On September 2, 2026, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) publicly released five typical cases illustrating technical support in intellectual property procuratorial case handling. These cases were jointly compiled by the SPP’s Intellectual Property Procuratorial Department and the Procuratorial Technology and Information Research Center, reflecting recent efforts by procuratorial organs to adapt to the specialized and technical nature of intellectual property cases. The cases span both criminal and civil procuratorial functions, addressing technical issues including patent infringement determination, non-public-knowledge determination for trade secrets, identification of technological protection measures under copyright law, characterization of “deep linking” as information network dissemination, and identity verification of network crime perpetrators. The release demonstrates the integration of procuratorial technical resources—including in-house technical personnel, technical investigation officers, expert witnesses, and judicial appraisal commissions—into substantive review of technical evidence, and is intended to provide reference and guidance for procuratorial organs at all levels in handling intellectual property cases with greater technical rigor.

A translation of the 5 typical cases as explained by the SPP follows. As the SPP website is geoblocked, the original text is available on social media here. 

【Keywords】

Prosecutorial technical support; technical investigator; crime of infringing trade secrets; electronic data.

[Basic Case Facts]

Zhejiang EnXX Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. (presumably Zhejiang Enmo Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.) mainly engages in the research and development and production of equipment such as CT slip rings. Its independently developed capacitive coupling wireless transmission technology is the core technology of CT slip rings. In order to protect related technical secrets, the company has taken confidentiality measures such as signing confidentiality agreements with employees, organizing confidentiality training, and setting system permissions.

Li joined EnXX Company in 2019, working in research and development and quality inspection. He signed a confidentiality agreement and participated in confidentiality training. In early 2023, Xia XXming, Qi XXliang, and Geng XXhui discussed establishing Suzhou SiXX Transmission Equipment Co., Ltd. to produce CT slip ring products. In May of the same year, during the interview and subsequent communication, Xia XXming and the other two lured Li to join EnXX Company by offering high salaries, housing, and shares, bringing with him technical data on CT slip ring antennas. In July of the same year, before leaving EnXX Company, Li downloaded and copied CT slip ring-related drawings and other technical data from EnXX Company’s management system to a USB drive. He then joined the then-preparing SiXX Company that same month and disclosed the aforementioned technical data to Simou Company personnel through WeChat groups for CT slip ring product research and development.

Upon examination, the technical information claimed by EnXX Company, namely “CT slip ring receiving and transmitting antenna technical drawings and dielectric material parameters,” was determined to be non-public knowledge and identical to the information contained in the drawings and other materials on Li’s USB drive. The reasonable licensing fee for the aforementioned technical information was assessed at RMB 11,563,200.

[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]

On June 28, 2024, the Jiaxing Municipal Public Security Bureau initiated an investigation into the case after receiving a report from EnXX Company. Upon consultation with the public security authorities, the Jiaxing Municipal People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Jiaxing Procuratorate) activated its mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, established a special task force to intervene in accordance with the law, and suggested strengthening the investigation and evidence collection, focusing on the non-public nature of the technical information involved, the process by which the perpetrators obtained and disclosed the technical data, and the determination of reasonable licensing fees. On January 10, 2025, the Jiaxing Procuratorate approved the arrest of Xia XXming and Li XX in accordance with the law.

