Beijing IP Court Releases 2024 Annual Cases
On April 30, 2025, the Beijing IP Court (BIPC) released their list of 2024 annual cases including 7 IP-related cases and 1 antitrust case. The Court explained that the cases “cover the four major intellectual property trial areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and competition and monopoly, involving innovative achievements in emerging industries in key areas such as medicine, communications, seed industry, platform economy and data. These cases reflect five major characteristics: increasing efforts to protect industrial innovation in key areas, cracking down on intellectual property infringements, helping to build a high-level socialist market economic system, serving the development of the intellectual property rule of law, and contributing Chinese wisdom to world intellectual property governance.”
Press conference releasing the 2024 annual cases.
The original text is available here via social media as the BIPC seems to be geoblocked as of the time of writing.
As summarized by the BIPC:
Case Ⅰ: Standard-Essential Patent Infringement and Royalty Rate Dispute——Assisting a Renowned Enterprise in the Communications Field to Reach a Global Settlement1. Case InformationPlaintiff: X CompanyDefendant: X Guangdong Mobile Communications Company.2. Basic FactsBoth parties to this case are renowned enterprises in the field of communications. At the time of this trial, the two parties had been engaged in licensing negotiations for many years over the 3G and 4G standard – essential patent portfolios, and there were numerous related parallel litigations in various jurisdictions globally, including infringement claims and tariff claims. The plaintiff is the holder of the invention patent titled ‘Base Station Device, Mobile Station Device and Communication Method’. It claims that the patent involved is a standard – essential patent of the LTE communication standard, and believes that the defendant’s acts of manufacturing, selling and offering for sale the two models of mobile phones involved constitute an infringement of the patent right involved, and requests the court to order the defendant to stop the infringing acts.The plaintiff did not file a claim for damages and stated that the purpose of its lawsuit was to advance the licensing negotiations. The defendant filed a counterclaim in the dispute over the royalties of the standard essential patents in this case, requesting the court to make a judgment on the licensing conditions, including but not limited to the licensing royalties, within the scope of mainland China for the 3G and 4G standard essential patents which the plaintiff owns and has the right to license for the intelligent terminal products manufactured and sold by the defendant. After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the counterclaim filed by the defendant met the acceptance conditions, thereby accepted the defendant’s counterclaim and actively promoted the joint trial of the two lawsuits, and finally facilitated the two parties to successfully reach a global patent cross – licensing agreement. On the same day, the parties applied for the withdrawal of this case and the counterclaim respectively on the grounds of reaching a settlement, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to approve the withdrawal of the lawsuit by both parties.3. Judgment GistWhen a standard-essential patent holder files a patent infringement lawsuit, requesting the court to order the implementer to stop infringing the patent involved, and the implementer files a counterclaim, requesting the court to rule on the licensing conditions of the standard – essential patent portfolio including the patent involved, the court may take into account the fact that both the counterclaim and the original claim need to examine the same fact, that is, the licensing negotiation matters between the patent holder and the implementer regarding the patent involved and the related standard – essential patent portfolio.The counterclaim should be accepted and jointly tried, in a situation where there is a high degree of correlation between the counterclaim and the original claim.4.Typical SignificanceUnder civil procedure law theory, the relationship between the counterclaim and the original claim serves as the basis for their joint trial. The closer the substantive legal relationship between the original claim and the counterclaim, the more necessary it is to jointly try them in the same case. Article 233 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Amended in 2022)” (referred to as the Judicial Interpretation Concerning the Civil Procedure Law) stipulates the acceptance conditions for counterclaims, stating that if the counterclaim and the original claim are based on the same legal relationship, there is a causal relationship between the claims, or the counterclaim and the original claim are based on the same fact, the people’s court should jointly try them. Generally, the counterclaims and original claims accepted by the people’s court are based on the same legal relationship or the same fact, but there are certain particularities in the field of standard – essential patents.A patent that must be used to implement a certain technical standard is called a standard-essential patent. With the vigorous development of the digital economy, standard-essential patent technologies are widely applied in fields such as mobile communication, intelligent connected vehicles, and the Internet of Things. A smart terminal product often contains thousands of standard – essential patents. Against the backdrop of intensified market competition and accelerated technological iteration, licensing negotiations and disputes surrounding standard-essential patents are increasing day by day. In a standard-essential patent infringement case, the right basis usually only involves one or several patents, and the alleged infringing product is also specific. However, in actual licensing negotiations, the two parties often conduct negotiations concerning the entire standard – essential patent portfolio of the patent holder and all related products of the implementer. This leads to a situation where a standard – essential patent infringement lawsuit and a royalty rate lawsuit are not consistent in the scope of patents and products involved. So, on the surface, it does not meet the general acceptance conditions for counterclaims in the civil procedure law. This is exactly the case in this lawsuit. Based on this, the Company claimed that the counterclaim filed by the Mobile Communications Company should not be accepted, and further claimed that the original claim and the counterclaim did not involve the same fact because it did not request the calculation and payment of infringement damages based on the licensing fees in this case.In response to this claim, the court referred to the previous judicial practice of standard – essential patent trials, comprehensively considered the trial ideas and judgment logic of standard – essential patent infringement lawsuits and royalty rate lawsuits, and held that in an infringement lawsuit involving standard-essential patents, whether to order the defendant to stop the infringement is not only determined by whether the defendant has implemented the patent involved without permission, but also by whether the negotiating parties have violated the FRAND obligation. To determine whether the patent holder has violated the FRAND licensing obligation and whether the implementer has violated the obligation of good faith negotiation, in addition to examining the negotiating behaviors of both parties, it is also necessary to examine whether the licensing conditions proposed by both parties during the negotiation process are obviously unreasonable. These licensing conditions are not only for the patent involved, but for all 3G and 4G standard-essential patents for which the X Company has the right to grant licenses. To determine whether the licensing conditions proposed by both parties are obviously unreasonable, it is necessary to determine the reasonable range of licensing conditions, and the trial content of the royalty rate lawsuit for standard-essential patents is exactly the licensing conditions.Based on this special trial logic, although the counterclaim and the original claim in this case are not based on the same legal relationship, there is a causal connection between them, and both are closely related to the fact of the licensing negotiation between the two parties. On this basis, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the the counterclaim should be accepted and jointly tried.The acceptance of the counterclaim aligns with the interests of the parties, which was mutually acknowledged by both sides. The essence of standard -essential patent disputes is to promote negotiation consensus through litigation confrontation, and seek negotiation benefits through litigation procedures. In this case, on the one hand, the patent holder has already initiated an infringement lawsuit and sought injunctive relief in advance, on the other hand, the patent implementer hopes that the court will rule on the licensing conditions. If the counterclaim of the patent implementer is not accepted, it can only initiate another subsequent lawsuit, and a new lawsuit may still need to go through complex and time-consuming procedures such as service of process in foreign-related cases and objections to jurisdiction. This is not only inefficient, but also the sequence and speed of the two lawsuits may affect the negotiating positions of the two parties. Facts have proved that the joint trial of the two lawsuits promoted the two parties to successfully reach a global cross-licensing agreement and subsequent cooperation plan, which resolved the long-standing patent disputes between the two parties and achieved a win-win cooperation between the two parties.This case not only delves deep into the application of the law and clarifies the conditions for the joint trial of a standard-essential patent infringement lawsuit and a counterclaim for standard-essential patent royalties, but also adheres to the judicial concept of “promoting negotiation through trial and substantially resolving disputes”, promoting the substantial resolution of disputes, maximizing the interests of both parties, and promoting industrial licensing. The fair and efficient trial of this case demonstrates the high level and professionalism of China’s judicial protection of intellectual property rights, and reflects the wisdom and responsibility of Chinese courts in the new era in resolving international disputes, as a useful reference for the trial of similar cases in the future.
