Injunctions under review in China

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Injunctions under review in China

IP owners who think their products are being infringed often want just one thing: for the infringement to stop (not patent trolls, of course, but that’s another story). In China, however, stopping infringement can be trickier than usual

shanghai-audience-400.jpg

Attendees at this week's Managing IP Innovation Forum in Shanghai

That’s not because enforcement is routinely terrible. Most IP practitioners we have heard from this week say things aren’t bad and they are getting better. People have been subjected to mass IP education campaigns, officials are better trained and higher levels of domestic innovation mean that China is increasingly incentivised to crack down on IP infractions.

But IP owners do want Chinese courts to offer more preliminary injunctions. Tough evidence rules and difficulties in obtaining preservation orders make it hard for plaintiffs to prove how much defendants profit from infringing IP. As a result, many can only seek statutory damages, which are still low. When damages orders have little deterrent effect, preliminary injunctions take on particular significance.

So far, however, Chinese judges have been reluctant to grant them. In 2011, for example, there were around 130 out of almost 60,000 civil IP cases (the vast majority of which were between Chinese companies).

That is the result of guidance from the top. At the end of 2011 the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial interpretation setting out how lower courts should handle IP cases, which emphasised that judges should be cautious about granting preliminary injunctions. That followed a 2009 judicial interpretation, which set out when courts should consider not granting injunctive relief.

Now it seems as though the top court is rethinking its position. We understand that members of its IP Tribunal have been meeting IP professionals from other jurisdictions to hear more about injunction practices in their countries – with a view to issuing a new judicial interpretation next year.

Of course courts overseas don’t hand out injunctions to anyone who wants one. Nor should they. But if Chinese judges were encouraged to grant more, it might do much to reconcile IP owners to low damages awards.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As global commerce continues to expand through e-commerce platforms and digital marketplaces, protecting brands has become a growing challenge for organisations worldwide. Counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, and online brand abuse are increasing across industries, making brand protection strategies a critical priority for businesses.
Henrik Holzapfel and Chuck Larsen of McDermott Will & Schulte explain why a Court of Appeal ruling could promote access to justice and present a growth opportunity for litigation finance
A co-partner in charge says the UK prosecution teams are a ‘vital’ part of the firm’s offering, while praising a key injunction win
A team from White & Case has checked in on behalf of Premier Inn Hotels in a UK trademark and passing off case against a cookie brand
Litigation team says pre-trial work and a Section 101 defence helped significantly limit damages payable by ride-sharing firm Lyft in patent case
News of Avanci hiring a senior vice president and the EPO teaming up with a French AI startup were also among the top talking points
Explosm, the independent Texas studio behind the hit webcomic Cyanide & Happiness, partnered with Temu’s IP protection team to combat counterfeiters infringing on its brand
The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Gift this article