On March 10, 2025, the Jiaxing Municipal Public Security Bureau transferred the case of Xia XXming, Li XX, and two others suspected of infringing trade secrets to the procuratorate for review and prosecution. The Jiaxing Municipal Procuratorate transferred the case to the Xiuzhou District People’s Procuratorate of Jiaxing City (hereinafter referred to as the Xiuzhou District Procuratorate) for handling and continued to follow up and provide guidance. In response to the numerous technical issues involved in this case, the procuratorate focused on the following tasks: First, it assigned technical personnel to assist in evidence review. Hash value comparisons were performed on Li XX’s login records and background download data in the management system of the rights holder, EnXX Company. The special format of the technical drawings on Li XX’s USB drive was converted to accurately reconstruct the specific path by which Li XX obtained the technical information. Using intelligent electronic evidence review software, electronic data in the computers, mobile phones, USB drives, and other devices involved in the case was quickly screened to ascertain the conspiracy of Xia XXming and the other two to induce Li XX to obtain the technical materials involved and the process by which Li XX disclosed the technical materials. Second, technical investigators were invited to assist in determining the technical facts. Experts in relevant fields were selected from the intellectual property technology investigator pool jointly established by the Zhejiang Provincial People’s Procuratorate and the Provincial Market Supervision Administration, among other departments. These experts analyzed the key points claimed by the rights holder, conducting searches across multiple sources including patent data, academic literature, technical standards, and publicly available internet information. A technical investigation report was prepared focusing on the non-public nature of the technology information in question, and answers were provided for technical questions. The procuratorate, combining the technical investigation report with technology novelty search reports and non-public nature identification reports issued by third-party institutions, accurately identified the key points and non-public nature of the technology in question. Thirdly, a joint review was conducted with procuratorial technical personnel of the loss assessment report issued by a third-party institution. Based on the characteristics of the technology in question, the reasonableness of the assessment methods, models, and parameters, as well as the authenticity of the original data, were comprehensively examined. Similar technical materials and industry information were searched to verify the iteration cycle and expected benefits of the technology in question, accurately determining the amount of loss.

Based on a thorough investigation of the facts, the procuratorate fully explained the law and reasoned with the suspects, urging them to plead guilty, repent, and voluntarily compensate the rights holders for losses totaling RMB 4.21 million. Taking into account the overall circumstances of the case, the procuratorate promptly changed the compulsory measures against Xia XXming and Li XX to release on bail pending trial.

The prosecutor appeared in court to support the prosecution.

On September 25, 2025, the Xiuzhou District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Xia XXming, Li XX, and two others for allegedly infringing on trade secrets. On November 28 of the same year, the Xiuzhou District People’s Court of Jiaxing City held a closed-door trial in accordance with the law. In response to the defense’s arguments that Li XX infringed on trade secrets by violating confidentiality obligations and that the reasonable licensing fee assessment method was inappropriate, the prosecutor used intelligent electronic evidence review software to assist in presenting evidence during the trial. By displaying chat logs, management system login operation records, and USB flash drive data, the prosecutor accurately reconstructed the process by which Li XX obtained and disclosed the technical information in question, concluding that it constituted an infringement of trade secrets by improper means. Combined with the review opinions of the procuratorial technical personnel on the assessment report, the prosecutor strongly argued for the reasonableness of assessing the reasonable licensing fee for the technology in question using the “income approach.”

On December 29, 2025, the Xiuzhou District Court sentenced Xia XXming, Li XX, and two others to prison terms ranging from two to three years for the crime of infringing trade secrets, all with suspended sentences and fines. None of the defendants appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.

[Typical Significance]

Strengthening judicial protection of intellectual property rights for enterprises’ original innovations and key core technologies requires a deep integration of prosecutorial practice and prosecutorial technology. Cases involving infringement of trade secrets related to technology are highly specialized and technical, demanding a high level of expertise in evidence review, analysis, and application. In handling such cases, the procuratorate should fully leverage the advantages of a collaborative “practice + technology” model, strengthening the substantive review of technical evidence and thoroughly ascertaining the technical facts involved. Utilizing the professional expertise of prosecutorial technical personnel can improve the accuracy of electronic data review, conducting in-depth and meticulous reviews of assessment reports to support the accurate identification of criminal methods and amounts. Based on the joint technical investigator mechanism established by the procuratorate and administrative organs, technical investigators can be engaged to provide professional opinions, accurately determining the scope of trade secrets and the non-public nature of technical information. The use of intelligent electronic evidence review software can assist prosecutors in presenting evidence in court, visually reconstructing the criminal process and effectively prosecuting the crime.

【Keywords】

Technical investigator; crime of infringing trade secrets; technical information; non-public knowledge.

[Basic Case Facts]

(a) Crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks

(b) Crime of infringing trade secrets

Company Rui XX is primarily engaged in the research, development, production, and sales of heterocyclic and sulfur-containing synthetic fragrances. Its independently developed fragrance production process is a key technology. To protect this process, the company has established a confidentiality system, signed employment contracts and confidentiality agreements with its employees, and implemented a confidentiality framework through measures such as tiered technical management and physical isolation of production areas.