Case Ⅱ: Administrative Litigation Case Regarding the Invalidation of the Patent Right for “A Crystalline Form of Rocuronium Bromide”—— Assessing the Inventiveness of a Pharmaceutical crystalline form Patent Based on Technical Effects1. Case InformationPlaintiff: Chengdu Xin X pharmaceutical companyDefendant: National Intellectual Property AdministrationThird Party: Wang XX2. Basic FactsThe plaintiff is the patentee of an invention patent titled “A Crystalline Form of Rocuronium Bromide”. The third party filed a request with the National Intellectual Property Administration to declare the patent invalid. The National Intellectual Property Administration issued a decision under appeal declaring the entire patent invalid. Then the patentee filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that this patent achieved unexpected technical effects and had been commercialized and marketed with actual industrial value, and that the Claim 1 of this patent is inventive and the decision under appeal is incorrect. After the trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that crystalline form A of rocuronium bromide in this patent had better technical effects compared to the rocuronium bromide solid disclosed in the prior art, and that this patent is inventive and the decision under appeal was incorrect in this regard. Accordingly the court ruled to revoke the decision under appeal and ordered the National Intellectual Property Administration to make a new examination decision. After the judgment was pronounced, none of the parties appealed, and the first-instance judgment of this case has taken effect.3. Judgment GistWhen assessing the inventiveness of a pharmaceutical crystalline form patent, even if obtaining the crystalline form itself is obvious, it doesn’t necessarily mean it lacks inventiveness. It’s still necessary to consider its technical effects compared to the prior art. If the crystalline form achieves better technical effects than the prior art, and these effects are closely related to the formation of the medicine, it can be determined that the crystalline form patent is inventive.4. Typical SignificanceThe pharmaceutical and healthcare industry is not only a core component of China’s strategic emerging industries but also an important area related to people’s livelihood and well-being. Its sustainable development has a profound impact on the overall economic and social situation. As a typical technology – intensive industry, the pharmaceutical field is characterized by high investment in research and development, long cycles, and high risks. Therefore, intellectual property protection plays a prominent role in stimulating technological innovation, improving drug accessibility, and promoting industrial upgrading.Pharmaceutical patents are the most core intellectual property achievements of pharmaceutical enterprises. Regarding a certain drug, the patents obtained by pharmaceutical enterprises for different technical solutions form a complete patent system, including the effective active compound as well as the corresponding crystalline form and the composition. This system is like a “firewall” or a “moat”, and it effectively ensures that pharmaceutical enterprises can fully realize the commercial interests of the drug during the patent exclusivity period, enhancing their market competitiveness. The crystalline form patent in question in this case is a common type of pharmaceutical patent. The crystalline form usually refers to the solid existence form of the drug’s active compound. Due to different crystallization conditions and processes, the active compound of the same drug may yield crystalline forms with different spatial structures and molecular arrangements. This phenomenon of polymorphism in drugs is very important for drug research and development, because different crystalline forms exhibit different physical and chemical properties. This not only affects the preparation, processing, and storage of the drug, but also affects the dissolution and release characteristics of the drug in the human body, thus affecting the efficacy and safety of the drug. On the one hand, the selection of the crystalline form is of great significance for drugs. On the other hand, enterprises have invested a large amount of manpower and financial resources in the research and development of crystalline forms. Therefore, original research pharmaceutical companies usually include the crystalline form, compound, composition, and other inventions in the scope of patent applications together to form a multi-level and all-round pharmaceutical patent protection system.Generic pharmaceutical companies will also increase their efforts in researching the crystalline forms of known active compounds of drugs, and strive to avoid the crystalline form patents of original research pharmaceutical companies, in order to compete in the market for this drug. It can be seen how important crystalline form patents are for pharmaceutical enterprises and the pharmaceutical industry.As the exclusive jurisdiction court for administrative cases regarding patent authorization and confirmation across the country, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has always attached great importance to the trial of administrative cases of requests for invalidation of patents related to pharmaceutical crystalline forms. By applying the rules of inventiveness judgement correctly, the judgment of this case clarifies the factors to be considered for the technical effects of pharmaceutical crystalline form patents, providing a reference and guidance for the decision of such cases.In this case, it is fully recognized by the court that the prior art has a strong demand as well as provide inspiration on forming crystalline forms of known active compounds and changing known crystalline forms. Compared with the process of creating a compound from scratch, the development of crystalline forms usually results from multiple attempts to use different crystallization methods for known active compounds. crystalline form inventions usually use the general properties of crystals known to those skilled in the art and conventional crystal preparation methods, which makes it extremely difficult for the technical means of such patents themselves to meet the requirement of non-obviousness in the inventiveness judgment. If the exclusive protection of an invention patent is granted merely because there are technical effects predictable by those skilled in the art, it is obviously inconsistent with the contribution made by the inventor to the prior art. There have always been different understandings in practice on how to consider the role played by the technical effects of crystalline forms in the inventiveness judgment. The judgment of this case proposes the rule that to determine whether a crystalline form has achieved technical effects that make it inventive compared with the prior art, it is possible to consider whether the technical effects recorded in the specification are related to the finished medicine.The technical effects described should be specific rather than general physical and chemical properties, such as purity, melting point, and hygroscopicity. If the recorded technical effects are highly related to the finished medicine and the marketed drug uses this crystalline form, it can be considered that it has beneficial technical effects. Correspondingly, the crystalline form patent is inventive and should be protected by the Patent Law.This case is a typical example of Beijing Intellectual Property Court’s active implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy based on the judicial practice of the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry. For the inventiveness judgment of drug-related patents, within the framework of the current rules system, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the relationship between marketed drugs and technical effects, fully protecting the interests of patent holders. The specific judicial rules of this case are helpful to promote the continuous innovation and development of the pharmaceutical industry, thus providing judicial support for ensuring the accessibility of medicines for the people and promoting the implementation of the Healthy China Strategy.
Case Ⅲ: Administrative Litigation Case Involving Invalidation of the “Dou Hai Yin” Trademark Right——Recognizing the Core Service Trademark of XX Internet Platform Enterprise as Well-Known1. Case InformationPlaintiff: Beijing XX Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “XX Network Company”)Defendant: National Intellectual Property AdministrationThird Party: Shanghai XX Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “XX Technology Company”)2. Basic FactsXX Technology Company applied for registration of the trademark “Dou Hai Yin” on August 31, 2018, which was approved for use in Class 39 services including “travel reservations.” On January 4, 2022, XX Network Company filed an invalidation request on the grounds that the disputed trademark violated Article 13 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (prohibition against imitation of well-known trademarks). The National Intellectual Property Administration reviewed the case and determined that the “Dou Yin” trademark claimed by XX Network Company has a short period of use and insufficient evidence to prove it had achieved well-known status. It thus ruled to maintain the disputed trademark. XX Network Company refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court held in its first-instance judgment that although the “Dou Yin” trademark had been used for less than two years before the application date of the disputed trademark, the Dou Yin App had experienced explosive growth with short videos and social platforms as the core business since its launch in September 2016. By June 2018, it had become the top domestic short-video platform with a market penetration rate of 29.8%, reached over 500 million monthly active users (MAU) by July 2018, and accumulated over 3.1 billion total downloads by September 2018. In this case, XX Technology Company used promotional slogans such as “Check-in with Dou Yin,” demonstrating obviously malicious intent to free-ride on XX Network Company’s goodwill. So the “Dou Hai Yin” trademark should be deemed an imitation of “Dou Yin,” violating paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Trademark Law. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court revoked the administrative ruling. The National Intellectual Property Administration filed an appeal against the decision, and the Beijing High People’s Court issued a final judgment rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.3. Judgment GistWhen determining whether a trademark in the internet sector has achieved well-known status, courts must fully consider the internet industry’s unique characteristics and comprehensively assess factors such as the actual use effects of the trademark, market coverage, user growth rate, and other multidimensional criteria to evaluate whether the trademark meets the standard of being “widely recognized by the relevant public.”4. Typical SignificanceThe platform economy has emerged as a pivotal engine driving the digital transformation of the real economy and unleashing new-quality productive forces. Platform enterprises rapidly accumulate market reputation through technological innovation and business model updates, with their highly influential brand value in particular becoming a core competitiveness driving innovative development. As the trademark of these enterprises hold enormous commercial value, the more well-known a trademark becomes, the more likely it is to be targeted for malicious registration or free-riding.In China’s trademark registration system, protection for registered trademarks is confined to identical or similar goods/services. To combat cross-class malicious registrations, rights holders must prove their trademark has achieved “ wide recognition by the relevant public” to obtain cross-class protection for a well-known trademark. A well-known trademark, as the highest embodiment of corporate goodwill, represents consumers’ utmost trust in product quality and service standards—it is not merely an honorary title. In judicial practice, courts apply the principles of “ case-by-case determination” “passive protection” and “ protection as needed” to dynamically examine well-known trademark recognition. This approach balances precise strikes against cross-class bad-faith registrations with avoiding over-expansion of protection that could stifle market innovation. This case establishes adjudication rules for the recognition and protection of well-known trademarks in the internet sector:First, Significantly Shortening the Traditional Time-in-Use Requirement for Well-Known Status. Under the Provisions on the Recognition and Protection of Well-Known Trademarks issued by the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce, evidence proving a registered trademark’s well-known status must demonstrate at least three years of registration or five years of continuous use. In this case, the National Intellectual Property Administration initially denied recognition primarily because the “Dou Yin” trademark had been in use for a short period before the disputed trademark’s application. The judgment of this case which is based on the trademark law and judicial interpretations pointed out that with the innovative advantages of short video content distribution and algorithmic recommendation mechanism, Dou Yin APP has shown exponential growth in users and downloads in a short period of time, and rapidly accumulated a wide user base and market influence, and the cycle of its trademark popularity formation has been significantly shortened. If the traditional length-of-use requirement of the recognition standard is applied mechanically, it will be inconsistent with the development law of the Internet industry and the actual influence of the trademark.Second, Deepening Analysis of Well-Known Status Recognition in the Traffic Era. With the popularization of the Internet, short videos, artificial intelligence and other technologies, it has become a common business model for merchants to obtain economic benefits by attracting public attention. This case combines the characteristics of the “attention economy” of the Internet with an in-depth analysis of the considerations for the determination of well-known trademarks as stipulated in Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing Intellectual Property Court holds that important indicators with the characteristics of the internet industry, such as the number of daily and monthly active users, average online duration, and market penetration rate, should be used as the basis for determining “the degree of recognition among relevant public.” Taking into account the characteristics of the internet environment, such as fast information dissemination, wide reach, tendency for explosive growth, and the common revenue model in the internet industry where users are acquired for free and income is generated through advertising and other means, the Court will assess adjudication factors such as “duration of continuous use” and “promotional efforts.”Third, Reasonably Defining the Scope of Protection for Internet Well-Known Trademarks. In this case, XX technology company, as an Internet practitioner providing travel information and other services through the Internet platform, used the trademark “Dou Hai Yin”with obvious intention of imitating and climbing, objectively weakened the identification function of the company’s trademark “Dou Yin”, improperly seized the goodwill resources legally accumulated by others, and constituted a substantial damage to the rights and interests of well-known trademarks. Therefore, it was determined that the trademark of the platform Company has reached the status of well-known, and the cross-class protection was in line with the principle of case-by-case and on-demand determination.This case provides clear judicial guidance for recognizing well-known trademarks in the internet sector, demonstrating courts’ firm support for the healthy development of high-value brands. By reasonably defining the boundaries of well-known trademark protection and regulating competition in the digital economy, it also guides platform enterprises and tech innovators to enhance trademark strategy and protection awareness, offering tangible judicial safeguards for high-quality development of new productive forces.
