State Council Information Office Briefs on China's Intellectual Property System Progress in 2025

Date: 23 January 2026

In 2025, the number of valid invention patents in China reached 5.32 million, of which high-value invention patents totalled 2.292 million, 43.1%, representing 16 high-value invention patents per 10,000 members of the population. A total of 972,000 invention patents were granted throughout the year. In the field of trademarks, 4.206 million trademarks were registered, with the number of valid registered trademarks reaching 49.877 million. Chinese brands accounted for a total value of US$1.81 trillion among the global top 5,000 brands, ranking second worldwide. Cumulative recognised geographical indication products totalled 5,066, with more than 52,000 operators authorised to use dedicated geographical indication marks. In addition, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ranked first among the world's top 100 innovation clusters.

In terms of protection and utilisation, public satisfaction with intellectual property protection rose to 82.81 points; patent transfer and licensing filings reached 697,000, representing a year-on-year growth of 13.7%; the industrialisation rate of enterprise invention patents reached 54%; and intellectual property royalty import and export totalled RMB 382.87 billion (Approx. US$55.38 billion) from January to November 2025, reflecting a year-on-year growth of 7.4%.

With regard to legislative improvement, the relevant official from the CNIPA stated that accelerating the comprehensive revision of the Trademark Law and the amendment of the Regulations on the Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits will be among the primary tasks for 2026. In particular, the revision of the Trademark Law will address key practical issues such as malicious trademark squatting by introducing a range of optimisation measures, including empowering the CNIPA to proactively revoke registered trademarks that have become generic names or have not been used without justifiable reason for three consecutive years; shortening the trademark opposition period to two months; improving provisions on suspension of examination and adjudication in trademark authorisation and confirmation procedures; and permitting motion marks as elements eligible for trademark registration.

Source: State Council Information Office

http://www.scio.gov.cn/live/2026/37929/index.html

国务院新闻办公室通报2025年中国知识产权工作进展

日期：2026年1月23日

2025年，中国国内有效发明专利量达532万件，其中高价值发明专利拥有量达229.2万件，占比43.1%，每万人口高价值发明专利拥有量达16件；全年授权发明专利97.2万件。商标领域，全年注册商标420.6万件，有效注册商标量达4987.7万件，中国品牌在全球前5000品牌价值总额达1.81万亿美元，位居全球第二。地理标志累计认定产品5066个，核准专用标志经营主体超5.2万家。此外，粤港澳大湾区位列2025年全球百强创新集群榜首。

在保护与运用方面，知识产权保护社会满意度提升至82.81分；专利转让许可备案69.7万次，同比增长13.7%；企业发明专利产业化率达54%；2025年1-11月知识产权使用费进出口总额3828.7亿元，同比增长7.4%。

在完善立法方面，国知局相关负责人明确，加快推动《商标法》新一轮全面修改及《集成电路布图设计保护条例》将是2026年的主要任务之一。尤其《商标法》将针对实务中恶意抢注等重点问题明确多项优化举措，如国务院商标管理部门可主动撤销成为通用名称或连续三年无正当理由不使用的注册商标，将商标注册异议期缩短至两个月，完善商标授权确权程序中有关中止审查审理的规定，以及开放动态标志作为商标注册要素等。

资料来源：国新办

新闻链接：http://www.scio.gov.cn/live/2026/37929/index.html

The IPC of the SPC Releases Annual Report (2025), Providing Overview of Seventh Anniversary of Operation of National-Level Appellate Mechanism for Intellectual Property Cases

Date: 28 January 2026

According to data from the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (the Court), since its establishment seven years ago, the Court has accepted 24,602 cases and concluded 23,069 cases. The concluded cases include 13,263 substantive civil second-instance cases involving technical intellectual property matters, with a modification rate of 20.9% in infringement and ownership civil substantive cases. In administrative authorisation and confirmation cases, the Court accepted 6,543 cases of various types and concluded 5,757, an average annual growth of 31.8%. Over 99% of concluded cases were patent authorisation and confirmation cases and more than half of these, 3,704, related to invention patents.

In strengthening intellectual property protection, the Court has applied punitive damages in 58 cases, totalling RMB 2.05 billion (approx. US$297 million) in compensation, with an average of over RMB 35 million (approx. US$5.06 million) per case; 73 cases involved compensation of RMB 10 million (approx. US$1.45 million) or more, totalling RMB 5.24 billion (approx. US$758 million), with an average of nearly RMB 72 million (approx. US$10.42 million) per case; three high-compensation patent cases exceeded RMB 100 million (approx. US$14.47 million), and no fewer than 33 cases involved compensation exceeding RMB 10 million. In 2025 alone, punitive damages were applied in 30 cases, totalling RMB 1.13 billion (approx. US$164 million), with an average of approximately RMB 38 million (approx. US$5.5 million) per case; in 32 cases, compensation of RMB 10 million or more was awarded, totalling RMB 2.54 billion (approx. US$368 million), with an average of nearly RMB 80 million (approx. US$11.58 million) per case.

