Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases from China Supreme Court 2023: Key Lessons for Foreign Businesses
In April 2023, in the lead-up to the 24th World Intellectual Property Day, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China held a press conference for Intellectual Property Publicity Week and officially released the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of China's Courts for 2023. The selected cases span a broad spectrum of IP fields, including trademark infringement, patent validation, new plant variety protection, copyright infringement, trade secret protection, data competition, and AI-related emerging IP rights.
Together they demonstrate the Chinese judiciary's firm commitment to rigorous IP protection and to serving innovation-driven development. Below is a summary of each case.
Case 1: "Siemens" Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Case Reference: Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 312
Summary: Siemens AG and Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. are the registered proprietors of the well-known "SIEMENS" trademarks, registered in respect of washing machines and other goods. Ningbo Qi Mou Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and related parties used the name "Shanghai Siemens Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd." as a commercial identifier on washing machine products, packaging, and promotional materials. The SPC held at second instance that the defendants, fully aware of the reputation of the "SIEMENS" marks, deliberately used a confusingly similar identifier on identical goods, causing consumer confusion and constituting both trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Damages and Judgment: Because the defendants refused to produce relevant financial records, thus obstructing evidence, the first-instance court relied on media reports citing the defendant's annual sales of RMB 1.5 billion, calculated the infringing products' share as one-fifteenth of total sales, and awarded RMB 100 million in damages. The SPC affirmed the judgment on appeal.
Significance: This case rigorously applies the evidentiary obstruction rule, imposing adverse inferences against infringers who deliberately withhold evidence, thereby striking forcefully at bad-faith free-riding on the goodwill of famous trademarks.
Case 2: "Lafite" Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition
Case Reference: Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 313
Summary: Chateau Lafite Rothschild is the registered proprietor of the "LAFITE" and "CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD" trademarks in respect of alcoholic beverages. Through long-term use, the mark "LAFITE" had become firmly associated with the Chinese term "Lafei" (拉菲). Nanjing Jin Mou Wine Co., Ltd. registered the "Lafite Manor" trademark and used it on wines produced, imported, and sold. The SPC had previously upheld the cancellation of the "Lafite Manor" trademark, and in this case found the defendants' conduct constituted trademark infringement and false-advertising unfair competition.
Damages and Judgment: Finding that the infringement was clearly intentional and involved serious circumstances, the court applied punitive damages and awarded a total of RMB 79.17 million in economic damages and reasonable expenses.
Significance: The judgment explicitly states that trademark registrants who harbor an intent to free-ride are not entitled to protection for their use of the mark, underscoring the courts' resolve to penalize "riding on famous brands" and "free-riding."
Case 3: "Facial Recognition" Invention Patent Invalidation — Administrative Dispute
Case Reference: Supreme People's Court (2021) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 556
Summary: This case involved a facial recognition invention patent owned by Beijing Zhong Mou Technology Co., Ltd. Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co. filed an invalidation request against the patent. The CNIPA declared the patent entirely invalid. At second instance, the SPC clarified the requirements governing the scope, form, and purpose of patent claim amendments in patent validation administrative proceedings. Certain amended claims were found to be substantively original claims and thus properly formed the basis of review; others that added cross-references constituted permissible further limitations; while amendments not made in response to invalidation grounds were properly rejected by CNIPA.
Significance: The case clarifies the criteria for assessing patent claim amendments in administrative validation proceedings — particularly what constitutes a permissible "further limitation" — and provides important guidance for future cases.
Case 4: "Danyu 405" Corn — New Plant Variety Infringement
Case Reference: Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2907
Summary: Liaoning Dan Mou Seed Technology Co., Ltd. is the holder of the rights in the "Danyu 405" new corn variety. Linghai Nong Mou Seed Technology Co., Ltd. had already been found liable for infringement by an effective judgment in 2015. Nevertheless, it continued to engage in "counterfeit-label" infringement in 2019 and 2020 under different variety names — a pattern of prolonged, geographically extensive, and large-scale infringement. The SPC held at second instance that the repeated, willful infringement warranted punitive damages.