Case Ⅳ: Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute Involving the “Lao Ban” Mark— Crackdown on Full-Chain Counterfeit Trademark Infringement1.Case InformationPlaintiff: Hangzhou X Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “X Electric Company”)Defendants: Chaozhou X Ceramics Factory (hereinafter referred to as “X Ceramics Factory”), Chaozhou X Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “X Tech Company”), Lü X, Chen X, and Wu X2.Basic FactsThe plaintiff, X Electric Company, is the exclusive owner of the registered trademark “Lao Ban”, which is approved for use on Class 11 goods including kitchen range hoods. The five defendants, via multiple business entities including X Ceramics Factory (a sole proprietorship operated by Chen X), X Tech Company (jointly held by the married couple Lü X and Wu X), with other entities such as a Guangdong-based kitchen and bath company (which was suggested to be deregistered during litigation) and a Hong Kong-registered company solely directed by Lü X and in their individual capacities, used the marks “Lao Ban” “LAOBAN WEIYU” and “www.LAOBAN WEIYU.net” on sanitary ware products such as toilets, showers, and sinks. Meanwhile, the Defendants repeatedly used the term “Lao Ban” in their company names, personal or corporate account names, and store names. The plaintiff alleged that the collective actions of the five defendants infringed its exclusive trademark rights and constituted acts of unfair competition. Accordingly, it sought injunctive relief and joint compensation of RMB 5 million for economic losses and RMB 290,000 for reasonable expenses. Upon trial, Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the five defendants had engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordered them to cease the infringing activities and jointly pay the plaintiff RMB 5 million in damages and RMB 150,000 in reasonable costs.The defendants appealed, but Beijing High People’s Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.3.Judgment GistWhere a company shareholder deregisters a company during litigation without legally liquidating it and has made relevant commitments at the time of deregistration, the shareholder shall bear corresponding legal liability for the company’s pre-deregistration acts of infringement.If a company committing the infringement was jointly funded by a married couple during their marriage, and no proof or agreement of property division exists between them, the company’s ownership may be deemed substantively unified. Accordingly, in line with rules applicable to single-member limited liability companies, the shareholder couple may be held jointly liable with the company for the infringement-related debts.4.Typical SignificanceAs a core intellectual property asset of a business, a trademark symbolizes its market competitiveness and serves as a vital tool for distinguishing the source of goods and services, building commercial reputation, and establishing brand recognition among consumers. The protection of trademark rights lies at the heart of China’s Trademark Law and is a key aspect of intellectual property protection. It plays a critical role in fostering a sound business environment and safeguarding fair market competition. Beijing Intellectual Property Court has jurisdiction over first-instance civil cases involving the recognition of well-known trademarks within Beijing, as well as other second-instance civil trademark cases. Since its establishment, the court has adjudicated over 3,200 first- and second-instance trademark infringement cases. In adjudicating such cases, the Court has consistently applied trademark laws and judicial interpretations with rigor and accuracy, distilled judicial principles from individual cases and unified standards of adjudication, adhering firmly to the principle of “strict protection” and continuously strengthening judicial safeguards for trademark rights.The development of new technologies and new business models has posed challenges to the legal system for trademark protection. Especially in the context of the digital economy and the diversification of commercial entities, the hidden and interconnected characteristics of trademark infringement subjects have become increasingly prominent. How to correctly understand the legislative intent and legal provisions, accurately identify trademark infringement behaviors that involve novel forms and complex associations, and ensure that all types of entities maliciously engaging in infringement along the entire chain bear corresponding legal liabilities—so as to create an effective deterrent against trademark infringement—is a critical issue worthy of attention and study in the adjudication of such cases. In this respect, the present case has made a valuable exploration and provides effective solutions to difficult judicial issues such as the determination of joint infringement and the attribution of infringement liability in trademark disputes.Based on the correct identification of the trademark infringement act, the judgment in this case adopts a penetrating adjudication approach, and employs a combination of institutional measures such as piercing the veil of shareholder liability and expanding joint and several liability. These measures significantly increase the cost of trademark infringement and effectively curb full-chain infringement behaviors that exploit legal loopholes to construct “firewalls” of liability, thus preventing infringers from concealing their identity and escaping responsibility.This case made meaningful breakthroughs in the following aspects and provided substantive guidance for resolving complex issues in trademark infringement disputes.Firstly, Piercing the Corporate Veil to Address “Shell Company” Infringement. According to the basic theory of company law, each shareholder of a limited liability company shall be liable for the company to the extent of the capital contribution subscribed for by it. In intellectual property infringement lawsuits, including those involving trademark infringement, an increasing number of infringing parties have used this fundamental principle of company law as a shield to evade liability by establishing companies—sometimes even cross-border or across different jurisdictions—they provide a “legal shell” for actual infringers to escape liability. The judgment in this case creatively applies Article 20 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (II) to clearly define the scope of liability borne by shareholders who carry out simplified deregistration of a company without liquidation during the course of litigation. During the proceedings of this case, Chen X and Wu X, the shareholders of a Guangdong-based kitchen and bath company, implemented a simplified deregistration. Although formally extinguished the company’s legal status, the judgment pierced the corporate veil by examining the correlation between the shareholders’ signed commitment letters and their undertakings to assume debt liability, thereby holding the shareholders accountable. This effectively curbed the malpractice of actual infringers maliciously deregistering companies to avoid debts, and imposed punishment on infringing acts that exploit the formation and unlawful deregistration of companies to achieve a “getaway” from liability.Secondly, establishing a judicial standard of recognizing spouse-owned companies as sole proprietorships and refining the evidentiary rules for asset commingling. When determining the liability of the defendant, the Tech Company, the court went beyond the literal interpretation of Article 63 of the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China (2018 Amendment), and, in light of the joint shareholding by the spouses and the absence of any property division, held that the entirety of the company’s equity essentially derived from a single property interest, which was jointly owned and exercised as a single property right, with the equity interest exhibiting substantive unity and alignment of economic interests, thereby construing the company as a de facto single-shareholder limited liability company, and, pursuant to the principle of asset commingling, imposed joint and several liability on both spouses—the two shareholders—for the infringing acts committed by the company. This judgment established a judicial review standard that infers asset commingling from the common origin of shareholding, thereby effectively curbing infringing conduct that seeks to evade legal liability through intricate equity structures.Thirdly, establishing a framework for joint liability among related entities to crack down on industrial-scale infringement. In response to the coordinated infringing acts conducted by five defendants across different regions and legal entities, the case adopted a comprehensive adjudicative approach combining “behavioral relevance” and “concerted intention,” which involved examining factual elements such as cross-shareholding among the entities and shared trademark usage, and further relied on evidentiary chains including trademark licensing arrangements and coordinated online-offline sales activities among the defendants, to ascertain their shared intent to commit joint infringement. The adjudicative reasoning provides valuable guidance in resolving the complex issue of establishing joint infringement across a fragmented chain of “manufacturing–sales–brand operation.”This judgment systematically applied a multi-dimensional set of legal instruments, including the Company Law, Trademark Law, and the Civil Code, and achieved three major breakthroughs in the judicial determination of trademark infringement subjects: a shift from reviewing individual entities to examining related parties, an elevation from formal compliance assessment to substantive illegality determination, and an evolution from imposing individual liability to regulating joint and several liability. This innovation in adjudicative philosophy not only enhances the judicial protection of trademark rights, but also serves as a paradigm for establishing a robust regime of strict intellectual property protection.
Case V : Copyright Infringement Dispute involving over a hundred paintings that allegedly plagiarized works including Fallen Leaves.——Determination of Copyright Infringement of Artworks1. Case InformationAppellant (the defendant in the first instance): Ye XXAppellee (the plaintiff in the first instance): Xi XX2.Basic FactsThe Plaintiff Xi XX, a Belgian painter, alleged that the Defendant Ye XX had plagiarized over a hundred paintings created since 1993 over a span of 25 years, including artworks such as Fallen Leaves to which the Plaintiff held copyright. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, after conducting a holistic comparison of the accused infringing paintings with the 13 copyrighted artworks involved in the case, along with comparative analyses of partial element combinations and individual element analyses, concluded that the 122 accused infringing paintings exhibited substantial similarity to the 13 copyrighted artworks in terms of visual artistic effects. Consequently, the court ruled that Ye XX’s acts of creating, publishing, and auctioning the disputed paintings infringed Xi XX’s exclusive rights to the 13 copyrighted artworks, including reproduction rights, modification rights, attribution rights, and distribution rights. Accordingly, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ordered Ye XX to cease the infringement, make a public apology, rectify adverse effects, and compensate for economic losses amounting to 5 million RMB yuan. Ye XX filed an appeal, but the Beijing High People’s Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgement.3.Judgment GistTo determine whether a work of art constitutes substantial similarity, it is generally assessed through a holistic examination and comprehensive evaluation of the artistic expression embodied in the work. This process focuses on visual characteristics such as constituent elements, specific expressions and the overall visual effect, which collectively define the work’s creative manifestation. If the differences between two artworks are merely minor in their entirety to the extent that an ordinary observer would tend to overlook such distinctions unless intentionally searching for them, such works may be deemed substantially similar.When a large number of copyrighted works and allegedly infringing works are involved in the comparison, all works under dispute should be considered holistically. Meanwhile, factors such as the author’s creative history, methods, and style should be comprehensively evaluated to determine of the extent of infringement, which serves as the basis for establishing the standards for damages compensation.4. Typical SignificanceArtworks carry the cultural connotations and artistic styles of a specific era and are an important component of the cultural industry. Protecting the copyright of artworks not only safeguards and inspires creators but also is of significant importance for promoting the standardized development of the cultural and artistic sector and enhancing a nation’s cultural soft power. This case is a typical copyright infringement case which clarifies two aspects of judicial rules: Ideas and expressions in artworks should be distinguished based on creative principles and characteristics, and judgment of substantial similarity should take into account the visual imagery characteristics of artworks.First, considerations regarding the differentiation between ideas and expressions in artworks.