Since December 2019, Shen lured and instigated Zhang to illegally obtain the production process operating procedures for a certain fragrance product of Rui XX Company. From June to October 2022, Zhang, Liu, and Gao conspired to steal the procedures. Zhang arranged for Liu to carry out the operation, and Liu, through Zhang Xin, an employee of Rui Company, instigated Ni to secretly photograph the procedures with his mobile phone and forward them to Zhang via WeChat. Zhang then wrote a summary and forwarded it to Shen. After obtaining the procedures, Shen conducted a pilot test, but the case was uncovered before mass production and sales. An expert assessment determined that the procedures and the handwritten summary were not publicly known and were identical to the technical information claimed by Rui XX Company. The reasonable licensing fee for the technical information in question was assessed at RMB 11.553 million.

[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]

On March 12, 2024, the Tengzhou Public Security Bureau of Shandong Province transferred the case to the Tengzhou People’s Procuratorate of Shandong Province for review and prosecution on charges of Zhang XXlei, Liu XX, and Gao XX for suspected counterfeiting of registered trademarks, and Shen XX , Zhang XXlei, Liu XX, Gao XX, Zhang XXxin, and Ni XXquan for suspected infringement of trade secrets. The defense argued that the expert opinion proving the non-public nature of the document should not be accepted, as many confidential points in the procedure could be found in publicly available online materials, and that the document had already been published as an invention patent by the State Intellectual Property Office before being stolen. Zhang XXlei argued that he had only forwarded a simplified version of the procedure and Shen XX’s handwritten draft, which was not identical to the original procedure.

The prosecutors discussed the case collectively.

Due to the highly technical nature of the aforementioned issues, the Tengzhou Municipal People’s Procuratorate reported to the Shandong Provincial People’s Procuratorate, which commissioned a technical investigator to assist in a substantive review of the expert opinion and the handwritten summary involved in the case. The technical investigator reviewed and issued the following opinion: First, the technical operating procedure in question is composed of multiple key points; conducting a non-public knowledge review does not require all information to be completely unknown to the public. Even if some information exists in the public domain, the entire combination of technical information has not been publicly disclosed and should be considered non-public knowledge. Second, the content disclosed in the aforementioned product-related invention patent differs substantially from the procedure, but this does not affect the non-public knowledge determination in this case. The invention patent document for the preparation method of a certain fragrance product of Rui XX Company has been used as a comparative document in the expert review. It differs significantly from the operating procedure in terms of raw materials, reaction conditions, and process parameters; that is, the patent document does not disclose the same technical solution as the procedure. Third, the identification of technical information does not require complete consistency in length, text, or format. Although the handwritten summary in question simplified the content of the operating procedures, a technical comparison was conducted in terms of technical elements, core parameter settings, and process logic. The key technical features of the handwritten summary were substantially identical to the operating procedures, thus meeting the identification requirements. The procuratorate, considering the review opinions of the technical investigators and the evidence on file, further clarified the focus of evidence collection and the review approach, guiding the public security organs to supplement the identification opinion and comprehensively ascertain the facts of the case. On September 26, 2024, the Tengzhou Municipal Procuratorate prosecuted the corporate crime, initiating public prosecutions against HongXX Company, Zhang XXlei, and two others for allegedly counterfeiting registered trademarks, and against Zhang XXlei and six others for allegedly infringing trade secrets.

On January 7, 2025, the Tengzhou People’s Court of Shandong Province held a closed-door trial for this case in accordance with the law. The defendant and his defense counsel argued that Ni XXquan was an employee on the production line and had legally known some information about the operating procedures beforehand. Their photographing was not an improper acquisition of information, and all accomplices should be considered as having breached their right to disclose trade secrets. Furthermore, the infringement had not yet caused the rights holder any profit loss, and therefore, none of them constituted a crime. The prosecutor countered: First, whether a combination of technical information constitutes a trade secret requires a holistic evaluation. The procedures, as a combination of information from various stages, achieve technical effects that individual pieces of information cannot obtain; the trade secret protected in this case is this combination of information. Second, although Ni XXquan possessed information about some stages of the procedures, based on his duties and authority, he did not possess all the information about the procedures. Third, Ni XXquan obtained the entire production process operating procedures by secretly photographing them, which constitutes obtaining trade secrets through theft and improper means. The amount of the crime should be determined based on the reasonable licensing fee for the trade secret.

