化运用及国际合作方面的成果，具体如下：
知识产权法治体系持续完善：2025年，《反不正当竞争法》《植物新品种保护条例》完成修订并正式施行；《商标法（修订草案）》提请全国人大常委会初次审议。行政法规与部门规章层面，《国务院关于涉外知识产权纠纷处理的规定》《商业秘密保护规定》相继出台。
知识产权创造质量稳步提升：2025年，中国发明专利授权量达97.2万件，商标注册量420.6万件，著作权登记量1,067.7万件；认定地理标志产品104个，核准地理标志作为集体商标、证明商标注册51件；授予植物新品种权6,986件。
行政与司法知识产权保护协同强化：行政执法方面，市场监管部门查办专利、商标等领域违法案件3.7万件；知识产权主管部门审结专利侵权纠纷行政裁决案件9,341件，指导办理知识产权调解案件6.2万件；版权执法部门查办实体市场侵权盗版案件2,713件；全国海关扣留进出口侵权嫌疑货物3.8万批次，涉及货物7,575万件。司法保护方面，全国法院审结各类知识产权案件54万件；检察机关起诉侵犯知识产权犯罪1.9万人，办理知识产权民事、行政及公益诉讼案件3,658件；公安机关立案侦办侵犯知识产权及制售伪劣商品犯罪案件2.6万起。
知识产权运用效益加速释放：专利转化运用专项行动实施以来，全国专利转让许可备案累计达145.8万次，全国涉及专利的技术合同成交额达1.18万亿元；知识产权使用费进出口总额增至4,253.5亿元。产业结构方面，专利密集型产业、版权产业增加值占GDP比重分别提升至13.38%和7.46%。
公共服务体系优化升级：国家级知识产权公共服务机构增至519家；与世界知识产权组织（WIPO）合作共建技术与创新支持中心（TISC）达202家；国家知识产权公共服务平台全面建成，开放62类知识产权基础数据，建成28个重点产业专利专题数据库。
国际合作纵深拓展：中国成功举办中美欧日韩五局会议、中国—东盟知识产权局局长会议等机制性对话，深度参与全球知识产权治理规则制定。
资料来源：国务院新闻办公室
新闻链接：http://www.scio.gov.cn/live/2026/38414/index.html
Date: 23 April 2026
In 2025, courts across China accepted 552,600 IP-related cases of all categories and concluded 539,600 cases. Among them were 64,000 first-instance civil cases concerning technology-related intellectual property, covering priority fields such as integrated circuits; 256,400 first-instance civil copyright cases; 115,300 civil trademark infringement cases; and 10,135 first-instance civil unfair competition cases. A total of 27 cases were adjudicated as constituting monopolistic conduct.
In terms of judicial protection in emerging fields, courts concluded 908 cases involving disputes over data ownership rights and transactions, representing a year-on-year increase of 25.6%; Several representative cases concerning frontier issues, such as AI-generated content and AI model parameters, were duly adjudicated. The mechanism for ascertaining technical facts continued to improve, with the ‘National Court Technical Investigation Expert Database’ comprising 1,327 specialists, achieving comprehensive coverage of major technical fields.
In terms of foreign-related IP adjudication, courts nationwide newly accepted 11,066 first-instance cases involving foreign-related intellectual property, a year-on-year increase of 34.1%. The SPC recommended 74 typical IP cases to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), of which 66 were selected for inclusion in the Organization’s database; China’s first batch of nine judicial protection cases concerning seed industry intellectual property was published in the case database of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
In terms of development of specialised adjudication institutions, since its establishment seven years ago, the Intellectual Property Court of the SPC has accepted 24,600 cases and concluded 23,100 cases; nationwide, local courts have established 33 intellectual property tribunals, and the number of primary people’s courts with jurisdiction over civil and administrative IP cases has increased to 589 (including three internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou).
In terms of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, the centrally coordinated online litigation-mediation mechanism has achieved nationwide coverage of IP mediation organisations; the SPC concurrently issued the Guidelines for Judicial Mediation in Technology-Related IP Cases to promote the efficient and substantive resolution of disputes.