The first consideration is the creative principles of artworks. The creative process of artworks is a gradual process of transforming ideas into expressions. Before the final completion of artworks, authors typically engage in ideational activities such as material collection and creative conceptualization. These mental processes generally extend from before the initiation of the creative act through the entire creative journey, encompassing the author’s subjective observations of specific objects, social phenomena, and personal life experiences, as well as their individual perspectives and emotional insights. Additionally, the final artistic outcome is closely intertwined with the author’s technical proficiency, artistic vision, and aesthetic sensibilities. Through external expressions in specific forms, the author finalizes and publicizes the aesthetic imagery within their consciousness, enabling others to appreciate, evaluate, and understand their artistic attainments and aesthetic preferences through the medium of the artwork. Objectively, this process also defines the scope of expressions protected by copyright.The characteristics of artworks should also be considered. According to the definition in the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law, the expression of an artwork primarily lies in the artistic representation objectively presented through the organic integration of aesthetic elements such as composition, lines, colors, and forms. The artistic image of an artwork is manifested as a visual image, characterized by visual immediacy, definiteness, and visibility. Copyright protection for artistic works focuses more on the external form of expression rather than the specific depicted content, which distinguishes it significantly from the protection of literary works that places greater emphasis on the substantive written content.Second, the criteria for determining substantial similarity between artworks.In copyright infringement disputes involving artworks, determining whether there is substantial similarity between the allegedly infringing works and the copyrighted works should involve comparing whether the choices, selections,arrangements, and designs made by the author in the expression of the artworks are the same or similar. As previously mentioned, artistic works are a form of visual art, and thus the external form of expression they embody constitutes the essence of their value. While different types of artistic works may cater to audiences with varying characteristics and levels of appreciation, once an artwork is publicly disclosed, it primarily targets the general public for appreciation and evaluation.Therefore, the determination of whether two artistic works constitute substantial similarity should be based on the perspective of ordinary observers. This involves a holistic assessment and comprehensive judgment of the visual characteristics of both the copyrighted artwork and the allegedly infringing artwork. If the two works only exhibit minor differences in details that would only be noticeable to ordinary observers through deliberate searching and comparison, then it can be concluded that the works constitute substantial similarity.After the judgment took effect, the defendant voluntarily issued a public apology in Legal Daily, a Chinese newspaper, marking the resolution of a five-year, cross-border copyright dispute over artistic works. The judgment undertook a total of 303 comparative analyses between over 100 allegedly infringing artworks and the copyrighted works, examining them across multiple dimensions including compositional elements, modes of expression, and overall aesthetic effect, ensuring no detail was overlooked. On this foundation, the court conducted a comprehensive assessment of potential infringement by integrating factors such as the author’s creative history, methodologies, and stylistic idiosyncrasies. Through this process, it fastidiously demarcated the boundary between permissible artistic reference and infringing plagiarism in artworks. The judgment ultimately safeguarded the copyright rights of the Belgian artist in strict accordance with legal provisions. While providing valuable guidance for the adjudication of similar cases, the judgment also demonstrates a judicial stance of equal protection for the lawful rights and interests of foreign entities, thereby conveying the spirit of justice, transparency, and openness inherent in the rule of law.
Case VI: The First Case on Administrative litigation Involving Anti-Monopoly Review of Concentrations Between Undertakings——First Judicial Clarification of Concentrations Between Undertakings Review Standards
[Omitted]
Case VII: The First Case Involving Validity Confirmation of Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificates in an Anti-Unfair Competition Dispute——First Judicial Recognition of the Legal Effect of a Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate1. Case InformationAppellant (Defendant in the First Instance): Yin X (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yin X Company)Appellee (Plaintiff in the First Instance): Shu X (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shu X Company)2. Basic FactsShu X Company, having lawfully obtained authorization, collected a Mandarin Chinese speech dataset totaling 1,505 hours and registered it with a Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate. Shu X Company sued Yin X Company for providing a 200-hour subset of this dataset without permission, alleging infringement of data property rights, copyright, trade secrets, and unfair competition, and sought damages of over RMB 700,000 yuan. The court of first instance ruled that the dataset constituted a trade secret and found Yin X Company liable for disclosing and using it unlawfully, ordering compensation of 102,300 RMB.Yin X Company appealed, arguing that the dataset had been open-sourced before the alleged conduct occurred and therefore lacked secrecy, which did not qualify as a compilation due to lack of originality, and the alleged conduct did not constitute unfair competition. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, on appeal, held that the Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate could serve as preliminary evidence of Shu X Company’s lawful acquisition and property interest in the dataset. However, since the dataset was publicly available, it did not meet the criteria for trade secret protection. Furthermore, the dataset’s selection and arrangement lacked originality and did not constitute a compilation.Nonetheless, Shu X Hui X Company invested significant technology, capital, and labor in collecting and organizing the data, resulting in commercially valuable entries that conferred competitive advantages and business opportunities. These interests deserved protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Yin X Company failed to follow the terms of the open-source license, violated commercial ethics, harmed Shu X Company ’ s interests and the competitive market order, and thereby committed an act of unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The appellate court corrected the erroneous finding on trade secrets but upheld the lower court ’ s compensation ruling and dismissed the appeal.3.Judgement GistThe Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate may serve as preliminary evidence of a data holder’s proprietary interest in the dataset and of the dataset’s lawful origin and collection. Without the data holder’s consent, no party may publicly disseminate a dataset lawfully and substantially collected by the holder. Where a data holder has open-sourced a dataset, whether a user complies with the license terms is a critical factor in assessing whether the use violates commercial ethics in the data services field.If the dataset is publicly available and features original selection or arrangement of content, it is preferably protected as a compilation under copyright law. If the dataset is not readily accessible to those in the relevant field, it may be protected as a trade secret. If the dataset is public and lacks originality in its selection or arrangement, it does not qualify for copyright or trade secret protection, but may be protected under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law depending on the circumstances.4.Typical SignificanceAs the digital economy becomes deeply integrated into production and daily life, data is increasingly recognized as a core production factor. Efficient circulation and secure protection of data are crucial for stimulating market innovation. The data registration system, by standardizing the registration of rights related to data ownership, processing, and commercialization, lays the groundwork for the market-based allocation of data resources. On one hand, it uses public disclosure and credibility mechanisms to clarify rights boundaries, reduce verification costs and legal risks in data transactions, and provide a “base map ” for cross-industry and cross-regional data flows. On the other, it recognizes and protects legitimate input by data processors, incentivizing real innovation in data collection, cleaning, and labeling, thereby promoting the transformation of data from a “resource” into an “asset.” This case is the first in China to examine the legal effect of a Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate. The appellate judgment, guided by the policy directive in the “Opinions of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council on Establishing a Data Infrastructure System to Better Leverage the Role of Data as a Production Factor ” (the “ 20 Measures on Data ” ), which calls for “ exploring new approaches to data property rights registration,” responds to the regulatory needs of the data registration regime through judicial innovation, establishing a legal foundation for the healthy development of the data element market.In recent years, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has handled a diverse and technically complex range of data rights cases, 95% of which involved unfair competition, covering emerging disputes like data scraping, trade secret protection, and open-source data and involving AI training datasets and speech datasets. The appellate ruling in this case establishes rules for judicial protection of data rights, especially in clearly defining the legal effect of registration certificates and guiding corporate data protection strategies.First, it affirms the preliminary evidentiary effect of Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificates. Such certificates can initially prove lawful possession and source legitimacy, unless rebutted by contrary evidence. However, this recognition must be understood in three ways: (1) the certificate’s effect is case-specific and rebuttable; (2) its weight depends on the registration agency’s qualifications, review standards, and content; and (3) data holders may assert rights by other means even without registration. This balanced approach both affirms the role of registration and preserves judicial restraint.Second, it establishes a tiered path for protecting enterprise data rights based on the dataset ’ s legal nature. Datasets with original selection or arrangement are protected by copyright law; non-public datasets meeting trade secret criteria fall under relevant unfair competition provisions; and public datasets lacking originality but involving substantial input may be protected under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In this case, although the dataset did not qualify as a trade secret due to its public nature, the court recognized Shu X Company’s lawful investment and certificate-based proof, and penalized Yin X Company’s breach of the open-source license under the unfair competition framework, establishing boundaries for “ethical use and respect for prior investment” in the use of public data.Third, it strengthens regulatory constraints on the circulation of open-source data. The ruling explicitly states for the first time that users must strictly comply with open-source license terms, and unlicensed commercial use constitutes unfair competition. This rule addresses the tension between free use and rights protection in an open-source context and establishes clear expectations for enterprises to unlock data value through open-source licenses by affirming that legitimate open-sourcing does not equate to relinquishing rights, while emphasizing that unauthorized commercial exploitation in violation of the agreement terms will still incur legal liability.This case marks a transition in China toward coordinated governance through data rights registration and judicial protection. It provides clear behavioral guidance for data processors and signals to the market that the development and utilization of data must occur within the rule of law. Legitimate rights are protected, and violations carry consequences. With continued accumulation of such judicial principles, China’s data element market is poised to develop into a legally regulated environment where “ registration has standards, transactions have legal grounds, and disputes have solutions,” laying a strong foundation for high-quality growth in the digital economy.