On May 19, 2025, the Tengzhou City Court sentenced HongXX Company to a fine of RMB 130,000 for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. Six defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from two years and three months to six months for the crimes of counterfeiting registered trademarks and infringing trade secrets, with fines ranging from RMB 40,000 to RMB 210,000. Some were given suspended sentences. Zhang XXlei, Liu XX, and Shen XXappealed the first-instance judgment; the Tengzhou City Procuratorate filed a protest on the grounds that the sentence for Zhang XXlei was inappropriate. On September 12, 2025, the Zaozhuang Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province issued a second-instance judgment, adopting the protest opinion and reversing the sentence, sentencing defendant Zhang XXlei to three years imprisonment and a fine of RMB 210,000, while upholding the other items of the first-instance judgment.

[Typical Significance]

In cases of infringement of trade secrets involving technical information, legal and technical issues are intertwined. The examination of technical evidence and the ascertainment of technical facts are crucial to the accurate determination of the case’s nature and the circumstances. In this case, the technical information involved knowledge in the field of fragrance production, and the chemical industry’s technological processes have high professional barriers, making the ascertainment of technical facts difficult. The procuratorate fully leveraged its integrated case-handling advantages, initiating a multi-tiered process to activate the intellectual property technical investigator-assisted case-handling procedure. It deeply utilized the “prosecutor + technical investigator” mechanism for ascertaining technical facts, strengthening the substantive review of the opinions on the non-public nature and identity of the technical information involved. With the assistance of technical investigators, the non-public nature of combined technical information was examined not only from the perspective of the overall combination but also through substantive comparison with patent disclosures. Regarding the consistency between the handwritten abstracts of the technical information involved and the relevant procedures, a comprehensive technical comparison and analysis was conducted focusing on key core technical content, providing crucial technical support for accurately determining the facts of the case and ensuring the professionalism and accuracy of the case review.

【Keywords】

Prosecutorial technical support; copyright infringement; illegal business operations; securities software; circumventing technical measures.

[Basic Case Facts]

(a) Copyright infringement

Cai XX Technology Co., Ltd. is responsible for building and maintaining the trading systems of multiple securities companies, and holds the copyright to its self-developed “Tong XX Xin Financial Analysis Terminal Software.”

In 2011, Zhong XXfeng and others registered and established XunXX Internet Technology Co., Ltd., mainly engaged in the development and sales of stock trading software. From July 2019 to July 2023, Zhong XXfeng purchased the trade.dll interface program from Han XXfei (dealt with in another case). This program was created by cracking and copying the core trading interface program tc.dll in TongXXxin software. Kong XXxin (dealt with in another case), the technical head of XunXX Company, wrote the trade.dll program into XunXX Company’s trading-agent program and deployed it on the company’s server. This enabled XunXX Company’s account to bypass the relevant technical protection measures of TongXXxin software, call its trading channel, illegally access the securities company’s server, and conduct automated stock trading, thereby charging customers for interface usage services. According to the audit, XunXX Company charged customers a total of more than RMB 3 million in interface usage service fees.

(b) Crime of illegal business operations

From July 2017 to July 2023, without approval from the relevant authorities, XunXX Company operated the “XunXX Quantitative” online platform, promoting its stock trading products such as “DIY Stock Trading Robot” and “Range Arbitrage” to clients. It illegally provided clients with securities consulting services, including offering stock trading opportunities and recommending specific stocks, and profited from these activities. An audit revealed that XunXX Company’s illegal business activities totaled over RMB 30 million.

