On April 22, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court released the Summary of Judgments by the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (2025) (最高人民法院知识产权法庭裁判要旨摘要（2025）). This publication should not be confused with the Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases of Courts Nationwide (2025), which was also released by the Supreme People’s Court. The two documents serve distinct purposes: this Summary compiles judgment digests from cases concluded by the Intellectual Property Court (IPC) of the Supreme People’s Court, while the Annual Report addresses legal application issues arising from intellectual property cases across all courts nationwide.
Overview of the Summary
The Summary contains 159 judgment digests extracted from 132 cases, selected from a total of 3,146 cases concluded by the IPC in 2025. The digests are organized into eight categories:
1.Patent Grant and Invalidation Cases
2.Patent Ownership and Infringement Cases
3.New Plant Variety Cases
4.Integrated Circuit Layout-Design Cases
5.Technical Secret Cases
6.Computer Software Cases
7.Anti-monopoly Cases
8.Procedural Cases
Below is a summary of notable points addressed within each category.
I. Patent Grant and Invalidation Cases
The Summary addresses patentable subject matter for blockchain algorithms, holding that a blockchain algorithm tailored to a specific application scenario and integrating distributed networks, consensus algorithms, and cryptography may constitute patentable subject matter where the algorithm steps reflect the use of natural laws to solve a technical problem.
On sufficient disclosure in genetic engineering, the IPC held that specifications may be deemed sufficiently disclosed where the synthetic product has a correlation with known strains or processes and implementability can be demonstrated through deposited strains, prior art gene sequences, and functional verification.
Regarding Markush claim amendments, amendment to a specific compound recorded in the specification and falling within the protection scope does not constitute arbitrary deletion of a Markush element and generally should be accepted.
On inventiveness, several digests address the determination of “easily conceivable” distinguishing features, holistic assessment of teachings in prior art, motivation to improve, and overcoming technical prejudice. The Summary clarifies that distinguishing technical features should not be found “easily conceivable” without objective basis where no prior art teaching or common general knowledge supports such finding.
On design patents, the Summary addresses the role of reference views versus varied states views in determining the scope of protection, the impact of drawing errors on clarity of protection scope, and conflicts between design patents and prior trademark rights.
II. Patent Ownership and Infringement Cases
The Summary addresses the determination of manufacturers based on commercial identifiers where products lack manufacturer information, the scope of protection for microorganism patents where deposited strain information differs from the specification, and the treatment of software-hardware combinations as allegedly infringing technical solutions.
Several digests address the nature of specific acts: providing free gifts constitutes a sales act; providing core components while directing formation of the technical solution may constitute manufacturing; and providing specially adapted components with no other reasonable uses may constitute contributory infringement.
On damages, the Summary addresses the selection of calculation methods, punitive damages for repeated infringement, punitive damages where infringement continues under a different name, and adverse inferences drawn from evidence obstruction. The IPC noted that simple application of statutory damages should be avoided where possible.
On procedural matters within this category, the Summary addresses malicious intellectual property litigation, the scope of recoverable damages including fund occupation losses and lost business opportunities, and the shift of burden of proof in method patent infringement cases.
III. New Plant Variety Cases
The Summary addresses novelty determinations, holding that unauthorized sales do not destroy variety novelty and that the grace period for domestic sales is extended to four years for varieties newly added to the list of national protected plants.
Other digests address expanded genetic testing loci conditions, later-granted variety rights not affecting protection of earlier protected varieties, prior rights defenses, liability for organizing importation and domestic sale of infringing seeds, and punitive damages for seed infringement using counterfeit labeling.
IV. Integrated Circuit Layout-Design Cases
The Summary addresses the determination of the first commercial exploitation date and the treatment of new evidence in interconnected civil-administrative proceedings involving layout-designs.
V. Technical Secret Cases
The Summary addresses the scope of technical secret information in interconnected civil-criminal cases, the determination of secrecy (distinguishing it from novelty and inventiveness under the Patent Law), and the adequacy of confidentiality measures for products that have entered the market.
Notable digests address the return of patent rights as a remedy for technical secret infringement where a party uses another’s technical secret to file a patent application without substantial technical contribution, and the calculation of damages where engineering contracts are secured through misappropriated technical secrets.
VI. Computer Software Cases
The Summary addresses the implied license defense, the allocation of burden of proof and determination of substantial similarity, and factors for determining the punitive damages multiplier. The IPC noted that concealment of infringing conduct and the likelihood of evading liability may be considered as discretionary factors when setting the multiplier.
VII. Anti-monopoly Cases
The Summary addresses horizontal monopoly agreements involving joint operating entities, monopoly conduct organized by industry associations, abuse of administrative power to exclude or restrict competition, and the standing of notifying parties to challenge merger review decisions, including clearance decisions without restrictive conditions.
VIII. Procedural Cases
The Summary addresses coordination between arbitration and litigation in patent ownership disputes, jurisdictional connection points involving app store platform operators, proper defendant status of sellers of end products in method patent cases, and the treatment of delivery locations arbitrarily designated in offline sales.
The Summary also addresses jurisdiction in asymmetric jurisdiction agreements, holding that where one party is limited to suing in a specified foreign court while the other party may bring suit in any court worldwide, such agreement will not be treated as an exclusive jurisdiction agreement under Article 280 of the Civil Procedure Law that would deprive Chinese courts of jurisdiction.
Practical Implications
The Summary provides guidance on approaches adopted by the IPC in 2025 across technology-related intellectual property and anti-monopoly matters. Practitioners advising on patent prosecution, invalidation strategy, infringement litigation, plant variety rights, trade secret protection, anti-monopoly compliance, and cross-border procedural matters may reference the digests when assessing positions before Chinese courts.
The original text is available here (Chinese only). An English translation is available here.
