/>iOn July 30, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released a set of Typical Cases of People’s Courts Equally Protecting the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Private Enterprises and Entrepreneurs in Accordance with the Law (人民法院依法平等保护民营企业和企业家合法权益典型案例). Per the SPC, the Typical Cases show that the Courts “effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises and entrepreneurs in accordance with the law;… fully implement the principle of equal protection under the law;… protect the innovation of scientific researchers and encourage private enterprises to expand overseas;… and implement legal guidance and standardized operations to achieve healthy development.”
Summaries of the two IP-related cases as provided by the SPC follow. The full text of the summaries, including ten other cases, is available via social media here (Chinese only) as the SPC’s website remains geoblocked.
7. A dispute over the ownership of invention patents between a medical technology company, a biotechnology company, and Mr. Hu – a package settlement by returnee researchers to promote the healthy development of high-tech innovative private enterprises
(1) Basic Facts of the Case
A biotechnology company (hereinafter referred to as Rui Company) [believed to be Shenzhen Ruiji Biotechnology Co Ltd] is the patentee of the invention patent number 20211071****.5 [presumed to be CN202110715680.5], entitled “An mRNA-Formulated Osteoarthritis Drug Preparation, Its Preparation Method, and Application.” A medical technology company (hereinafter referred to as Zhen Company) filed a lawsuit, arguing that the patent in question was a work-related invention completed by a certain Hu [presumably Yong HU] during his tenure at Zhen Company. During that time, Hu applied for and obtained authorization for the patent in question in the name of Rui Company, of which he was the actual controller, with Hu as the registered inventor. This harmed the legitimate rights and interests of Zhen Company and requested a judgment declaring the ownership of the patent in question to Zhen Company. The court of first instance held that Zhen Company failed to provide evidence proving that the patent in question was a work-related invention completed by Hu during his tenure at Zhen Company and therefore dismissed its lawsuit. Zhen Company appealed the ruling.
(2) Judgment
The Supreme People’s Court held in its second instance that this case involved numerous Chinese researchers that returned from overseas, numerous enterprises and institutions, and cutting-edge biopharmaceutical technologies. Taking into account the crucial role of mRNA technology in the development of new productivity in the pharmaceutical field, as well as the fact that the three researchers had previously collaborated closely, jointly started businesses in China, and made significant contributions to the development of innovative drugs involving mRNA technology, it established a trial approach of prioritizing mediation and prioritizing legal solutions. Through on-site investigations, trials, and active mediation efforts, the court facilitated the signing of a comprehensive settlement agreement between the parties regarding this case and other related litigation, resolving conflicts and disputes that had raged for over two years and promoting a return to cooperation at the forefront of biopharmaceuticals, achieving a win-win situation for both parties.
(3) Typical significance
The two small and micro-sized enterprises involved in this case were founded by several returnee Chinese researchers with the goal of promoting the research, development, and application of mRNA technology in the biopharmaceutical field. On National Constitution Day in 2024, a five-member panel, presided over by Vice President and Second-Level Justice of the Supreme People’s Court, Tao Kaiyuan, held a public hearing and facilitated the comprehensive resolution of this case and related litigation disputes. This hearing demonstrates the People’s Court’s clear commitment to focusing on innovative private enterprises, encouraging innovation, promoting integrity, respecting science, and valuing talent. This will encourage researchers to innovate and start businesses with confidence, further stimulate the innovative and creative vitality of society, and promote the integrated development of scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation.
8. Administrative Dispute over the Invalidation of Trademark Rights between Hui Company and the China National Intellectual Property Administration and Heng Company – The disputed trademark must not infringe upon the prior domain name rights of others, nor must it preemptively register a trademark that has already been used by others and has a certain influence by unfair means.
(1) Basic Facts of the Case
Heng Company [presumably Hengsheng Electronics Co., Ltd.] is the trademark owner of “DataFocus” trademark No. 39744963 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark), registered in Class 42 for services such as “computer software design; computer software maintenance.” Hui Company [possibly Singaporean company DataFocus.PTE.LTD], argued that the disputed trademark infringes upon its prior domain name rights and constitutes an unfair preemptive registration of its already-used and influential “DataFocus” trademark, filed a request for invalidation with the National Intellectual Property Administration.
(2) Judgment
The court held that the civil rights and interests lawfully enjoyed by the parties before the application date of the disputed trademark should be protected. Domain names are a type of civil right protected by law. As a prior civil right under Article 32 of the Trademark Law, a domain name can only be associated with specific goods or services by the relevant public if the domain name is registered first and has a certain degree of fame. On this basis, if the goods or services corresponding to the domain name are similar to those for which the disputed trademark is used, and the logos are similar, it may cause confusion among the relevant public as to the source of the goods or services. The evidence in the case demonstrates that the “datafocus.ai” domain name had already achieved a certain degree of fame before the application date of the disputed trademark, due to extensive publicity and use by Hui Company. If the disputed trademark is used in connection with services similar to the data analysis and software applications provided by Hui Company’s “datafocus.ai,” the relevant public, with general attention, may easily believe that the relevant services originate from the same entity or that there is a certain relationship between the service providers, leading to confusion and misperception as to the source of the services. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark infringes upon Hui Company’s prior domain name rights and interests.
Furthermore, the disputed trademark shares the same English letters as Hui Company’s prior trademark “DataFocus,” and the services for which the disputed trademark is approved, such as “computer software design; computer software maintenance,” constitute similar services to the data analysis and software application services provided by Hui Company’s “DataFocus” software. Given that Hui Company’s prior trademark “DataFocus” already enjoys a certain degree of fame, the applicant for the disputed trademark, as a business operator in the same industry as Hui Company’s computer software services, should have been aware of Hui Company’s prior trademark. However, the applicant for the disputed trademark, despite failing to exercise reasonable avoidance, has registered a trademark identical to the disputed trademark for the same or similar services. This is subjectively unjustifiable and objectively likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark constitutes the use of unfair means to preemptively register a trademark already in use by others and which has a certain influence.
(3) Typical significance
As private enterprises, especially internet-based private enterprises, grow, their good reputation and brand awareness often quickly accumulate into commercial symbols such as trademarks and domain names, which can bring more business opportunities and economic benefits to the enterprises and have high commercial value to the enterprises. However, enterprises may also encounter situations where their domain names or prior-used trademarks are “snatched away”. In this case, the People’s Court clarified that domain names can be protected as prior civil rights as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and legally determined that the registration of the disputed trademark infringed upon the prior domain name rights of Hui Company and constituted an unfair preemptive registration of Hui Company’s prior-used trademark. The disputed trademark was invalidated, effectively safeguarding the intellectual property rights and legitimate civil rights of private enterprises and providing strong judicial protection for the brand development of private enterprises.