[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]

On June 2, 2023, the Jing’an Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Jing’an Public Security Bureau) opened an investigation into the illegal business operations of XunXX Company. The Jing’an District People’s Procuratorate of Shanghai initiated a mechanism for soliciting opinions on major and complex cases, inviting procuratorial technical personnel to participate in case discussions and offer suggestions on the ascertainment of technical facts. The procuratorial review revealed that Zhong XXfeng and others, without proper qualifications, were engaging in illegal stock recommendation activities under the guise of automated stock selection, suspected of illegal securities investment consulting activities. Furthermore, the “stock trading robot” and other functions provided by XunXX Company to its clients could illegally access the backend program of TongXXxin software server, linking to the securities trading center to achieve real-time trading. Moreover, the core trading programs of the two were quite similar, and their actions also constituted suspected copyright infringement.

The prosecutors, investigators, and technical investigators jointly discussed and assessed the technical issues of the case.

The Jing’an District Procuratorate recommends that the public security organs focus on the following investigative and evidence-gathering work: First, ascertain the time of the illegal linking. Verify the ownership registration of each version of the TongXXxin software and clarify that the illegal linking occurred after the ownership registration. Second, conduct an identity verification. With the assistance of procuratorial technical personnel, the public security organs obtained the trading-agent program developed by XunXX Company from XunXX Company’s cloud server. They commissioned forensic personnel to extract the trade.dll program responsible for transactions. By loading analysis software and using decompilation tools to compare the code, they found that its core transaction files tc-dump1.dll and tc-dump2.dll were substantially similar to the core transaction file tc.dll in the TongXXxin software. However, the core transaction files are only a small part of XunXX Company’s trading-agent program, and it is difficult to determine whether the entire program was illegally copied and distributed. It is recommended that the public security organs focus their investigation on whether the technical protection measures of the Tongmouxin software were illegally breached. Third, delve deeper into upstream crimes. The public security authorities are required to immediately arrest Han XXfei, the provider of the transaction interface program trade.dll, secure relevant electronic evidence, and reconstruct the complete process of breaching the technical protection measures of the TongXXxin software.

On January 18, 2024, the Jing’an Public Security Bureau transferred the case of Zhong XXfeng to the Jing’an District Procuratorate for review and prosecution on suspicion of illegal business operations. The procuratorate initiated a technical investigation to assist in the case, analyzing the software’s operating logic and related technical information to ascertain the specific methods of infringement: First, the operating logic of the TongXXxin software was investigated. Technical investigators, in conjunction with an appraisal institution, conducted a simulation experiment on the software’s verification mechanism. After setting up an experimental platform environment consistent with the one used in the case, the TongXXxin software client program was first used to connect to the server, and the successful login process was recorded and saved. Then, without changing the program’s operating logic, the file hash value was modified, and the client program reconnected to the server. The client program issued an error message and was forcibly exited. Through the experiment, it was determined that when the TongXXxin software was running, the server-side program performed real-time verification of the integrity of the client program files and disconnected the connection with the client upon detecting abnormal file integrity to protect the server from illegal intrusion. Second, the technical protection measures of the TongXXxin software were investigated. Technical investigators further analyzed the TongXXxin software program, and after using shell-checking tools, it was determined that the rights holder used VMProtect to protect the program files from access to its core trading program tc.dll. This prevented others from directly obtaining the program’s assembly code through static decompilation, effectively preventing illegal modification and use of the program. Thirdly , the investigation clarified the specific circumstances under which XunXX Company’s software bypassed the technical protection measures of the TongXXxin software. The procuratorate actively conducted its own investigation, questioning Han XXfei, the provider of the trade.dll program, and requiring the rights holder to demonstrate and explain the core technology of the infringed software. It was clarified that the trade.dll program required stripping the VMProtect shell of the TongXXxin software during its creation, tampering with the security detection code, and circumventing local static detection. Simultaneously, during communication, it called tc.dll, which was released into system memory, to initiate a login request to the securities company’s main system station. Then, it hijacked the system security policy through API hooking, tampering with the corresponding detection points to prevent them from running, thereby generating a forged client fingerprint, ultimately bypassing the real-time verification mechanism in the TongXXxin software.

The results of the independent investigation and technical investigation confirmed that TongXXxin’s software adopted dual technical protection measures to prevent copying, dissemination, and operation, which constitutes “technical measures taken by the copyright holder to protect the copyright of their work.” Furthermore, XunXX’s software bypassed these protection measures to illegally connect to the securities company’s server. Based on this, the Jing’an District Procuratorate additionally charged Zhong XXfeng with copyright infringement in its prosecution.