Source: The SPC
https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5628.html
日期：2026年4月23日
2025年，全国法院新收各类知识产权案件55.26万件，审结53.96万件。其中，审结技术类知识产权民事一审案件6.4万件，覆盖集成电路等重点领域；审结著作权民事一审案件25.64万件、商标民事侵权案件11.53万件、不正当竞争民事一审案件10,135件；认定构成垄断的案件27件。
新兴领域司法保护方面，法院审结涉数据权属和交易纠纷案件908件，同比增长25.6%；妥善审理涉AI生成内容、AI模型参数等前沿问题民事案件。技术事实查明机制持续完善，“全国法院技术调查人才库”入库专家达1,327人，实现主要技术领域全覆盖。
涉外知识产权审判方面，全国法院新收涉外知识产权一审案件11,066件，同比上升34.1%。最高人民法院向世界知识产权组织推荐典型案例74件，其中66件入选该组织数据库；中国首批9件种业知识产权司法保护案例在国际植物新品种保护联盟案例库发布。
专业审判机构建设方面，最高人民法院知识产权法庭成立7年来共受理案件2.46万件、审结2.31万件；全国地方法院知识产权法庭达33个，具有知识产权民事、行政案件管辖权的基层人民法院增至589家（含互联网法院）。
多元解纷机制方面，“总对总”在线诉调对接机制已实现知识产权调解组织全国范围全覆盖；最高人民法院同步制发《技术类知识产权案件司法调解工作指引》，推动纠纷高效实质化解。
资料来源：最高人民法院
新闻链接：https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5628.html
Date: 29 April 2026
The Plaintiff, Y Company, is the copyright holder of the ‘Medusa’ character image in the well-known Battle Through the Heavens anime series. The first Defendant, Li, is a user of an AI image generation platform, and the second Defendant, H Company, is the operator of said platform. Y Company discovered that Li had extracted over twenty image materials of the Medusa character from Battle Through the Heavens, used the platform’s ‘Train LoRA’ feature to create two ‘Medusa’ LoRA AI models, and published them on the platform account. When other users employed the said models, inputting different prompts would generate images identical or substantially similar to the Medusa image.
Y Company contended that ‘Medusa’ constitutes a commodity name with a certain influence, and that Li’s acts infringed Y Company’s reproduction right, adaptation right, and right of communication through information networks in respect of the ‘Medusa’ work; H Company, as the operator of the AI platform, had also failed to fulfil its platform obligations. The Jinshan Primary People’s Court, Shanghai, at first instance, held that Li had infringed the reproduction right and the right of communication through information networks, but had not committed acts of unfair competition. The first-instance judgment ordered Li to cease the infringement and compensate Y Company for economic loss and reasonable expenses totalling RMB 50,000 (approx. US$7,350); it also held that H Company, lacking obvious subjective fault and having objectively fulfilled its obligations to ‘take necessary measures’ and ‘forward takedown notices’, had not constitute infringed. Subsequently, both Y Company and Li, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, at second instance, held that Li’s acts of inputting images of the Medusa character from Y Company’s Battle Through the Heavens anime series into the LoRA model for training purposes and subsequently outputting related generated content infringed Y Company’s reproduction right and right of communication through information networks; the Jinshan Court’s discretionary determination that Li compensate Y Company RMB 50,000 (approx. US$7,350) for economic loss and reasonable enforcement expenses fell within a reasonable range. Concurrently, H Company primarily provided technical services to Li; such services possessed substantial non-infringing uses, H Company lacked the capacity to foresee or avoid Li’s infringing acts, and it had adopted necessary preventive and remedial measures including ‘pre-review and post-reporting mechanisms’, and upon receiving infringement notices, timely took necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, and disconnection of links; therefore, it was not required to bear liability for infringement compensation.
Additionally, given that Y Company had not actually used ‘Medusa’ as a commodity identifier and it had not generated a source-identifying function in the market, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the word and image ‘Medusa’ did not constitute a commodity name with a certain influence under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Ultimately, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court dismissed both appeals at second instance and upheld the original first-instance judgment.