Case VIII: “FL218” Corn Plant Variety Right Invalidity Administrative Dispute——Clarifying Novelty, Specificity Standards and Burden of Proof in Plant Variety Invalidity Procedures1. Case InformationPlaintiff: Hui X Seed Industry Co., Ltd. Of ZunYi city, GuiZhou Province. (hereinafter referred to as Hui X Company）Defendant: The Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (hereinafter referred to as The Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants)Third Party: Hubei Kang X Seed Industry Co., Ltd.2. Basic FactsThe disputed variety in this case is a new corn variety named “FL218” for which Company K holds the plant variety rights. Hui X Company filed a request for invalidation with the Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants, which made the decision to maintain the validity of the disputed plant variety right. Hui X Company disagreed and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, arguing that the disputed variety is the same as the parent varieties of several approved corn varieties, such as “Eyu 16” and that prior to the application date, the disputed variety had already been widely produced and sold, and was used as a parent to breed other corn varieties. The other varieties bred from it were also widely produced and sold, thus the involved variety had lost its distinctness and novelty, therefore the decision was incorrect. Furthermore, the Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants did not accept Hui X Company’s application to identify that the disputed variety and other varieties ’ parent plants were the same variety, claiming procedural violations. After hearing the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the procedures were not improper, and the conclusion of the decision was correct, thus dismissing Hui X Company ’ s claim. Hui X Company appealed, and the Supreme People’s Court made a final ruling, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.3. Judgement GistThe examination of the novelty of a new plant variety involves determining whether the variety was sold or promoted prior to the application date. The act of using a variety as a parent to breed hybrids does not constitute commercialization. Furthermore, commercialization activities pertain to the protected variety itself, not to hybrids bred using that variety as a parent. Therefore, the sale of hybrids, in principle, cannot be regarded as the sale of the parent variety.The examination of distinctness for a new plant variety determines whether the variety is clearly distinguishable from known varieties. In invalidation proceedings for plant variety rights, the invalidation petitioner bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of clear distinctness, and the Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants is not obligated to conduct investigations.4. Typical SignificanceSeeds are the “ chips ” of agriculture, and the seed industry is a core national industry that plays a crucial role in agricultural stability and national food security. Intellectual property protection in the seed industry is vital for its revitalization and prosperity, and it is an indispensable part of the intellectual property protection system. Plant variety rights, as a major component of intellectual property rights in the seed industry, focus on the protection of reproductive materials, namely seeds. It has been proven that granting exclusive rights to seeds that are clearly distinguishable from other known varieties and have not been sold or promoted before the application date—thus possessing the characteristics of specificity and novelty as stipulated in the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China — strengthens intellectual property protection for plant varieties, providing breeders with a fair economic return for their innovative contributions. This, in turn, effectively increases breeding activity and encourages breeding innovation.In the legal system governing plant variety rights, the authorization and invalidity review of plant variety rights are key procedures. The Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants is the administrative authority responsible for conducting these reviews. Whether the variety applicant, the variety right holder, or the party petitioning for invalidation of the plant variety right, all may file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court if they are dissatisfied with the decisions made by the Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants.The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, as the exclusive court with nationwide jurisdiction over this type of special and “ niche ” intellectual property administrative dispute, has established a multi-disciplinary technical fact-finding mechanism led by academicians from agricultural science institutions, and a specialized review system for seed industry cases. By leveraging the advantages of a specialized court, the court actively explores a judicial protection model for intellectual property in the seed industry that aligns with its unique characteristics, having heard a number of landmark administrative cases regarding plant variety right authorization and confirmation. This case is a typical example, and the judgment provides clear guidance on the standards for assessing novelty and specificity of plant varieties and the burden of proof in the plant variety invalidity process.Unlike the novelty requirement for patents, there is only one way to destroy the novelty of a new plant variety, namely through public sale or promotion in the market. This judgment starts from the intrinsic meaning of the novelty characteristic of new plant varieties and strictly adheres to the provisions of the Seed Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties of the People’s Republic of China. It clarifies that sales and promotional activities should be accurately understood as actions that enable relevant technicians to obtain propagating materials in the market. The act of using propagating materials as parent plants to breed other hybrid varieties should not be broadly interpreted as sales or promotional activities. Furthermore, the sales or promotional activities that undermine novelty only apply to the protected variety itself, not to hybrid varieties bred using it as a parent.The “clear distinction” of a new plant variety from known varieties constitutes its distinctness. This distinctness must be scientifically demonstrated through field trial results. In this ruling, the court carefully examined the methods for proving distinctness, including the requirement to submit field test reports when applying for variety rights. It clarified that in invalidation proceedings, the party seeking invalidation bears the burden of proving that the disputed plant variety lacks distinctness, while the administrative authority is not obligated to conduct its own investigations. Simply requesting a field examination from the Plant Variety Review Board does not fulfill this burden of proof. By clarifying the allocation of the burden of proof, this decision helps standardize the review process for plant variety right invalidations.This judgment also serves as a reminder to industry participants that they must accurately understand the legal system surrounding plant variety protection. While legally protecting their innovative crops and commercial outcomes, they must also properly utilize the plant variety invalidity procedure, actively fulfilling their burden of proof, and discharging their evidentiary obligations in accordance with the law. This will help resolve disputes amicably and maintain the effective operation of the plant variety protection system, promoting the high-quality development of China’s seed industry and ensuring that the Chinese people always keep our food security firmly in our own hands.
Lamborghini Accused of Driving Away With Former Partner’s Trade Secrets
Prema Engineering S.r.l. (“Prema Engineering”) has accused automaker Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. and Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC (collectively, “Lamborghini”) of stealing Prema Engineering’s intellectual property and trade secrets it supplies to Hypercars used in endurance racing.
In Prema Engineering S.r.l. v. Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, Prema Engineering alleges that in 2024, Lamborghini, while in a racing partnership with Prema Engineering and Iron Lynx racing team, stole Prema Engineering’s high-tech trade secret-protected steering wheel software in order to use it in Lamborghini’s new racing partnership with Riley Motorsports, a competitor of Prema Engineering and Iron Lynx.
Prema Engineering alleges that Lamborghini entered into a partnership with the Iron Lynx racing team, pursuant to which Lamborghini sold two Lamborghini-manufactured Hypercars to the Iron Lynx team and agreed to provide spare parts and other supply-related assistance for the Hypercars. Under the partnership, Prema Engineering was the exclusive provider of all servicing, maintenance, engineering and technical support to the Iron Lynx racing team.
The steering wheel software at the center of the action involves a “proprietary package of computer code developed by engineers and technicians at Prema Engineering,” referred to as steering wheel setups (“Setups”), that Prema Engineering “developed and customized” using its team’s forty years of experience in formula and endurance racing. Per the Complaint, the “Setups are customized for each racetrack and race session, and they enable the collection and processing of data collected from the Hypercars while they are running.” The Setups are also used to customize the steering wheel to the specific driver to implement during a race “the team’s strategies and maximize the Hypercar’s performance.”
Prema Engineering contends it took steps to secure the confidentiality of its Setup software, including maintaining possession of both the steering wheels containing the Setup software and the Iron Lynx Hypercars. Prema Engineering also alleges it repeatedly sent written reminders to Lamborghini that the Setup software was “proprietary to Prema Engineering” and Lamborghini did not have permission to use the Setup software outside of specific testing and racing activities.
As set forth in greater detail in the Complaint, Prema Engineering alleges that, during the 2024 racing season, Lamborghini took advantage of a specific time when Lamborghini was given access to a Hypercar installed with a steering wheel containing Prema Engineering’s Setup to copy the Setup for Lamborghini’s own use. Prema Engineering claims it discovered Lamborghini’s theft of its proprietary Setup software after Lamborghini returned to Prema Engineering a simulator steering wheel it had borrowed for racing simulator testing. The borrowed simulator steering wheel was provided to Lamborghini without any software. The steering wheel’s log data showed the Setup was used a number of times during a two-week period that the steering wheel had been in Lamborghini’s possession. However, when Lamborghini returned the simulator steering wheel, Prema Engineering discovered that the simulator steering wheel contained a copy of its Setup software from a prior testing event. Prema Engineering states it never provided this Setup to Lamborghini and never gave Lamborghini permissions to access or use copies of any of its Setups.
Prema Engineering also alleges that Lamborghini misappropriated at least four other Setups it had been granted access to over the course of the 2024 season. Prema Engineering states that it discovered the theft of these Setups during the 2025 racing season when Prema Engineering identified from views of Lamborghini’s Hypercar steering wheel being used with Riley Motorsports other features of Prema Engineering’s Setups that are contained within the four allegedly stolen Setups. Prema Engineering maintains that at no point did Lamborghini have permission to download, use or disclose its proprietary software.
Prema further alleges that Lamborghini used its stolen Setup software to aid in developing a new racing partnership with Riley Motorsports for the 2025 racing season. The Complaint alleges that by using the information from Prema Engineering’s software, Lamborghini and Riley Motorsports were able to “bypass critical engineering and testing phases that would otherwise take years to complete, granting them an unfair competitive advantage.”
Prema Engineering’s Complaint alleges Lamborghini’s misconduct amounted to violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Copyright Act, the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act.