On July 2, 2024, the Jing’an District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Zhong XXfeng for suspected illegal business operations and copyright infringement. On October 31, 2024, the Jing’an District People’s Court of Shanghai sentenced Zhong XXfeng to five years and nine months and three years and nine months imprisonment respectively for illegal business operations and copyright infringement, and imposed fines of RMB 2 million and RMB 3 million respectively, deciding to impose a combined sentence of seven years and nine months imprisonment and a fine of RMB 5 million. Zhong XXfeng appealed the first-instance judgment. On May 19, 2025, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

[Typical Significance]

This case represents a new type of case involving the illegal operation of a securities trading system using quantitative trading software. In handling the case, the prosecution comprehensively utilized methods such as applying for technical investigators to assist in the review of electronic evidence, commissioning third-party appraisal institutions to conduct technical stripping, and jointly conducting simulation experiments to accurately determine the technical facts of the case. Based on the principles, functions, and effects of the technical measures in question, and combined with evidence such as the ownership registration of the computer software, appraisal opinions, the defendant’s confession, and the rights holder’s statement, it was determined that the software effectively restricted others’ access to and operation of the software. Therefore, it was accurately determined that the technical measures were intended to protect computer software works and fall under the legal definition of technical measures in the context of copyright law, thus laying a solid evidentiary foundation for accurately identifying the criminal act. By simultaneously reviewing the intellectual property attributes of digital assets such as the software system and trading channels, the nature of new types of infringement, such as technical hacking, was accurately grasped, and the crime of copyright infringement was additionally established according to law. This comprehensively evaluated the criminal act and its harmful consequences, and all-roundly protected the legitimate rights and interests of the rights holder.

【Keywords】 

Prosecutorial technical support; technical investigator; copyright infringement; online identity verification; information network dissemination

[Basic Case Facts]

From 2017 to 2021, Zhao registered domain names such as imomoe.ai, imomoe.in, and imomoe.jp, and leased servers from a data computing company to operate a certain animation website. Without the copyright holders’ permission, Zhao used this website as a platform and intentionally provided technical parsing services, allowing the public to watch Chinese and foreign animation works such as “Qin’s Moon,” “Legend of Nezha,” “GG Bond,” “One Piece,” and “Detective Conan” directly from the animation website without being redirected to websites operated by rights holders such as Shanghai HuanXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. He then profited by publishing paid advertisements. Investigations revealed that Zhao disseminated over 2,100 audiovisual works, totaling over 30,000 episodes, through the aforementioned “hotlinking” method.

[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]

On August 17, 2021, the Chengdu Municipal Public Security Bureau of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Chengdu Public Security Bureau) initiated an investigation after receiving a report from the rights holder, HuanXX Company. On November 20, 2023, the Chengdu Municipal People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Chengdu Procuratorate) approved the arrest of the suspect, Zhao, in accordance with the law.

