China: An Intellectual Property: Litigation (PRC Firms) Overview

Review of IP in China in 2025: Highlights in Legislation, Enforcement and Emerging Areas

A key theme in the evolution of IP in China is high-quality development. China continues to experience legislative changes, and courts are actively shaping the IP environment through new judgments.

Amendment to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL)

After a multi-year drafting process, China enacted a sweeping update to the AUCL on 27 June 2025 (effective 15 October 2025). This reform was driven by the need to address new unfair competition issues arising in the digital economy, and to enhance the deterrence.

The 2025 revision explicitly extends protection to certain new identifiers, such as social media account handles, app names and website names/domain names, from misappropriation. The AUCL clarifies that the use of another’s registered trade mark, or an unregistered well-known trade mark, as part of one’s own enterprise name in a way likely to mislead consumers constitutes unfair competition. Using competitors’ famous trade marks as keywords for search engine marketing, to divert traffic, is explicitly regarded as an unfair practice as well. However, courts hold differing opinions over the use of trade marks as keywords, with some considering this as unfair competition while others ruled it as non-infringing.

Finally, the long-arm jurisdiction under Article 40 of the revised law is worthy of attention as it introduces extraterritorial application – ie, acts of unfair competition committed outside China that disrupt the domestic market or harm Chinese businesses or consumers still fall within the law’s scope, and one can bring a lawsuit in China. How this provision plays out in practice will be a key focus in the near future.

New jurisdictional rules for internet courts

Effective 1 November 2025, the scope of jurisdiction of the three specialised internet courts will change substantially. Online copyright infringement, infringement of personal rights and online product liability disputes will no longer be heard by internet courts. Instead, internet data disputes and unfair competition disputes within Beijing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou will go to the respective internet courts. This change has been made to ensure new, cutting-edge, and complex online cases are heard by the internet courts, as per the reason for setting up such courts in the first place.

Trends in patents and trade secrets

Patent fights are common in new energy industries with keen competition for customers, such as solar and batteries. Chinese suppliers are suing each other not only domestically but also globally – eg, the global flight between JinKo and LONGi. In a landmark win for our firm, the leading battery manufacturer Zhuhai CosMX successfully overturned an RMB30M verdict in favour of its competitor ATL through appeal to the PRC Supreme People’s Court (SPC), which, in an unprecedented move, convened a five-judge panel.

Concerning trade secrets, in a case involving the infringement of “centrifugal compressor selection”, the SPC applied punitive damages and awarded RMB160 million against defendants who covertly established a competing enterprise and misappropriated their former employer’s trade secrets for more than a decade. In an apremilast patent linkage matter, the SPC facilitated the establishment by drug regulators of a pathway for changing the patent declaration type for generic drugs.

Criminal enforcement for trade secrets saw two particularly consequential matters. First, the Shanghai No 3 Intermediate People’s Court convicted 14 defendants of infringing trade secrets, handing down a six-year prison term and a fine of RMB3 million against the founder in relation to core Wi‑Fi chip technologies independently developed by HiSilicon, with an assessed value of approximately RMB317 million. In a separate case, HiTHIUM – reportedly the world’s third-largest energy storage battery maker – disclosed that its director of the office of the president and head of engineering was subjected to compulsory criminal measures by police in Ningde, Fujian, on suspicion of trade secret infringement following a report by industry leader CATL.

Emerging areas

AI-related cases have attracted a lot of attention from the courts. While Beijing Internet Court issued the first ruling acknowledging the copyrightability of AI-generated artwork in 2024, the threshold of originality remains a subject of dispute.

In March 2025, GEN Law successfully defended a case where the alleged artwork was created using very simple prompts. The People's Court of Zhangjiagang City found that images generated using AI tools may not qualify for copyright protection when the generation process is excessively simple and straightforward.

In March 2025, the Beijing IP Court ruled on the first legally effective judgment in China protecting the structure and parameters of an AI model, concluding that AI model structures and parameters developed through data training and optimisation confer innovation advantages and business value.

In November 2025, Shanghai local courts issued two judgments addressing how prompts affect copyrightability and distinguishing between pre-trained large language models (LLMs) and those trained through user data (in the context of fair use).

Chinese patent authorities and courts are grappling with the patentability of AI and software inventions. In December 2024, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released the Guidelines for AI-Related Invention Patent Applications (Trial), aiming to standardise examination standards in the AI domain. The draft addresses core issues such as the linkage between algorithmic and technical features, and recognises technical contribution. It explicitly clarifies that AI systems themselves cannot be named as inventors.

Protection of new plant varieties has been a noteworthy bright spot, even though disputes in this area represent a small share of the IP docket. In a guidance case involving a corn variety owned by the French company Limagrain, the SPC reversed the first-instance judgment, applied punitive damages and awarding the rights holder over RMB50 million in economic losses – the highest damages award to date in a plant variety infringement case in China.

Continuous crackdown on bad-faith filings and infringement

In 2025, China’s IP authorities have continued to focus on fraudulent filings. In 2024, trade mark filings dropped 7% year on year, and the approval rate rose from 61% to 71% , indicating fewer bad-faith or low-quality filings. Thousands of squatted trade marks (eg, those exploiting celebrity names or hot terms) were rejected or cancelled. Patent examiners likewise cracked down on the duplicate low-value filings that some entities mass-produce to game subsidy programmes.

In 2025, China’s IP landscape has bene characterised by a more robust legal framework, tougher enforcement and forward-looking policies for digital and green innovation. Enterprises benefit from fairer competition and better protection, but must adapt to stricter compliance and evolving risks. Success will depend on integrating IP into the core strategy, staying up to date with law and policy, and building a culture of respect for innovation and fair play.

