China’s IP courts: what foreign rights holders need to know

Each year, as World Intellectual Property Day approaches, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) releases a series of judicial white papers, annual reports, and representative cases. These publications not only summarise the adjudicative work of the previous year but also provide clear insights into the latest developments and future trends in judicial protection of intellectual property (IP) rights. Drawing on these official materials and representative cases, this article briefly analyses emerging trends in China’s IP judicial protection, with a particular focus on adjudicative developments involving foreign-related parties, to provide a practical reference for IP practitioners.

On March 9 2026, the SPC Work Report stated that Chinese courts nationwide concluded 496,000 IP cases in 2025, representing a year-on-year increase of 0.3%. Meanwhile, 19,000 individuals were convicted of IP-related criminal offences, marking a 6.2% increase compared with the previous year.

The SPC Work Report emphasised the coordinated advancement of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law, as well as efforts to improve the quality, efficiency, and credibility of foreign-related adjudication. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021–25), Chinese courts concluded a total of 159,000 foreign-related cases, representing a 66% increase compared with the 13th Five-Year Plan period (2016–20). Among these, 49,000 were IP cases, reflecting a substantial increase of 115.9%. These figures not only underscore China’s position as a major global innovation market but also demonstrate the growing confidence of foreign entities in the fairness and reliability of China’s judicial system.

On April 20 2026, the SPC held a press conference during National Intellectual Property Publicity Week and released the Status of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Chinese Courts (2025).

According to the report, foreign-related IP litigation in China has reached a new peak. In 2025, Chinese courts accepted 11,066 new first-instance foreign-related IP cases, representing a year-on-year increase of 34.1%. This significant increase demonstrates that, as Chinese judicial authorities continue to uphold the principle of equal protection of the lawful rights and interests of both domestic and foreign entities, the quality, efficiency, and credibility of IP adjudication in China are being comprehensively enhanced, thereby providing stronger institutional support for foreign entities in establishing and enforcing their IP portfolios in China.

One notable example is the patent invalidation case involving semaglutide, owned by a foreign pharmaceutical company. Throughout the proceedings before the CNIPA, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and ultimately the SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal, the central issue concerned whether supplemental experimental data submitted after filing should be accepted.

In this case, a domestic pharmaceutical company successfully petitioned the CNIPA to invalidate the patent in its entirety on the grounds of “insufficient disclosure” and “lack of inventiveness”. However, during the subsequent judicial proceedings, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the SPC ultimately accepted the supplemental animal-model experimental data submitted by the patentee and upheld the validity of the patent in the final judgment.

Through this case, the SPC clarified the distinct standards applicable to supplemental experimental data in the assessment of inventiveness and sufficiency of disclosure. The SPC confirmed that supplemental data may be admissible where the technical effect can be reasonably derived by a person skilled in the art from the overall contents of the specification. The judgment struck a balance between upholding the first-to-file principle and encouraging innovation, thereby strengthening the confidence of innovative pharmaceutical companies in conducting patent filings and commercial investments in China.

On January 28 2026, the SPC released the Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court (2025). According to the report, the tribunal concluded 475 cases involving foreign parties in 2025, with foreign-related cases growing at an average annual rate of 18.7% over the past seven years. An increasing number of foreign enterprises are choosing Chinese courts as forums for resolving IP disputes.

In the Natural Proteinase 3 trade secret infringement case, a New Zealand company filed suit after its former employee, Mr Sun, together with his current employer, Bo Company, unlawfully disclosed, used, and applied for patents relating to the company’s PR3 production technology, resulting in the misappropriation of its trade secrets. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages.

In the second-instance judgment, the SPC held that although certain information relating to the technology was publicly available, the integrated technical solution composed of numerous specific parameters still constituted a protectable trade secret. Accordingly, the SPC upheld the first-instance judgment ordering the defendants to cease infringement and jointly compensate the plaintiff RMB 1.8 million (around $266,000) in damages.

The judgment emphasised that a systematic and integrated technical solution developed through experimentation and optimisation may still satisfy the non-publicity requirement for trade secret protection. As a matter of principle, fragmented information from different public sources should not be mechanically combined to deny the existence of a trade secret.

This case demonstrates China’s willingness to provide judicial protection for trade secrets developed outside the country, highlighting the Chinese judiciary’s commitment to fair and equal protection of the lawful rights and interests of domestic and foreign rights holders. It also serves as a representative example of China’s efforts to foster a law-based and business-friendly environment.

In addition, it is noteworthy that Chinese courts are increasingly transitioning from ‘followers’ of international IP rules to active ‘contributors’ to the development of global IP governance. Chinese judicial authorities are helping shape internationally recognised standards while contributing Chinese judicial perspectives to international IP governance. For example, 66 Chinese judicial decisions were newly included in the WIPO Lex database, an achievement recognised as one of the Top Ten Cases of International Communication of China’s Rule of Law in 2025.

On April 21 2026, the SPC released the Summary of the Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases Heard by Courts Nationwide (2025), identifying 45 legal application issues arising from IP cases concluded by Chinese courts in 2025.

With respect to foreign-related patent administrative litigation, the SPC addressed, through the seventh representative legal issue in this year’s report and the guiding case (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 141, a more pragmatic standard for determining the validity of service of process abroad.

In its adjudicative guidance, the SPC stated that when serving process on difficult-to-locate foreign parties in foreign-related proceedings, courts should appropriately balance the principles of “making all reasonable efforts” and “preventing procedural abuse”. This clarified judicial approach helps curb bad-faith procedural tactics and deliberate litigation delays by foreign-related parties, thereby substantially improving the overall efficiency and credibility of China’s foreign-related IP adjudication system.

Overall, the SPC’s policy directions and representative cases released this year demonstrate that China’s IP judiciary is accelerating its alignment with high international standards. Whether through robust protection of technological innovation, substantive acceptance of supplemental pharmaceutical experimental data, or equal treatment of foreign litigants, Chinese courts are sending a clear signal to the global market. The increasing predictability and sophistication of judicial adjudication in China will undoubtedly strengthen the long-term confidence of domestic and foreign innovative enterprises in expanding their presence and investments in the Chinese market.