On March 14, 2024, the Chengdu Municipal Public Security Bureau transferred the case of Zhao, suspected of copyright infringement, to the Chengdu Municipal People’s Procuratorate for review and prosecution. The Chengdu Municipal People’s Procuratorate then transferred the case to the Sichuan Tianfu New Area People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Tianfu New Area Procuratorate) for review and handling. The procuratorial organs focused on the following tasks: First, using objective evidence to prove the identity of the perpetrator. In response to the suspect’s defense that he did not participate in the operation of the website, the procuratorial organs organized procuratorial technical personnel and technical investigators to jointly conduct a technical review of the case. Using data recovery technology, they recovered hidden and deleted server logs, browser records, and mobile terminal operation traces. They tracked, organized, and analyzed the massive amount of fragmented information scattered across the email, browser, computer, and mobile phone used by the website operator, thereby accurately ascertaining key facts such as the suspect’s addition of domain name address redirection, purchase of paid video parsing services, and digital certificates for the website, thus confirming his identity as the perpetrator. Second, they focused on reviewing the basis of rights and the authorization situation. In response to the dispersed ownership of infringed audiovisual works, with some copyright holders residing overseas, the procuratorate proactively collaborated with overseas copyright certification bodies recognized by the National Copyright Administration to verify that the suspects and websites had not obtained permission from the relevant copyright holders within the scope of the certification body. Based on this, it was recommended that the investigative authorities, through online extraction of electronic data and remote online examination, ascertain that the relevant entities lacked licenses for disseminating audiovisual works online, and that their domain names were not registered with the ICP license or the cybersecurity department, thus constituting illegal dissemination of audiovisual works and establishing a complete chain of evidence proving the suspects’ unauthorized online dissemination activities. Thirdly, the number of infringing audiovisual works was comprehensively verified. In response to the initial investigation by the investigative authorities, which only focused on the 180+ works (over 1200 episodes) of HuanXX Company included in the complaint materials as the subject of the charges, and the existence of issues such as certain infringing videos being unplayable and the lack of evidence collection regarding whether they constituted “identical works,” the procuratorate discovered that the works illegally disseminated by the animation website were not limited to the complainant’s works, but also included a large number of works from other rights holders. Therefore, the prosecution adjusted its approach to include all 2100+ works (over 30,000 episodes) of domestic and foreign animation illegally disseminated by the animation website as the subject of the charges. The investigative authorities were required to conduct random sampling and have image authentication institutions confirm that the infringing works and the rights holders’ works were “identical works,” ensuring the integrity of the evidence chain and the proportionality of the crime and punishment. Fourth, the prosecution substantively examined technical evidence to reconstruct the information network dissemination path. With the assistance of forensic technicians, a comprehensive review was conducted focusing on the source tracing process of the videos on the website in question, the dynamic changes in video download addresses during multiple assessments, and the presentation methods of the videos on the website. The review concluded that the website did not store the works on its own servers. Instead, it obtained the URL information for playing specific works by transmitting the unique identification information of the films and television programs to a third-party video technology parsing service interface. This allowed the public to access audiovisual works from a certain animation website without being redirected to the copyright holder’s online platform. In other words, the website provided film and television viewing services through “hotlinking,” constituting an act of information network dissemination.

On September 19, 2024, the Tianfu New Area Procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Zhao for alleged copyright infringement. To strengthen the prosecution in court, the procuratorate, in accordance with the law, requested a technical investigator to appear in court to explain the expert opinion, detailing the technical principles of “hotlinking” and effectively responding to the technical arguments and defenses of the defendant and his lawyer. On December 13, 2024, the Sichuan Tianfu New Area People’s Court sentenced the defendant Zhao to two years imprisonment and a fine for copyright infringement. The defendant Zhao appealed the first-instance judgment. On July 4, 2025, the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

The People’s Procuratorate of Sichuan Tianfu New Area appointed intellectual property technology investigators and organized a symposium.

[Typical Significance]

Handling copyright infringement cases via the internet often presents challenges such as difficulty in identifying the perpetrator, determining the method of infringement, and ascertaining the number of works. The procuratorate has fully utilized technical investigators and prosecutorial technology-assisted case-handling mechanisms to comprehensively analyze and establish the correspondence between suspects and online infringement activities through multi-dimensional electronic trace analysis, including cross-device data continuity, correlation between online browsing records and offline physical storage operation traces, and mapping analysis of network accounts and computer devices. This breakthrough addresses the difficulty of identifying the identity of perpetrators in internet crimes. The procuratorate strengthens the comprehensive review of technical evidence such as video source tracing and download addresses to ascertain the specific methods and targets of online dissemination of works, thereby accurately identifying infringements of the right of dissemination via the internet. In cases involving numerous types of works and dispersed rights holders, random sampling and image identification methods are used to accurately determine that the videos in question are substantially identical to the rights holders’ works, comprehensively determining the number of infringing videos. The procuratorate also requests technical investigators to appear in court as experts, providing technical support for accurate prosecution.

【Keywords】

Prosecutorial technical support; disputes involving infringement of invention patent rights; allocation of the burden of proof; appearance of prosecutorial technical personnel in court; settlement.