Damages and Judgment: Based on the infringer's admission of cultivating 400 mu of infringing seeds and the corresponding sales margins, the SPC calculated a damages base of RMB 1.5 million and applied a 1x punitive multiplier, awarding the full RMB 3 million sought.
Significance: The case confirms that the base for punitive damages may be determined by the court's discretion based on available evidence and should not be abandoned in favor of statutory damages simply because it cannot be calculated with precision. It effectively enhances the deterrent force of punitive damages.
Case 5: Navigational Electronic Map — Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
Case Reference: Beijing High People's Court (2021) Jing Min Zhong No. 421
Summary: Beijing NavInfo Technology Co., Ltd. (NavInfo) had been developing and promoting electronic maps since 2002. It entered into a cooperation agreement with Baidu, authorizing the use of its electronic maps until the end of 2016. After the agreement expired, Baidu and its affiliates continued to use navigational electronic maps substantially similar to NavInfo's rights-holder maps in six applications, including "Baidu Maps," "Baidu CarLife," and "Baidu Navigation." Through comparison of 30 hidden markers, 125 internal roads, 47 expanded-sea administrative-region maps, and 44 pattern maps submitted by the rights holder, the court found substantial similarity and held that Baidu had infringed NavInfo's copyright.
Damages and Judgment: Baidu was ordered to cease infringement, issue a public apology, eliminate adverse effects, and pay joint compensation of RMB 64.5 million in economic damages and over RMB 920,000 in reasonable expenses.
Significance: This is a landmark case on the protection of navigational electronic maps under copyright law. It undertakes a meaningful exploration of how to assess substantial similarity in massive cartographic datasets and highlights the important role of IP judicial protection in supporting the digital economy.
Case 6: Data — Unfair Competition Dispute
Case Reference: Guangdong High People's Court (2022) Yue Min Zhong No. 4541
Summary: Beijing Wei Mou Network Technology Co., Ltd., the operator of Sina Weibo, alleged that Guangzhou Jian Mou Information Technology Co., Ltd. had used deceptive technical means — including IP address rotation and user-ID switching — to illegally invoke Weibo's server API to scrape massive amounts of backend data, which it then stored and sold to third parties.
Damages and Judgment: The court found that this conduct materially increased the risk that the Weibo platform would be substantially displaced and could also lead to the leakage of personal privacy and sensitive data. Applying Jian Mou's median fee rate of RMB 1 per 100 data queries, its profit was approximately RMB 21.8 million. The second-instance court affirmed the award of RMB 20 million.
Significance: A classic case of illegal data scraping and resale, the judgment delineates the boundaries of data-rights protection and conveys a clear judicial message that market players must obtain and use data "by proper means and within proper limits."
Case 7: Criminal Copyright Infringement — Medical Device Software
Case Reference: Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court (2023) Hu 03 Xing Chu No. 23
Summary: Beginning in March 2019, the defendant Liu Sheng, acting for profit and without authorization from the copyright holder Siemens Healthineers, manufactured dongles designed to circumvent technological protection measures, provided download links to service manuals, and distributed infringing copies of professional medical software such as the Syngo workstation suite via online platforms. The defendant Liu assisted by managing sales accounts.
Judgment: Liu Sheng was sentenced to three years and two months' imprisonment and fined RMB 700,000 for criminal copyright infringement. Liu was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined RMB 80,000. Neither defendant appealed.
Significance: A leading criminal case on the intentional circumvention of technological protection measures since the implementation of Amendment XI to the Criminal Law. The judgment establishes the applicable standards for criminal liability in such cases and strongly protects the legitimate rights of medical device software copyright holders.
