1. The Supreme Court’s Interpretation on Punitive Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes (Law Interpretation [2026] No. 7) took effect on May 1, 2026
The Interpretation applies where a defendant intentionally infringes IP rights and the infringement is serious. "Intentional" conduct includes continuing infringement after receiving valid notice, having been an employee or business partner of the rights holder, engaging in counterfeiting or piracy, and reoffending after an administrative penalty, court judgment, or settlement. "Serious" circumstances include repeat infringement after prior penalties, refusing to comply with preservation orders, destroying evidence, conducting infringement as a primary business activity, generating substantial profits, or harming public interests. Punitive damages are calculated based on actual losses, illegal gains, or licensing fees—but not statutory damages—with a maximum multiplier of five times the base compensation amount.
Link: https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-5627.html
2. China’s new Provisions on the Protection of Trade Secrets (SAMR Order No. 126) takes effect on June 1, 2026
The new Provisions regulates that a trade secret must be non-public, possess commercial value, and be subject to reasonable protective measures by the rights holder; Confidentiality obligations arise from contractual clauses, implied duties based on good faith and commercial ethics, explicit demands issued by rights holders to any party with access (including R&D personnel and partners), or mandatory internal rules and reasonable protective measures, regardless of a formal contract. Penalties for violations are drastically increased, with fines ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 RMB, and up to 5,000,000 RMB for serious cases.
Link: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202604/content_7065494.htm
3. The Supreme Court Intellectual Property Tribunal released its Annual Report for 2025 in English on April 21, 2026
The report highlights the Tribunal's continued role as a key window for international observers into China's IP protection. In 2025, Chinese courts accepted 110,066 first-instance foreign-related IP cases, up 34.1% year-on-year. The Tribunal has maintained bilingual annual reports since its establishment in 2019. The 2025 report emphasizes equal protection for domestic and foreign parties, with a 36.7% rate of cases resolved through mediation or withdrawal in foreign-related civil cases, demonstrating China's commitment to fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory IP adjudication.
4. Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court: IP Agency Jointly Liable for Malicious Trademark Registration — Case No. (2025) Yue 73 Min Zhong Zi No. 656
A brewery holding the renowned "LanX" trademarks sued a competitor trading firm and an IP agency for malicious squatting and contributory infringement. The trading firm repeatedly commissioned more than ten highly similar trademark applications, clearly exceeding normal business needs and aiming to free-ride on established goodwill. The court ruled this conduct constituted unfair competition in violation of good faith principles. The IP agency, operating in the same city with professional expertise, knew or should have known of the trademarks' reputation. Although some of the trademark applications have been rejected, the agency continued filing fifteen similar applications, breaching its professional duties and materially contributing to the harm. The court ordered the trading firm to pay RMB 500,000 in damages and costs, with the agency jointly and severally liable for RMB 100,000.
Link: https://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/gsxx/quanweifabu/anlihuicui/content/post_1843713.html
5. How to apply the "scientific research exception" to the act of manufacturing and using patented pesticide products to obtain test data required for pesticide registration— Supreme Court (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1511
The Supreme Court ruled that manufacturing and using patented pesticides to obtain one's own pesticide registration test data qualifies as the "research exception," as banning this would effectively extend patent terms. However, providing pesticides to third parties for their registration tests exceeded this exception and constituted infringement. Additionally, the defendant’s promoting products via exhibitions, websites, and WeChat during the patent term also constituted offering for sale. The court awarded RMB 600,000 in damages plus RMB 200,000 in costs, clarifying the boundary between legitimate research exception and commercial infringement.