Source: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/2ggCLyCGcUyBfPAaHbbAfg
日期：2026年4月29日
本案原告Y公司系知名IP《斗破苍穹》系列动漫中“美杜莎”角色形象的著作权人，被告李某为AI图像生成平台用户，被告H公司为该AI图像生成平台的运营方。Y公司发现，李某截取《斗破苍穹》中美杜莎角色的图片素材二十余张，通过平台的“训练LoRA”功能制作生成两款“美杜莎”LoRA模型，并发布在平台账号中。其他用户使用涉案模型时，输入不同提示词即可生成与美杜莎形象相同或实质性相似的图片。
Y公司认为，“美杜莎”构成有一定影响的商品名称，且李某的行为侵犯了Y公司针对“美杜莎”作品享有的复制权、改编权、信息网络传播权，H公司运营的AI平台亦未尽到平台责任。上海金山法院一审认定李某构成复制权和信息网络传播权侵权，但不构成不正当竞争行为，一审判决被告李某停止侵权并赔偿Y公司经济损失及合理开支共计5万元，同时认定H公司因主观上无明显过错，客观上已履行“采取必要措施”“转通知”义务，不构成侵权。后Y公司与李某均不服一审判决，向上海知识产权法院提起上诉。
上海知识产权法院二审认为，李某为训练模型，将Y公司《斗破苍穹》系列动漫中美杜莎角色形象图片输入LoRA模型后输出相关生成物的行为侵害了Y公司的复制权、信息网络传播权，金山法院酌情确定李某赔偿Y公司经济损失及维权合理开支5万元在合理范围之内。同时，H公司为李某主要提供的是技术服务，该项服务具有实质性非侵权用途，H公司对于李某实施侵害行为不具有预见以及避免的能力，且其采取了“审前审核、事后设有举报机制”的必要防范及补救措施，并收到侵权通知后及时采取了删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，因此无需承担侵权赔偿责任。
此外，鉴于Y公司未将“美杜莎”作为商品标识实际使用，在市场上也未产生识别功能，上海知识产权法院认定“美杜莎”文字及图片不构成《反不正当竞争法》下“有一定影响的商品名称”。最终，上海知识产权法院二审驳回双方上诉，维持一审原判。
资料来源：上海知识产权法院
新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/2ggCLyCGcUyBfPAaHbbAfg
Date: 21 April 2026
The Plaintiff, S Company, had independently developed ‘virtual digital human’ technology that had been deployed across diverse usage scenarios and achieved scaled commercial application. In respect of key information, including the source code and database table files involved in the case, the Plaintiff had established a comprehensive confidentiality system encompassing execution of confidentiality agreements, privatised deployment of databases, hierarchical permission control, and encrypted communication transmission. The five individual defendants, Fu et al., had formerly served as senior management and core R&D personnel for the Plaintiff’s ‘virtual digital human’ project and, during their employment, had direct access to and mastery of the trade secrets involved. D Company, one of the two corporate defendants alongside its wholly-owned subsidiary D Intelligence Company, had previously engaged in procurement negotiations with the Plaintiff regarding the ‘virtual digital human’ project, but no cooperation agreement had been concluded.
In September 2024, Fu et al. collectively resigned and promptly joined D Company. In November of the same year, the Plaintiff discovered that D Company had launched a website highly similar to its own ‘virtual digital human’ interactive platform, and D Intelligence Company, the other corporate defendant and wholly-owned subsidiary of D Company, had also promoted substantially similar products externally under designations such as ‘AI interactive digital human’. Upon comparison, the source code and database table information of the Defendants’ relevant products exhibited a similarity exceeding 90% with the Plaintiff’s trade secrets. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, requesting that all seven defendants (comprising the five individuals Fu et al. and the two corporate entities D Company and D Intelligence Company) cease the infringement, and seeking the application of punitive damages by the Court.