Prema Engineering’s action against Lamborghini highlights the importance of high-tech industries protecting their trade secrets from theft or inadvertent disclosure. As this case demonstrates, in today’s world a high-tech company’s internal years of knowledge, experience and proprietary software are no longer confined to its internal engineering departments. Companies that seek to utilize their proprietary software in partnership with other high-tech products must take appropriate precautions to safeguard their trade secrets, such as clearly setting forth in written agreements the terms and conditions under which the proprietary software can be utilized and shared. When feasible, companies should also set up additional internal controls that would alert the company that the security of its intellectual property has been breached.
China’s Supreme People’s Court Designates Generative AI Case as Typical
On May 26, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the “Typical cases on the fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Civil Code” (民法典颁布五周年典型案例) including one generative AI case in which the Beijing Internet Court held that an AI-generated voice infringed a dubber’s personality rights. Note that while China is not a common law country, designating a case as a Guiding Case or Typical Case is somewhat analogous to a U.S. Court marking a case as precedential in that the SPC is indicating to lower courts to adjudicate future cases in accordance with this decision.
As explained by the SPC:
IV. Protecting voice rights according to law and promoting the development of artificial intelligence for good – Yin v. Beijing smart technology company and others’ infringement of personality rights case
1. Basic Facts of the Case
The plaintiff, Yin XX, is a dubbing artist. He found that the works produced by others using his dubbing were widely circulated in many well-known apps. After tracing the source, the sound in the above works came from the text-to-speech product on the platform operated by the defendant, a Beijing intelligent technology company. Users can convert text into speech by entering text and adjusting parameters. The plaintiff was commissioned by the defendant, a Beijing cultural media company, to record a sound recording, and the defendant was the copyright owner of the sound recording. Later, the defendant provided the audio of the sound recording recorded by the plaintiff to another defendant, a software company, and allowed the defendant to use, copy, and modify the data for commercial or non-commercial purposes for its products and services. The other defendant only used the sound recording recorded by the plaintiff as the material for AI processing, generated the text-to-speech product involved in the case, and sold it on the cloud service platform operated by yet another defendant, a Shanghai network technology company. The defendant, the Beijing intelligent technology company, signed an online service sales contract with the defendant, a Beijing technology development company, and another defendant placed an order with the defendant, which included the text-to-speech product involved in the case. The defendant, a Beijing intelligent technology company, adopted the form of an application program interface, and directly retrieved and generated the text-to-speech product for use on its platform without technical processing. Yin filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that defendant one, a Beijing intelligent technology company, and defendant three, a software company, immediately stop infringing and apologize, and that the five defendants compensate Yin for economic and mental losses.
(II) Judgment Result
The effective judgment holds that the voice right is a personal interest and concerns the personal dignity of natural persons. For the voice processed by artificial intelligence technology, as long as the general public or the public within a certain range can identify a specific natural person based on the timbre, intonation and pronunciation style, the voice right of the natural person can extend to the AI voice. The above five defendants all used the plaintiff’s voice without the plaintiff’s permission and committed acts that infringed the plaintiff’s voice rights, constituting an infringement of the plaintiff’s voice rights. Because the infringing products involved in the case have been removed, the five defendants will no longer be ordered to bear the tort liability of stopping the infringement. Instead, based on the plaintiff’s request, the subjective fault of each defendant and other factors, the court ruled that the first defendant, a Beijing intelligent technology company, and the third defendant, a software company, apologize to the plaintiff, and the second defendant, a Beijing cultural media company, and the third defendant, a software company, compensated the plaintiff for losses.
(III) Typical significance
General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized: “We must strengthen the research and prevention of potential risks in the development of artificial intelligence, safeguard the interests of the people and national security, and ensure that artificial intelligence is safe, reliable and controllable.” With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology, voice forgery and imitation are becoming increasingly common, and disputes involving infringement of personality rights caused by related technologies are also increasing. my country has written “voice” protection into the Personality Rights Code of the Civil Code in the form of legislation, reflecting respect for the rights and interests of natural persons’ voices, as well as a positive response to technological development and social needs. In this case, the People’s Court determined in accordance with the law that voice, as a kind of personal right, is person-specific. Unauthorized use or permission for others to use the voice in a recording without the permission of the right holder constitutes infringement, which sets the boundaries of behavior for the application of new formats and new technologies, and helps to regulate and guide the development of artificial intelligence technology in the direction of serving the people and doing good.
(IV) Guidance on the provisions of the Civil Code
Article 1018
A natural person enjoys the right to likeness and is entitled to make, use, publicize, or authorize others to use his image in accordance with law.
The likeness is an external image of a specific natural person reflected in video recordings, sculptures, drawings, or on other media by which the person can be identified.
Article 1019
No organization or individual may infringe upon other’s rights to likeness by vilifying or defacing the image thereof, or through other ways such as falsifying other’s image by utilizing information technology. Unless otherwise provided by law, no one may make, use, or publicize the image of the right holder without his consent.
Without the consent of the person holding the right to likeness, a person holding a right in the works of the image of the former person may not use or publicize the said image by ways such as publishing, duplicating, distributing, leasing, or exhibiting it.
Article 1023
For an authorized use of another person’s name or the like, the relevant provisions on the authorized use of other’s images shall be applied mutatis mutandis.
For the protection of a natural person’s voice, the relevant provisions on the protection of the right to likeness shall be applied mutatis mutandis.
The original text, including five other Civil Code Typical Cases, can be found here (Chinese only).
With Student Athletes’ Individual “Brands” Becoming a Commodity, Here’s What Universities Should Consider
In 2021, the NCAA upended its decades-long prohibition on student athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL). This means that student athletes now have, and will continue to market themselves as, a “brand,” i.e., an identity or personality that has intrinsic value, in part due to their association with school athletics. The landmark $2.8 billion proposed settlement in House vs. NCAA, currently pending approval in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, will establish guidelines for this revenue-sharing, including for NIL revenues, among schools and student athletes, further allowing students to profit off of their individual contributions to their team.
While many colleges and universities whose student athletes were marketing their NIL prior to the House settlement chose not to involve themselves in those arrangements, some institutions are now taking a second look. Because schools who choose to pay their student athletes will necessarily be involved in the monetization of an athlete’s NIL, it is increasingly important for them to understand the mechanics of NIL agreements and concerns that might arise as a result of a student athlete actively marketing themselves and partnering with commercial entities. Schools can then decide whether and how they will support student athletes in their relationships with outside entities participating in the athlete’s promotion of their “brand”—which in most cases necessarily involves their status as a member of a college team.
For example, colleges and universities might consider imposing restrictions on the types of products an athlete should promote and guidance (or advice) related to contract terms. Schools have an interest in restricting their student athletes from promoting products that may be harmful to their student body, such as alcohol, tobacco or gambling platforms. Schools might also encourage student athletes to bargain for autonomy that would allow them to reduce involvement or cancel partnerships, to protect both the student’s brand and the student’s academic and athletic priorities. Direct guidance on contract formation, or referrals to outside advisors, are two avenues by which schools can assist student athletes, and schools should weigh the costs and benefits of each approach.
Schools should also consider whether they want to restrict the use of their own branding in the athlete’s promotional endeavors media. Developing formal guidelines or approval processes that must be followed before a student athlete can create paid content in official school uniforms or using school logos is an approach that can help the schools create distance from undesirable third parties, avoid claims of discrimination or favoritism among student athletes and protect their own image and intellectual property.
Finally, student athletes are rapidly gaining popularity as social media influencers, and schools can provide support and guidance specific to this arena. A recent article from the New York Times illustrates this approach, highlighting the University of North Carolina’s partnership with social media management firm Article 41, which works to partner students with brands like Athleta and Uber for paid advertising opportunities. The article cites to a 2023 survey from the Keller Advisory Group, finding that there are 27 million paid social media influencers in the United States, with 44 percent of them doing it full time. With student athletes becoming entrenched in the world of paid content creation, adding to their already full plates of sports competition and schoolwork, colleges may be able to head off issues and encourage brand relationships that are holistically more beneficial to student athletes by providing support and guidance informing athlete-brand relationships.
More broadly, athletes and their schools alike would benefit from having a system in place to address social media blowback. Many student athletes are still teenagers, making them especially susceptible to harsh online criticism that is inevitable in the digital age. Having the tools to support student athletes manage such criticism would benefit universities and students alike by providing athletes with mental health resources and protecting the reputations of all involved.
Another consideration is whether colleges and universities should provide course credit to student athletes for their time developing and marketing their “brands.” Per the New York Times article, some athletes view their experience building a social media following as “akin to an internship.” With all the time student athletes already dedicate to sports and schoolwork, they may benefit from receiving some form of elective course credit for their time spent developing their personal “brands.” Structuring personal marketing as an educational experience has the added benefit of giving the school more influence as to how athletes approach and consider monetizing their NIL. Alternatively, schools could consider whether they should limit their athletes’ involvement in paid content creation to ensure they can continue to thrive in their sport and their studies.
As the landscape of NIL continues to evolve, colleges and universities—especially those who opt in to athlete compensation—should continue to strategize how to best support their students and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
No Fairytale Ending for Consumer Opposition: RAPUNZEL Reinforces Lexmark Standing Limits
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s dismissal of a trademark opposition brought by a consumer, holding that mere consumer interest is insufficient to establish standing under Section 13 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1063). The ruling reinforced the application of the Supreme Court’s Lexmark (2014) framework to administrative trademark proceedings and clarified that only parties with commercial interest fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute when challenging a mark. Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc., Case No. 23-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2025) (Taranto, Hughes, JJ.; Barnett, Distr. J., sitting by designation.)
United Trademark Holdings (UTH) applied to register the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls and toy figures. Rebecca Curtin, a law professor, doll collector, and mother, opposed the registration, arguing that “Rapunzel” is a generic or descriptive term and its registration would harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing prices for fairytale-themed dolls.