Case 8: "Lentinan" — Trade Secret Infringement
Case Reference: Nanjing Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Min Chu No. 3444
Summary: In 2004, Nanjing Han Mou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. entered into a cooperation contract with Di Mou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. for the production of lentinan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), with a liquidated damages clause of RMB 20 million. Han Mou delivered the technical know-how, and Di Mou obtained its drug registration and manufacturing approval in 2006. In 2010, Di Mou transferred the lentinan technology to a third party for RMB 1 million; the transferee subsequently launched commercial production with an annual output value reportedly exceeding RMB 100 million. The court found that the technology constituted a trade secret and that Di Mou's transfer violated its confidentiality obligations.
Damages and Judgment: The court awarded RMB 20 million in damages in accordance with the liquidated damages clause agreed between the parties. The SPC affirmed on appeal.
Significance: The case involves trade secret protection for traditional Chinese medicine craftsmanship and makes a meaningful contribution to the determination and valuation of trade secrets in genuine regional medicinal materials, supporting the development and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.
Case 9: "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" Wake Word — Unfair Competition
Case Reference: Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court, Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhe 03 Min Chu No. 423
Summary: Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. launched its first AI smart speaker featuring the wake word "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" in July 2017 and subsequently embedded the wake word in its mobile phones, televisions, and other products. Between August 2017 and June 2020, an individual defendant, Chen, registered 66 trademarks incorporating "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" across various classes of goods, sent cease-and-desist letters to Xiaomi's affiliates, and together with Shenzhen Yun Mou Technology Co., Ltd. used the mark on sports watches, alarm clocks, and other products. The court found that "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" had acquired distinctiveness and influence through extensive use and qualified for protection as a well-known wake word, AI voice-interaction engine name, and product name under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Damages and Judgment: Chen was ordered to pay RMB 1.2 million in economic damages and reasonable expenses; Shenzhen Yun Mou Technology Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally liable for RMB 250,000 thereof.
Significance: A landmark case on the protection of AI voice wake words. The judgment confirms that wake words that have acquired influence through use constitute protectable interests under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and effectively curbs bad-faith preemptive registration and abuse of rights.
Case 10: "Youth Mode" — Unfair Competition Dispute
Case Reference: Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone People's Court (2022) Jin 0319 Min Chu No. 23977
Summary: Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. and affiliates had implemented a "Youth Mode" in the "Tencent Video" and "Tencent NOW Live" apps. When the apps are launched, a prominent pop-up allows guardians to activate the mode, which curates age-appropriate content, disables tipping and gifting functions, and enforces anti-addiction mechanisms. Beijing Ai Mou Technology Co., Ltd., operator of an ad-blocking app, offered "automatic dismissal of Youth Mode pop-ups" as a premium membership feature, thereby rendering Tencent's youth-protection functionality ineffective.
Judgment: The court held that Ai Mou's act of blocking the Youth Mode — despite claims of technological neutrality — was, in substance, an act of unfair competition aimed at financial gain that disrupted Tencent's normal product operations. It was also inconsistent with laws and regulations on the protection of minors. Damages and reasonable costs of RMB 3 million were awarded.
Significance: A leading case on unfair competition involving the circumvention of "Youth Mode." The judgment affirms the positive role of youth-protection modes in safeguarding minors' online rights and imposes negative judicial evaluation on conduct that undermines such mechanisms, guiding online service providers to conscientiously fulfill their social responsibility to protect minors.
Conclusion
The 2023 Top 10 IP cases span trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets, new plant varieties, data competition, and AI-related emerging fields. They are characterized by high damages awards, broad application of punitive damages, and close attention to new technologies and business models. Collectively, these judgments demonstrate the Chinese judiciary's firm commitment to rigorous IP protection — a development of great significance for foreign enterprises and IP rights holders seeking to enforce their rights in China.
This article is general information only, not legal advice for your matter. For professional assistance, consult a PRC-licensed lawyer at Zhang&Partners.