In relation to foreign-related intellectual property adjudication, the Court has accepted 2,546 foreign-related cases, accounting for 10.3% and reflecting an average annual growth of 18.7%, and concluded 2,046 cases. In addition, in the judicial protection of trade secrets, the Court has accepted 343 substantive technical secret cases since its establishment and has lawfully applied punitive damages where appropriate. In the case concluded in 2024 of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others v. Weima Automobile Manufacturing (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. and others for infringement of technical secrets (the ‘new energy vehicle chassis’ case), punitive damages at twice the base amount were applied, resulting in an award of RMB 640 million (approx. US$93 million). In a case concluded in December 2025, Beijing Jingdiao Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Tian and Shenzhen Create Century Machinery Co., Ltd, for infringement of technical secrets (the ‘glass machine’ case), punitive damages at three times the base amount were applied, resulting in an award of RMB 382 million (approx. US$55 million), thereby exerting a strong deterrent effect on infringers.

Source: The IPC of the SPC

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/PnT_Z9IkgjO2PBnKrXmTgg

https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/487581.html

最高法知识产权法庭介绍国家层面知识产权案件上诉审理机制运行七周年情况，并发布《最高人民法院知识产权法庭年度报告（2025）》

日期：2026年1月28日

最高法知识产权法庭（下称“法庭”）数据显示，法庭成立七年以来，共受理案件24602件、审结23069件，其中，审结技术类知识产权民事二审实体案件13263件，侵权、权属等民事实体案件二审改判率20.9%。在行政授权确权案件方面，法庭共受理各类授权确权行政案件6543件、审结5757件，年均增长31.8%，其中99%以上为专利授权确权案件，发明专利授权确权案件数量达3704件，占比过半。

在加大知识产权保护力度方面，法庭共在58案中适用惩罚性赔偿，合计赔偿20.5亿元，案均超3500万元；73件案件获千万元以上高额赔偿，合计赔偿52.4亿元，案均近7200万元，3件专利高额赔偿案件赔偿额过1亿元，不少于33件案件的赔偿额超千万元。仅2025年，法庭在30案中适用惩罚性赔偿，共计11.3亿元，案均约3800万元；在32案中确定千万以上高额赔偿，共计25.4亿元，案均近8000万元。

在涉外知识产权审判工作方面，法庭共受理涉外案件2546件，占比10.3%，年均增长18.7%，审结2046件。值得注意的是，在商业秘密司法保护方面，法庭成立以来共受理技术秘密实体案件343件，同时依法落实适用惩罚性赔偿；在2024年审结的“浙江吉利控股集团有限公司等诉威马汽车制造温州有限公司等技术秘密侵权纠纷案”（“新能源汽车底盘”案）中适用2倍惩罚性赔偿判赔6.4亿元，在2025年12月审结的“北京精雕科技集团有限公司诉田某、深圳市创世纪机械有限公司侵害技术秘密纠纷上诉案”（“玻璃机”案）中适用3倍惩罚性赔偿判赔3.82亿元，对侵权人形成了有力威慑。

资料来源：最高人民法院知识产权法庭

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/PnT_Z9IkgjO2PBnKrXmTgg

https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/487581.html

The IPC of the SPC: Application for Order Nominally for Preservation of Property but Substantively Intended to Prevent Export Should Be Considered an Application for Behavioural Preservation

Date: 7 January 2026

In this case, Bu Company claimed that San Company’s custom-made steel wire mesh products infringed two of its invention patents. It applied to Chinese Customs to detain the goods and prevent their export and, at the same time, commenced patent infringement proceedings and applied for a property preservation order, asking the Court to seal and seize the goods that were already being held by Customs. These measures prevented San Company from delivering the goods to its overseas customers.

While the infringement action was proceeding, San Company filed a request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to declare Bu Company’s two patents invalid. The CNIPA reviewed the patents and declared both completely invalid. Under China’s Patent Law, this means the patents are treated as if they had never existed. As a result, the Court dismissed Bu Company’s infringement claim. San Company was found not to have infringed any valid patent rights.

San Company then brought a separate claim, also filed in the first-instance court, against Bu Company for the losses caused by the erroneous preservation measures. The Court held that Bu Company’s preservation application was erroneous and ordered it to pay compensation. Bu Company, dissatisfied with that judgment, appealed to the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (the IPC).