The Board dismissed Curtin’s opposition, concluding she lacked standing to oppose under § 1063. The Board applied the Lexmark framework, which requires a showing that the opposer’s interests fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute and that the alleged injury is proximately caused by the registration. The Board found that Curtin, as a consumer, failed both prongs. Curtin appealed.
Curtin argued she had statutory entitlement under the 1999 Federal Circuit decision in Ritchie v. Simpson, “a case that addressed a section of the Trademark Act barring registration of ‘immoral’ or ‘scandalous’ matter.”
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board, holding that the Lexmark framework applied rather than Ritchie. The Court explained that while the Lanham Act may indirectly benefit consumers, the statutory cause of action is reserved for those with commercial interest. Since Curtin’s opposition was based on claims that the mark was generic, descriptive, or failed to function as a mark, her interest as a consumer did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the statute.
The Federal Circuit also found that Curtin’s alleged injuries, namely reduced marketplace competition, increased prices, and diminished access to diverse interpretations of the Rapunzel character, were too speculative and derivative of harm that might be suffered by commercial competitors. The Court reiterated that injuries must be direct and not merely downstream effects of harm to others. Curtin’s submission of a petition with more than 400 signatures from like-minded consumers did not alter the Court’s conclusion that her alleged harm was too remote to satisfy the proximate cause requirement.
Practice Note: The Federal Circuit’s decision reinforces that only parties with direct commercial stakes, such as competitors or potential market entrants, have standing to oppose trademark registrations on grounds such as genericness, descriptiveness, or fraudulence.
It’s a Matter of Timing: The PTO’s Latest Decisions on Discretionary Denials
Since the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) decision to rescind former Director Vidal’s memo on procedures for post-grant proceedings where there is parallel district court litigation, Current Acting Director Coke Morgan has issued four decisions regarding requests for discretionary denials:
Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Razdog Holdings LLC, IPR2025-00307; 00308, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2025)
Amazon.com v. NL Giken, Inc., IPR2025-00250; 00407, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2025)
Arm Ltd. and Mediatek, Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, IPR2025-00207, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2025)
Ericsson and Verizon Wireless v. Procomm International, IPR2024-01455, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. May 16, 2025).
The Director ultimately granted two of the requests and denied the other two.
In Twitch Interactive v. Razdog Holdings LLC, the PTO denied the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial. The parallel district court proceeding did not have a scheduled trial date, and the projected trial date was far beyond the PTO’s final written decision date. The petitioner also provided statistical evidence that the district court would likely issue a stay for the pending inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Therefore, based on a holistic assessment of the evidence presented, the PTO denied the request for discretionary denial.
In Amazon.com v. NL Giken, Inc, the PTO similarly denied the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial. Here, the issue date for the PTO’s final written decision fell before the parallel district court trial date. The abundance of time between the dates ultimately led to the PTO’s denial.
In contrast, in Arm Ltd. and Mediatek, Inc. v. Daedalus Prime LLC, the PTO granted the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial. The PTO highlighted that it was unlikely that its final written decision would be issued before the start of the district court trial. There also was a lack of probative evidence that the district court would issue a stay if an IPR proceeding was instituted.
Finally, in Ericsson and Verizon Wireless v. Procomm International, the PTO granted the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial. The PTO found that the district court trial would conclude before a final written decision was issued in the IPR proceedings, because the trial date preceded the final written decision date by nine months. Moreover, there was no evidence to support any contention that the district court would issue a stay.
Practice Note: These four decisions emphasize the importance of timing between post-grant proceedings and parallel district court litigation. The PTO is more likely to grant discretionary denial if the final written decision of the post-grant proceeding is issued after the trial concludes in the parallel district court action. If a final written decision is likely to be issued before the trial begins in the parallel proceeding, the PTO is more likely to deny a request for a discretionary denial.
Stylish but Generic: ‘VETEMENTS’ Can’t Dress Up as Trademark
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s refusal to register the mark VETEMENTS for clothing and related retail services, finding that the mark was generic under the doctrine of foreign equivalents. In re Vetements Group AG, Case Nos. 2023-2050; -2051 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) (Prost, Wallach, Chen, JJ.)
Vetements Group AG applied to register the mark VETEMENTS for various clothing items and online retail store services for clothing items. The US Patent & Trademark Office refused registration, finding the mark generic or, in the alternative, merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act. The Board affirmed, applying the doctrine of foreign equivalents to translate “vetements” (French for “clothing”) and concluding that the term was generic for the applied-for goods and services pertaining to clothing. Vetements Group appealed.
The doctrine of foreign equivalents is used to evaluate whether a non-English trademark is generic or descriptive for the applied-for goods or services by translating the foreign-language mark into English, then applying the relevant legal tests. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the doctrine applies when the “ordinary American purchaser” would likely “stop and translate” the foreign word into English. The “ordinary American purchaser” includes all US consumers, including those familiar with the foreign language.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that words from modern languages are generally translated unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. It rejected Vetements’ argument that the doctrine should only apply if a majority of US consumers understand the foreign word. Instead, the Court held that it is sufficient if an “appreciable number” of US consumers would recognize and translate the term.
In this case, the Federal Circuit found that French is widely spoken and taught in the United States (the Board found that as of 2010, French was the fifth most spoken non-English language at home and the second most widely taught non-English language in US schools). The Court thus concluded that “vetements” is a common French word meaning “clothing,” and that given the mark’s use on apparel and in connection with clothing-related retail services, translation of the term into English was likely.
Under the doctrine of foreign equivalents, foreign terms used as trademarks are translated into English, then evaluated under the applicable standards, including genericness, descriptiveness, and likelihood of confusion. In assessing whether a term is generic, courts apply a two-part test: identifying the genus of goods or services at issue, and determining whether the relevant public understands the term primarily to refer to that genus.
Here, the genus was clothing and online retail services for clothing. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that “vetements,” once translated to “clothing,” directly named the genus of the goods and services. Therefore, the term was generic and ineligible for trademark protection.
Because the mark was found to be generic, the Federal Circuit explained that it did not have to reach the Board’s alternative holding that the VETEMENTS mark was merely descriptive without acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The Court nonetheless stated that it saw no error in the Board’s reasoning that the generic and descriptive nature of the mark prevented it from acquiring distinctiveness, and the Court affirmed the Board’s refusal to register the mark.
Guiding the Fight Against Fakes: PTO Opens Public Comment Period
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice inviting feedback from intellectual property rights holders and online marketplaces regarding proposed voluntary guidelines aimed at curbing the sale of counterfeit goods on online marketplaces. 90 Fed. Reg. 21291 (May 19, 2025). Public comments will be accepted through June 27, 2025.
The PTO will also hold a public hearing in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2025, to solicit feedback on newly drafted guidelines, which were developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and focus on key enforcement areas, including repeat infringers, international cooperation, transparency, public awareness, sanctions, and market surveillance. The PTO emphasized that it is working with both government and private sector partners to strengthen efforts against counterfeiting, which has become increasingly prevalent in e-commerce.
According to a recent report by the OECD and the EU Intellectual Property Office, the global trade in counterfeit goods reached $467 billion in 2021, with apparel, footwear, and leather goods constituting the most-seized items. The report identified China and Hong Kong as the top sources of counterfeit products.
The OECD’s anticounterfeiting initiative follows a three-phase approach:
Defining the scope of the problem and outlining a strategic response
Developing voluntary guidelines to combat illicit trade
Facilitating global dialogue among public and private stakeholders to refine and implement best practices
The PTO’s June 5 hearing marks the start of the OECD’s third phase: facilitating dialogue between public and private stakeholders. Additional hearings will be held in other countries as part of this global effort.
The hearing comes on the heels of high-profile enforcement efforts, including a recent federal court order in Illinois that extended a freeze on assets linked to overseas sellers accused of distributing counterfeit National Basketball Association merchandise.
The PTO hopes the hearing will help refine the proposed best practices and identify remaining gaps, as policymakers and industry leaders work together to combat the growing threat of illicit online trade.
News From Across the Pond: UK+ Regime Now Permanent
In 2021, shortly after Brexit became effective, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) established the “UK+ regime” on the exhaustion of intellectual property (IP) rights with regard to the European Economic Area (EEA). After consultations with stakeholders, the UK IPO announced that this regime will be permanent.
IP rights are exhausted throughout the European Union when the IP owner or its licensee places goods in commerce anywhere in the EU. Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom became a third state, meaning that there was no exhaustion when goods were put on the UK market, then exported to the EEA. Similarly, there was no exhaustion when goods were put on the EU market, then exported to the UK. To address the latter issue, the UK unilaterally implemented the UK+ regime, which was initially planned as an interim solution. The UK+ regime ensured that, from a UK perspective, IP rights were still considered exhausted when goods were placed on the EU market and subsequently resold in the UK. Once a product had been legitimately sold in the EEA, the IP owner could not prevent its resale in the UK with reference to its IP rights. Thus, relevant goods could continue to be parallel traded into the UK, which ensured continued access to products for consumers, as UK businesses could continue to buy from EU suppliers and resell in the UK without needing permission from the IP owner.
Now that the UK+ regime is permanent, an exhaustion regime persists that is asymmetric. From the EU’s point of view, the UK is still a third state, so IP rights are not exhausted in the EEA when relevant goods are sold in the UK and subsequently exported to the EEA. Therefore, the IP owner can continue to prevent the product from being resold in any EEA state with reference to its IP rights and the lack of exhaustion, even if the product was originally sold in the UK by the IP owner itself or by its licensee. When goods are legitimately sold in the EEA and subsequently exported to the UK, however, exhaustion will occur.