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, upon trial, held that the Plaintiff’s ‘virtual digital human’ source code and database table files involved in the case constituted technical information independently developed, possessing secrecy and value, and in respect of which reasonable confidentiality measures had been adopted; accordingly, they qualified as trade secrets protected by law. Fu et al. breached their confidentiality obligations, obtained the trade secrets through illegal means including internal network penetration and electronic intrusion, and utilised them to develop infringing software, demonstrating obvious subjective malice. D Company, following unsuccessful procurement negotiations with the Plaintiff regarding the ‘virtual digital human’ project, concentrated recruitment of the Plaintiff’s former core employees subject to confidentiality obligations within a short period. Although it was aware, or ought to have been aware, of the infringement risks associated with the relevant information, it nevertheless failed to fulfil its obligations of reasonable diligence and prevention, and permitted and exploited the infringing outcomes to conduct competing business of the same kind. D Intelligence Company, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of D Company, aware of the infringement risks associated with the project, nevertheless promoted the products in its own name, constituting joint infringement with the other defendants.
In summary, given that the seven defendants had demonstrated obvious subjective intent to infringe, their products exhibited a high overlap with the Plaintiff’s core technology, and they had directly seized market opportunities, causing significant economic loss and seriously disrupting the fair and competitive market order, and the circumstances of the case being serious, punitive damages should be applied. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, using the Plaintiff’s expected profit loss of RMB 1.65 million (approx. US$242,550) as the base and comprehensively considering factors including the Defendants’ degree of subjective fault, the circumstances of the infringement, and the consequential harm, determined to apply threefold punitive damages, and ordered the seven defendants to jointly and severally compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss totalling RMB 4.95 million (approx. US$727,650) and to pay the Plaintiff reasonable enforcement expenses of RMB 226,864 (approx. US$33,350).
Source: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SQZHJrnm5zjHppVLNrneEA
日期：2026年4月21日
本案原告赛某公司自主研发的“虚拟数字人”技术已落地多元使用场景，实现规模化商业应用。原告针对涉案源代码、数据库表文件等关键信息，建立了签订保密协议、数据库私有化部署、分级权限管控、加密通信传输的全流程保密体系。被告付某等五人曾是原告“虚拟数字人”项目高级管理人员与核心研发人员，在职期间可直接接触、掌握涉案技术秘密。德某科技公司与其全资子公司德某智能公司系本案七名被告中的两名公司被告，德某科技公司曾与原告就“虚拟数字人”项目开展采购磋商，但未达成项目合作。
2024年9月，付某等五人集体离职后迅速入职德某科技公司。同年11月，原告发现德某科技公司上线了与己方“虚拟数字人”互动平台高度相似的网站，另一公司被告暨德某科技公司全资子公司德某智能公司亦以“AI交互数字人”等同类产品对外推广。经比对，被告相关产品的源代码、数据库表信息与原告技术秘密高度相似，相似度超过90%。原告遂向广州知识产权法院提起诉讼，要求七被告（即付某等五名自然人被告及德某科技公司、德某智能公司两名公司被告）停止侵权，并请求法院适用惩罚性赔偿。
广州知识产权法院经审理认为，原告涉案“虚拟数字人”源代码及数据库表文件为自主研发形成的技术信息，具备秘密性与价值性，且已采取合理保密措施，属于受法律保护的技术秘密。付某等五人违反保密义务，通过内网穿透、电子侵入等非法手段获取技术秘密，并用于开发侵权软件，主观恶意明显。德某科技公司在与原告就“虚拟数字人”项目开展采购磋商未果后，短期内集中招录原告负有保密义务的前核心员工，明知或应知涉案信息存在侵权风险，仍未履行合理注意与防范义务，放任并利用侵权成果开展同类竞争业务。德某智能公司作为德某科技公司的全资子公司，明知项目存在侵权隐患，仍以自身名义推广，与其他被告构成共同侵权。
综上，鉴于七被告侵权主观故意明显；被诉产品与原告核心技术高度重合，直接抢占市场机会、造成重大经济损失，严重扰乱公平竞争的市场秩序，情节严重，应适用惩罚性赔偿。广州知识产权法院以原告165万元预期利益损失为基数，综合考量被告主观过错程度、侵权情节及危害后果等因素，确定适用三倍惩罚性赔偿，判令七被告连带赔偿原告经济损失495万元，并向原告支付维权合理费用226864元。
资料来源：广州知识产权法院