On appeal, the IPC examined whether the preservation application was truly one for property preservation or, in substance, for behavioural preservation (i.e. preventing the export of the goods). The IPC found that Bu Company’s main purpose had been to prevent San Company from exporting the goods altogether. Although Bu Company had sought a ‘property preservation order’, its real effect was to extend the Customs detention and halt the export, making it substantively an application for a behavioural preservation order.

This distinction matters because Chinese law sets different rules for lifting the two types of Order. For a genuine property preservation order, if the party whose goods are frozen provides sufficient security or guarantee, the court will generally release the goods. However, for a behavioural preservation order (which is designed to stop someone from doing a specific thing, such as exporting), the order normally cannot be lifted by the court just because security is provided, unless the applicant (here Bu Company) agrees.

In this case, San Company had already provided full security to Customs and later offered additional guarantees to the Court to have the goods released. Despite these offers, Bu Company refused to consent to the release because its real aim was to prevent the export itself. This refusal, together with the overall purpose of the application, confirmed that, substantively, it was seeking a behavioural preservation order. Because the patents were also invalid from the start, Bu Company had no legal right to obtain such an order. The IPC therefore held that the application was erroneous.

The IPC further pointed out that the goods in question were custom-made goods. Because they were detained, they could not be delivered normally. In order to avoid the expansion of losses, San Company sought alternative buyers and sold the goods at a discount. The resulting price difference loss bore a causal relationship with Bu Company’s erroneous conduct in applying for the preservation order. Therefore, Bu Company shall bear the corresponding liability for damages. Ultimately, the IPC ruled that Bu Company shall compensate San Company for the loss incurred on selling the goods, as well as logistics and warehousing fees and other expenses, totalling RMB 1,015,590 (Approx. US$146,904).

Source: The IPC of the SPC

https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5238.html

最高法知识产权法庭：名为财产保全，但实为阻止他人出口行为的保全应被认定为行为保全申请

日期：2026年1月7日

原告三某公司诉称，被告布某公司以三某公司出口的钢丝勾花网产品侵害其两项发明专利权为由，向海关申请扣留涉案货物，并向法院提起诉讼，同时提出财产保全申请请求查封、扣押已经被海关扣留的上述货物，致使三某公司的货物无法交付国外客户，故请求判令布某公司赔偿货款损失。在侵权诉讼审理期间，三某公司向国知局提出宣告布某公司两项专利无效的请求。国知局审查后宣告该两项专利全部无效。据此，一审法院驳回了布某公司的全部侵权诉讼请求，认定三某公司未侵犯布某公司的任何有效专利权。

随后，三某公司在一审法院另行提起诉讼，要求布某公司赔偿因错误保全措施造成的损失。一审法院认定布某公司保全申请存在过错，判决其赔偿三某公司货款损失。布某公司不服一审判决，上诉至最高人民法院。最高人民法院二审认为，本案争议焦点在于涉案保全申请的性质是财产保全还是行为保全。具体来看，布某公司申请对涉案货物保全的主要意图是通过人民法院的保全措施阻止三某公司的出口行为，该保全申请实际上延续了其在海关提出的扣留申请，实质还是希望人民法院对涉案货物予以控制以避免其出口。因此，尽管布某公司是以财产保全为名提出保全申请，但该申请的实质仍属于行为保全申请。

最高人民法院明确，对于财产保全措施，如果被保全人提供了充分有效担保，人民法院一般应当裁定解除保全；而对于行为保全措施，除非申请人同意，人民法院通常不会仅因被申请人提供担保而解除。在本案中，三某公司已向海关提供足额担保，后续又向法院提出额外担保以请求解除对货物的保全，但布某公司拒绝同意解除，其真实目的即在于阻止货物出口。结合该拒绝行为及布某公司保全申请的整体目的，充分证实该申请实质上属于行为保全申请。由于布某公司请求保护的专利已被宣告无效，其无权获得此类保全裁定。最高人民法院因此确认该保全申请存在过错。

最高人民法院进一步指出，涉案货物为定制货物，因被扣押导致无法正常交货，三某公司为避免损失扩大，在与布某公司沟通无果的情况下，另寻买主将货物折价卖出，由此造成的差价损失与布某公司错误的保全申请行为之间存在因果关系。因此，布某公司应当承担相应的损害赔偿责任。最终，最高人民法院判决布某公司应向三某公司赔偿货款损失及物流仓储费等费用，共计人民币101.559万元。

资料来源：最高人民法院

新闻链接：https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5238.html

Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court Concludes Unfair Competition Case Involving ‘Scraping’ of Encyclopaedia Entries, Ordering Defendant to Pay RMB 15 Million (approx. US$ 2.17 Million) in Damages

