IP Litigation in China

How IP litigation in China works

IP litigation in China takes place in a court system that has been specialised steadily since 2014. Civil infringement claims are heard at first instance by intermediate people's courts with IP jurisdiction, by specialised IP courts and by some basic courts for smaller trade mark and copyright cases. Technically complex appeals, including invention patents, plant varieties and technical secrets, go to the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, established on 1 January 2019. Other appeals go to provincial high courts.

China's dedicated IP courts are located in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, all created in 2014, and in the Hainan Free Trade Port, created in 2020. Many other cities, including Shenzhen, have specialised IP tribunals in their intermediate courts with cross-regional jurisdiction. The Beijing IP Court also hears administrative appeals against decisions of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on patent and trade mark validity.

Judges in technical cases are assisted by technical investigation officers, and courts can appoint judicial appraisal bodies or hear expert assistants. Proceedings are largely written, with one or more evidence exchange hearings followed by a trial hearing. There is no jury. Judgments are generally published, and the Supreme People's Court issues guiding and typical cases that influence how lower courts approach recurring issues.

Types of claims and forums

IP disputes in China can be pursued through several routes. Civil litigation is the main route for damages and injunctions, but administrative and criminal routes play important supporting roles, especially against counterfeiters.

Choosing the forum matters. A claimant can usually sue where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is domiciled, and the place of sale or manufacture may give several options. Practitioners consider each court's experience, speed, approach to damages and preliminary relief, and the location of evidence and assets. Sales through e-commerce platforms can create additional connecting points, although courts police artificial forum shopping.

Evidence and preliminary relief

China has no broad pre-trial discovery. Each party must prove the facts it relies on, so evidence gathering before filing is the single most important element of IP litigation in China. Typical evidence includes notarised purchases of infringing products, notarised records of websites and online stores, investigators' reports, customs seizure records, administrative decisions, and technical comparison reports.

Tools that compensate for the lack of discovery

• Evidence preservation. Courts can order preservation of evidence at risk of loss, including inspection of factories and seizure of records, before or after filing. Applicants usually need to provide security.
• Document production orders. Under the Supreme People's Court's 2020 provisions on evidence in IP civil cases, a court can order a defendant to produce documents under its control, such as accounting records, and draw adverse inferences if it refuses.
• Burden shifting. In trade secret cases the burden shifts once preliminary evidence is shown; in process patent cases the defendant must prove its process differs where the product is new.
• Platform and third-party data. Courts can order platforms and logistics companies to disclose sales data, which can support damages.

Preliminary injunctions

Courts can grant behaviour preservation orders, the Chinese equivalent of preliminary injunctions, before or during proceedings. Under the Supreme People's Court's 2019 provisions on behaviour preservation in IP disputes, courts consider the stability of the right, the likelihood of infringement, irreparable harm, the balance of hardship and the public interest. Security is required, and in urgent cases decisions can be made within 48 hours. Wrongful applications expose the applicant to damages, so preliminary relief is best sought with a stable right, clear evidence and genuine urgency.

Damages and remedies in IP litigation in China

Damages in IP litigation in China are assessed in a set order: the claimant's actual losses, the infringer's profits, a multiple of a reasonable royalty, and, where none can be determined, statutory damages. Punitive damages of one to five times the base amount are available for wilful infringement in serious circumstances under Article 1185 of the Civil Code and the specific IP laws, and the Supreme People's Court issued an interpretation on punitive damages in IP civil cases in 2021.

Statutory caps do not limit damages proved on evidence. Courts increasingly award significant sums where claimants show sales volumes and profit margins, and may use the infringer's own publicity statements, financing documents or platform sales data as evidence of scale. Reasonable expenses, including notarisation, investigation and legal fees, are recoverable on top. Other remedies include permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing goods and moulds, and publication of the judgment.

Validity challenges

Patent and trade mark validity is not decided by the infringement court. A defendant challenges a patent by requesting invalidation at CNIPA, whose decision can be appealed to the Beijing IP Court and then to the Supreme People's Court. The infringement court may stay proceedings pending invalidation, but often does not for invention patents that have survived substantive examination or where the evidence of invalidity is weak. Claimants should assess validity before suing, and consider amending claims in invalidation proceedings while maintaining an infringement case on the amended claims.

Trade mark, copyright and online cases

Patent cases attract attention, but trade mark, copyright and unfair competition cases make up most IP litigation in China by volume. Each has its own dynamics.

Trade marks and bad-faith filings

China's first-to-file system means that foreign brands sometimes find their marks registered by others. Litigation is one part of the response: opposition and invalidation before CNIPA, and appeals to the Beijing IP Court, address the registration itself, while infringement actions and unfair competition claims address use. The Trademark Law allows refusal of applications filed in bad faith without intention to use, and courts have held that bringing infringement claims on the basis of a mark acquired in bad faith can be an abuse of rights, exposing the claimant to liability for the defendant's costs. See trademarks.