Is An LLC’s Membership List A Trade Secret?
Yesterday’s post considered one of several matters raised on appeal in Perry v. Stuart, 2025 WL 1501935. The case involves a former member’s demand for inspection of records of a California limited liability company. Another issue raised in the appeal was whether the trial court erred in its finding that the LLC’s member list must be redacted prior to production because it is a trade secret.
The California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act requires an LLC to keep, among other things, a current list of the full name and last known business or residence address of each member and of each transferee set forth in alphabetical order, together with the contribution and the share in profits and losses of each member and transferee. Cal. Corp. Code § 17701.13(d)(1). The RULLCA further provides that each member, manager, and transferee has the right, upon reasonable request, for purposes reasonably related to the interest of that person as a member, manager, or transferee, to inspect and copy during normal business hours any of the records required to be maintained pursuant to Section 17701.13. Cal. Corp. Code § 17704.10(b)(1).
The courts found that the membership list was a protectible trade secret, as defined under Section 3426.1 of the California Civil Code. Thus, the question was which code prevailed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Civil Code took precedence as the more specific statute and thus the trial court had not erred in ordering the redaction of the membership list. The Court did not articulate why the Civil Code statute was more specific other than to note that trade secrets are a subset of business information. However, it is certainly arguable that membership list is an even smaller subset of business information and that the RULLCA provision is even more specific (i.e., detailing the exact information to be maintained) than the general Civil Code definition.
Plausibly Alleging Access Requires More Than Social Media Visibility
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a copyright action, finding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege either that the defendant had “access” to the work in question merely because it was posted on social media, or that the accused photos were substantially similar to any protectable elements of plaintiff’s photographs. Rodney Woodland v. Montero Lamar Hill, aka Lil Nas X, et al., Case No. 23-55418 (9th Cir. May 16, 2025) (Lee, Gould, Bennett, JJ.)
The dispute arose between Rodney Woodland, a freelance model and artist, and Montero Lamar Hill, also known as Lil Nas X, a well-known musical artist. Woodland alleged that Hill infringed on his copyright by posting photographs to his Instagram account that bore a striking resemblance to images Woodland had previously posted. Woodland claimed that the arrangement, styling, and overall visual composition of Hill’s photos closely mirrored his own, asserting that these similarities constituted unlawful copying of his original work.
Woodland’s original images had been publicly shared on his Instagram account, where he maintained a modest following. He did not allege any direct contact or interaction with Hill or his representatives, nor did he claim that Hill had acknowledged or referenced his work. Instead, Woodland’s claim rested on the contention that the similarities between the two sets of photographs were so substantial that copying could be inferred. In his complaint, Woodland asserted that Hill had access to his publicly posted images and that the degree of similarity supported a finding of unlawful copying. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that Woodland failed to plausibly allege either access or substantial similarity. Woodland appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing with the district court that Woodland failed to satisfy the pleading standard necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit explained that to state a viable claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must alleged both the fact of copying and the unlawful appropriation of protected expression. The Court found that Woodland failed to establish either element.
The Ninth Circuit considered two principal legal issues:
Whether Woodland sufficiently alleged that Hill had access to Woodland’s copyrighted works
Whether the photographs posted by Hill were substantially similar to Woodland’s photographs in their protectable elements under copyright law
On the issue of access, the Ninth Circuit found that the merely alleging availability of Woodland’s photos on Instagram did not, by itself, plausibly demonstrate that Hill had seen them. The Court noted that in the era of online platforms, “the concept of ‘access’ is increasingly diluted.” And while that might make it easier for plaintiffs to show “access,” there must be a showing that the defendants had a reasonable chance of seeing that work under the platform’s policies. The mere fact that Hill used Instagram and Woodland’s photos were available on the same platform raised only a “bare possibility” that Hill viewed the photos. Woodland had not plausibly alleged that Hill “followed, liked, or otherwise interacted” with Woodland’s posts or other similar accounts – the content merely being of a similar subgenre, even if true, was not sufficient. Without additional factual allegations suggesting that Hill had encountered Woodland’s work, the Court found that there was no reasonable basis to infer access.
Woodland also alleged that Hill copied 12 of Woodland’s photographs, characterizing the case as one of “serial infringement.” The Ninth Circuit rejected these allegations, finding that the number of allegedly copied images did not constitute direct evidence of access, nor was it dispositive of infringement. The Court noted that there was no precedent tilting the scale in Woodland’s favor based solely on the volume of alleged copying. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Woodland failed to plausibly allege a “reasonable possibility” that Hill had viewed his work.
On the issue of substantial similarity, the Ninth Circuit conducted a qualitative comparison of the two sets of photographs and found them lacking in protectable overlap. While both featured similar themes, such as styling, lighting, and pose, these elements were deemed either unoriginal or too general to warrant protection under copyright law. The Court emphasized that copyright does not extend to ideas, concepts, or unoriginal components such as generic backdrops, common poses, or standard photographic techniques. Furthermore, the Court found that the selection and arrangement of elements in the photographs was not sufficiently unique to establish a valid claim for infringement of elements protectable by copyright.
China’s Supreme People’s Court Designates Record-Setting Trade Secret Case as a Typical Case
On May 26, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the “Typical cases on the fifth anniversary of the promulgation of the Civil Code” (民法典颁布五周年典型案例) including one intellectual property case – the record-setting 640 million RMB trade secret case of June 2024. While the decision was a hollow victory as the defendant is insolvent and has not paid any damages, designation as a typical case may encourage lower courts to award higher damages in future trade secret cases. While the parties are unnamed, the plaintiff is Geely Holding Group and the defendant is WM Motor.
As explained by the SPC:
III. “Strict protection” and “high compensation” to actively create an environment that encourages innovation – Ji XX Company et al. v. Wei XX Company et al. Case of infringement of technical secrets
1. Basic Facts of the Case
Nearly 40 senior managers and technical personnel of Ji XX Company and its affiliated companies resigned and went to work for Wei XX Company and its affiliated companies, of which 30 joined the company immediately after resigning in 2016. In 2018, Ji Co. discovered that Wei Co. and the two companies used some of the above-mentioned resigned personnel as inventors or co-inventors, and applied for 12 patents using the new energy vehicle chassis application technology and 12 sets of chassis parts drawings and technical information carried by digital models (hereinafter referred to as “the technical secrets involved in the case”) that hey learned from their prior employer. In addition, the Wei EX series electric vehicles launched by Wei Co. were suspected of infringing the technical secrets involved in the case. Ji Co. filed a lawsuit with the first instance court, requesting that Wei Co. be ordered to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.1 billion RMB.
2. Judgment Result
The effective judgment held that this case was an infringement of technical secrets caused by the organized and planned use of improper means to poach technical personnel and technical resources of new energy vehicles on a large scale. Through overall analysis and comprehensive judgment, Wei Co. obtained all the technical secrets involved in the case by improper means, illegally disclosed part of the technical secrets involved in the case by applying for patents, and used all the technical secrets involved in the case. Therefore, the judgment is: unless the consent of Ji Co. is obtained, Wei Co. shall stop disclosing, using, or allowing others to use the technical secrets involved in the case in any way, and shall not implement, permit others to implement, transfer, pledge, or otherwise dispose of the 12 patents involved in the case; all drawings, digital models, and other technical materials containing the technical secrets involved in the case shall be destroyed or handed over to Ji Co.; the judgment and the requirements for stopping infringement shall be notified to Wei Co. and all its employees, affiliated companies, and relevant component suppliers by means of announcements, internal company notices, etc., and the relevant personnel and units shall be required to sign a letter of commitment to maintain secrecy and not infringe, etc.; considering that Wei Co. has obvious intention to infringe, the circumstances of infringement are serious, and the consequences of infringement are serious, double punitive damages shall be applied to Wei Co.’s infringement profits from May 2019 to the first quarter of 2022, and Wei Co. shall compensate Ji Co. for economic losses and reasonable expenses of about 640 million RMB. At the same time, it is made clear that if Wei Co. violates the obligation to stop infringement determined by the judgment, it shall pay the late performance fee on a daily basis or in one lump sum.
3. Typical significance
General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out that protecting intellectual property rights is protecting innovation. Strengthening judicial protection of intellectual property rights is an inherent requirement and important guarantee for the development of new quality productivity. In this case, the People’s Court, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Code, based on the determination of infringement of technical secrets, while applying punitive damages in accordance with the law, also actively explored the specific way to bear civil liability for stopping infringement and the calculation standard of delayed performance of non-monetary payment obligations, which promoted the renewal of intellectual property trial concepts and innovation of judgment rules, fully demonstrated the clear attitude of strictly protecting intellectual property rights and the firm stance of punishing unfair competition, and was conducive to creating a legal business environment of honest operation, fair competition, and innovation incentives.
4. Guidance on the provisions of the Civil Code
Article 179 The main forms of civil liability include:
(1) cessation of the infringement;
(2) removal of the nuisance;
(3) elimination of the danger;
(4) restitution;
(5) restoration;
(6) repair, redoing, or replacement;
(7) continuance of performance;
(8) compensation for losses;
(9) payment of liquidated damages;
(10) elimination of adverse effects and rehabilitation of reputation; and
(11) extension of apologies.
Where punitive damages are available as provided by law, such provisions shall be followed.
The forms of civil liability provided in this Article may be applied separately or concurrently.
Article 1168: Where two or more persons jointly commit an infringement and cause damage to others, they shall bear joint and several liability.
The original text, including four other Civil Code Typical Cases, can be found here (Chinese only).