Date: 30 January 2026

The three Plaintiffs are the joint operators of ‘A Encyclopaedia’. Of the two Defendants, Q Company is the copyright owner of the ‘B Encyclopaedia System’ computer software, and S Company is the sponsoring entity and filing subject for the ‘B Search’ website. The three Plaintiffs alleged that the ‘A Encyclopaedia’, formally launched in April 2008, had accumulated over 22.45 million entries covering virtually all known fields of knowledge. These entries, compiled and integrated at substantial cost by the Plaintiffs, possess significant commercial value. The ‘B Encyclopaedia’ operated by the two Defendants is a direct competitor of ‘A Encyclopaedia’. Through technical means, the Defendants scraped ‘A Encyclopaedia’ entries on a large scale for direct use in ‘B Encyclopaedia’ and employed measures such as removing watermarks to evade tracking and monitoring. Such conduct severely harmed the Plaintiffs' commercial interests and disrupted their user ecosystem. The Plaintiffs therefore sought an Order requiring the Defendants to cease the infringement and pay compensation for economic loss and reasonable expenses totalling RMB 50 million (approx. US$7.23 million).

Following trial, the Pudong People's Court held that, although ‘A Encyclopaedia’ entries derive from existing public-domain information, they do not constitute mere aggregation thereof. Rather, they are systematically organised and edited in accordance with ‘A Encyclopaedia’s predefined format, transforming fragmented public-domain information into a structured knowledge graph. The digitally compiled and stored entries as a whole may be regarded as a data collection possessing the attributes of a data resource. The three Plaintiffs invested substantial costs in establishing a network platform for user creation and editing of Entries, supported by platform incentive mechanisms and entry review processes. The encyclopaedia entries constitute a key operational resource, and the Plaintiffs, as operators, enjoy rights to hold and use them within reasonable limits. The two Defendants disregarded the commercial intent manifested in ‘A Encyclopaedia’s robots protocol, scraped and used its entries on a large scale for direct competition with the Plaintiffs, diverted users, diminished traffic revenue, effected substantial market substitution for ‘A Encyclopaedia’, and contributed nothing to internet content innovation. Such conduct constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the Defendants were liable to cease the infringement and compensate the Plaintiffs for their loss.

In determining the amount of compensation, the Pudong People's Court applied the ‘cost substitution method’, calculating the operational costs saved by the Defendants through direct scraping of ‘A Encyclopaedia’ entries based on the Plaintiffs' average cost per entry, and ultimately fixed compensation at RMB 15 million (Approx. US$2.17 million).

Source: Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/CWS6B2fOU6AjpW73-9UP2Q

上海浦东新区法院审结一件涉“抓取”百科词条的数据不正当竞争案件，被告被判赔1500万元

日期：2026年1月30日

三原告系“A百科”的共同运营主体。两被告中，奇某公司系“B百科系统”计算机软件的著作权人，三某公司系“B搜索”网站的主办单位和联网备案主体。三原告诉称，“A百科”自2008年4月正式上线以来，已收录超过2245万条词条，词条内容几乎涵盖所有已知知识领域，该等词条系三原告投入巨大成本汇集、整合所得，具有重要商业价值。两被告运营的“B百科”与“A百科”属直接竞品，通过技术手段大规模抓取“A百科”词条内容并直接用于“B百科”，并采取清洗水印标记等方式规避追踪监测，该行为严重损害三原告商业利益，破坏其用户生态，遂请求判令两被告赔偿经济损失及合理开支5000万元。

浦东法院经审理认为，尽管“A百科”词条来源于现有公知信息，但并非对公知信息的简单堆砌，而是按照“A百科”预设体例样式进行梳理编写，将碎片化的公知信息逐步凝练为体系化的知识图谱，该等经过数字化汇集与存储的词条内容整体可视为一种数据集合，具有数据资源的属性。三原告为用户创建和编辑词条搭建网络平台，通过平台激励机制及词条审核机制投入大量成本，该百科词条系其重要经营资源，三原告作为经营者享有在合理限度内持有、使用的权益。两被告无视“A百科”robots协议公示的商业意愿，大规模抓取并使用“A百科”词条，以此与三原告进行同业竞争，该行为分流三原告用户、减损其流量收益，对“A百科”产生实质性市场替代，且无益于互联网内容创新，构成《反法》第二条规定的不正当竞争行为，两被告应当承担停止侵害、赔偿损失的民事责任。

关于损失赔偿数额的确定，浦东法院采用了“成本替代法”，即按照三原告对“A百科”每一词条投入的平均成本，测算两被告因直接抓取“A百科”词条而节省的经营成本，最终确定赔偿数额为1500万元。

资料来源：上海浦东法院

新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/CWS6B2fOU6AjpW73-9UP2Q