Copyright and online infringement

Copyright cases often involve software, games, video, music, photographs, literature and short drama content. Internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou hear many online disputes and accept electronic evidence, including blockchain-preserved records, under the Supreme People's Court's rules on online litigation. Platform operators can be jointly liable if they fail to take necessary measures after a qualified notice or know or should know of infringement, which makes notice-and-takedown evidence important. See copyright.

Unfair competition

Claims under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law fill gaps where registered rights are weak or missing, for example imitation of packaging and get-up with some influence, misleading publicity, data scraping and interference with online products. The 2025 revision, in force from 15 October 2025, expanded rules on online unfair competition and data, which is likely to generate further litigation.

Settlement, mediation and enforcing judgments

Most IP disputes in China end in settlement, often during or after court-led mediation. Courts encourage mediation at several stages, and a mediation statement confirmed by the court is enforceable like a judgment. Settlement terms commonly include a licence or undertaking, payment, destruction of stock and a public statement, and should address related proceedings such as invalidation requests and actions abroad so that the dispute is resolved globally rather than in China alone.

Where a defendant does not comply with a judgment, the claimant can apply to the court for enforcement, which may involve freezing bank accounts, seizing assets and placing the debtor on the list of dishonest judgment debtors, which restricts high consumption and business activity. Defendants that continue infringing after a judgment risk higher damages, punitive awards and, in serious cases, criminal liability. Monitoring compliance after judgment is therefore part of the litigation plan.

A balanced view is important. IP litigation in China can produce strong results, but it requires investment in evidence, translation and formalities, and it can trigger counter-attacks. Rights holders should decide early what outcome they want, whether a licence, market exit of the infringer or damages, and design the case around that goal.

Practical budgeting

Costs are driven less by court fees, which are calculated on the amount claimed, than by evidence work: investigators, notarised purchases, technical analysis, translations and formalities for foreign documents. A realistic budget separates the preparation phase, first instance, any parallel invalidation proceedings and appeal, and allows for preservation security. Claimants that set clear decision points, such as whether to continue after the invalidation decision, generally control costs better than those that treat the case as a single commitment.

A worked example: a patent case from start to finish

A German industrial company discovers that a competitor in Guangdong is selling machines that appear to use its patented control method. A typical timeline for IP litigation in China might be:

Timings vary widely by court and complexity. The German company would also consider parallel steps: customs recordal to intercept exports, platform complaints against online listings, and actions in the EU or the Unified Patent Court where the competitor exports. Settlement often follows a preservation order or a favourable invalidation decision, so the plan should identify these leverage points early.

Cross-border strategy for IP litigation in China

For international groups, IP litigation in China is rarely a stand-alone event. Disputes often run in parallel with proceedings in the US, Germany, the UK, the Unified Patent Court or Hong Kong, and decisions in one forum influence others. Points to manage include:

• Consistency. Claim construction arguments, technical expert evidence and admissions should be aligned across jurisdictions.
• Anti-suit and global rate-setting. In standard essential patent disputes, Chinese courts have set global licensing terms and considered anti-suit relief; see SEP and FRAND litigation.
• Jurisdiction. The Civil Procedure Law amendments effective 1 January 2024 broadened the bases on which Chinese courts can hear foreign-related cases, which may be invoked by either side.
• Enforcement. Chinese judgments are enforced against assets in China; enforcing abroad, or foreign judgments in China, depends on treaties and reciprocity. See cross-border litigation and enforcement of judgments.
• Trade routes. Exclusion orders under US Section 337 can complement Chinese proceedings against exporters; see US Section 337 investigations.

Common mistakes

• Filing before evidence is notarised and preserved, leaving the defendant time to hide stock and records.
• Underestimating the time needed to apostille or legalise foreign documents.
• Claiming statutory damages by default rather than building evidence of actual scale.
• Ignoring the risk of counter-claims, invalidation and wrongful injunction liability.
• Treating the Chinese case separately from global strategy and settlement plans.

Defendants face mirror-image issues. Foreign companies sued in China should respond within the time limits, which for parties without a domicile in China are longer than for domestic parties, consider jurisdictional objections promptly, and launch invalidation proceedings early where the asserted right appears weak. See also pharmaceutical patents and patent linkage for the specialised drug patent procedure.

How TRW & Co helps

We help international and Chinese companies plan and manage IP litigation in China as part of multi-jurisdictional strategies. We assess rights and evidence, design enforcement plans that combine litigation, customs, platform and administrative action, coordinate parallel proceedings in Hong Kong, the US, Europe and elsewhere, and support settlement and licensing negotiations under foreign law. Chinese court and CNIPA proceedings are conducted by licensed PRC law firms and patent agencies, which we select, instruct and coordinate so that the client has one consistent strategy. See also trade secrets and patents. Please contact us to discuss a dispute.