2025中国知识产权年度报告：立法、执法及新兴领域亮点

高质量发展是中国知识产权演进过程中的核心主题。当前，中国的相关立法工作持续推进，法院亦通过一系列创新判决积极塑造知识产权环境。

《反不正当竞争》修订

历经多年起草过程，中国于2025年6月27日颁布了《反不正当竞争法》的全面修订版（自2025年10月15日起生效）。此次改革旨在应对数字经济中涌现的新型不正当竞争问题，并增强威慑力。

《反不正当竞争法》明确将社交媒体账号名称、应用程序名称及网站名称/域名等新型标识纳入保护范围，禁止擅自使用。此外，将他人注册商标或未注册的知名商标作为企业名称组成部分使用，且可能误导消费者时，构成不正当竞争。将竞争对手的著名商标作为搜索引擎营销关键词以转移流量的行为，亦被明确认定为不正当竞争行为。此前法院对此类行为存在分歧：部分判决认定使用他人商标作为关键词构成不正当竞争，另一些案件则判定其不构成侵权。

最后，修订后《反不正当竞争法》第40条规定的长臂管辖权值得关注，该条款引入了域外适用原则，即在中国境外实施的不正当竞争行为若扰乱国内市场或损害中国企业及消费者权益，仍属本法管辖范围，可在国内提起诉讼。这一条款在实践中如何运作将成为近期关注的重点。。

互联网法院管辖权新规

自2025年11月1日起，三家专门的互联网法院的管辖权将发生重大调整。网络侵权、网络产品责任纠纷将不再由互联网法院审理。取而代之的是，北京、杭州、广州三地发生的网络数据纠纷与不正当竞争纠纷将移交当地互联网法院。此项调整旨在确保互联网法院能够审理新型、尖端及复杂的网络案件，这正是设立互联网法院的初衷所在。

专利与商业秘密方面的趋势

专利战在太阳能、电池等客户争夺激烈的新能源产业中相当活跃。中国供应商不仅在国内相互起诉，更已蔓延至全球，例如光伏巨头晶科能源与隆基绿能之间的全球专利战。此外，作为本所标志性胜诉案例，电池制造商珠海冠宇通过向最高人民法院提起上诉，成功推翻了原判支持其竞争对手宁德新能源（ATL）的3000万元人民币判决。该案史无前例地由五名法官组成的合议庭审理。

在商业秘密领域，最高人民法院在一起涉及“离心式压缩机选型”侵权的案件中，对那些暗中创立竞争企业并持续十余年窃取原雇主商业秘密的被告判处惩罚性赔偿，赔偿金额达1.6亿元人民币。在“阿普米司特片”案中，最高人民法院立足药品专利链接制度的立法目的，协助药品监管部门建立了仿制药申报类型变更的新途径。

商业秘密刑事执法领域出现两起具有重大影响的案件。上海市第三中级人民法院认定十四名被告构成侵犯商业秘密罪，尊派创始人被判处有期徒刑六年，并处罚金人民币300万元，被窃取的信息涉及海思自主研发的核心Wi-Fi芯片技术，评估价值约人民币3.17亿元。另一起案件中，据称全球第三大储能电池制造商海辰储能披露，其总裁办公室主任及工程总监因涉嫌侵犯商业秘密，在被行业龙头企业宁德时代举报后，由福建宁德警方采取刑事强制措施。

新兴领域

人工智能相关案件在多个法院引起了广泛关注。2024年北京互联网法院虽作出首例承认AI生成艺术作品著作权的判决，但判定原创性的标准仍存争议。

2025年3月，北京己任律师事务所成功辩护一起案件，涉案作品仅通过简单提示生成。在该案中，张家港市人民法院认定当生成过程过于简单直接时，使用AI工具生成的图像可能不具备著作权保护资格。

在2025年3月，北京知识产权法院作出中国首例有效判决，承认AI模型的结构和参数应受保护，认定通过数据训练与优化形成的AI模型结构和参数具有创新优势和商业价值。

今年11月，上海本地法院作出两份判决，讨论了提示词如何影响作品可版权性，并区分了大型语言模型（LLM）的预训练与通过用户数据进行训练是否仍属于合理使用。

中国专利部门和法院正致力于解决人工智能与软件发明的可专利性问题。在2024年12月，国家知识产权局发布《人工智能相关发明专利申请指引》（试行），旨在规范人工智能领域的审查标准。该指引聚焦算法特征与技术特征的关联性、技术贡献的认定等核心问题，并明确规定AI系统本身不能作为发明人。

尽管植物新品种保护在知识产权案件中占比甚微，但却成为值得关注的亮点。在涉及法国利马格兰公司玉米品种的指导性案件中，最高人民法院撤销了一审判决，适用惩罚性赔偿，判令侵权方赔偿权利人逾5000万元人民币经济损失——这是中国植物品种侵权案件迄今最高的赔偿金额。

持续打击恶意申请和侵权行为

2025年中国知识产权部门继续打击虚假申请。2024年商标申请量同比下降7%，核准率从61%提升至71%，这表明恶意或低质量申请数量减少。数千件恶意注册商标（如盗用名人姓名或热门词汇）遭驳回或撤销。专利审查员同样严厉打击某些机构为套取补贴而批量提交的重复低价值申请。

中国2025年知识产权格局将构建更完善的法律框架、更强有力的执法力度、并推出面向未来的数字与绿色创新的前瞻性政策。企业将受益于更公平的竞争环境和更完善的保护机制，也需适应更严格的合规要求和不断演变的风险。成功关键在于将知识产权融入核心战略，及时掌握法律政策动态，并建立尊重创新与公平竞争的企业文化。