[Basic Case Facts]

XX is the patentee of an invention patent for “a method for producing painted decorations of ancient buildings” (presumably CN101804750B), which is currently valid. XX sued XX construction company in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, alleging that the construction company used the patent in question without his permission. XX requested the court to order the construction company to cease infringement and to compensate him for economic losses of RMB 600,000 and reasonable expenses of RMB 10,000. XX also filed an application for evidence preservation and judicial appraisal with the court.

In the first instance, XX submitted evidence including printouts of photographs of the exterior of a construction company’s building, painted patterns, and the company’s address. XX also filed an “Application for Evidence Preservation” and an “Application for Judicial Appraisal” with the court, arguing that it was difficult for XX and its legal representatives to access the construction company to obtain evidence related to the ancient building painting method. On May 29, 2019, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first-instance civil judgment, finding that XX had failed to submit reliable preliminary evidence proving that the construction company was highly likely to have used its patented method. Therefore, the court ruled that XX’s claim of infringement of its patent rights lacked factual basis and dismissed XX’s lawsuit.

XX, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, appealed. During the second instance proceedings, XX submitted two other civil infringement judgments and judicial appraisal reports related to the infringement of the patent in question, intending to prove that the evidence collected by the other courts and judicial appraisals ultimately determined that the same circumstances as in this case constituted infringement, thus corroborating the high probability that infringement was involved in this case. Simultaneously, XX argued that his application for investigation, evidence collection, and evidence preservation to the first-instance court was denied, constituting a procedural violation.

On May 11, 2021, the court issued a second-instance judgment, holding that during the first-instance trial, XX failed to provide preliminary evidence to prove that the painted pattern on the exterior wall of the building in question was produced by a construction company using the patented method in question. Therefore, the first-instance court’s failure to preserve evidence and its finding that XX’s claim that the construction company infringed its patent rights in question lacked basic factual basis was not inappropriate. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

XX disagreed with the second-instance judgment and applied for a retrial. On December 16, 2021, his application for retrial was rejected.

[Performance of duties by the procuratorial organs]

Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, XX applied to the Supreme People’s Procuratorate for supervision. The procuratorial organ conducted the following investigation and verification work in accordance with the law: First , it reviewed relevant similar case judgments and expert reports. It was found that XX believed a certain heritage and cultural research institute, a certain construction company, and a certain hot spring company infringed upon the patent rights in question, and filed lawsuits against them separately. In both cases, the courts commissioned judicial appraisals at XX’s request. In the case of XX suing the certain heritage and cultural research institute for patent infringement, the judicial appraisal report clearly stated that the accused infringing product and the sample provided by XX were made using the same screen printing method. In the case of XX suing the construction company and the hot spring company for patent infringement, the second-instance judgment held that XX’s method invention patent consisted of method steps. Given that the construction process of the hot spring company had already ended when XX discovered it, the burden of proof should fall on the two defendant companies to demonstrate that the method steps they used during construction differed from the content recorded in the patent in question. Since the two defendant companies failed to submit corresponding evidence, it should be presumed that the pattern painting method they used was the same as that of the patent in question. Second, it conducted an appraisal ex officio and collected evidence on-site. After verifying that the painted patterns on the building in question still existed, the procuratorate, acting on its own authority, conducted an appraisal to determine whether the painted patterns on the building of the construction company were created using screen printing, and organized appraisers to conduct a three-dimensional on-site inspection and evidence collection. The Judicial Appraisal Center of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued an appraisal opinion stating that the painted patterns on the gatehouse of the construction company were created using screen printing.

On November 8, 2024, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate filed a protest with the Supreme People’s Court, arguing that the original trial court had improperly allocated the burden of proof and misapplied the law. The main reasons were: 1. The court failed to investigate and collect evidence upon request. The painted design in question was attached to a building managed and used by a construction company. In the first instance, XX presented preliminary evidence such as photographs of the building’s exterior and the painted design. However, XX and its legal representatives objectively had difficulty accessing the building to investigate and collect evidence. This falls under the category of a party and its legal representatives being unable to collect evidence independently due to objective reasons, which meets the criteria for the People’s Court to investigate and collect evidence upon request. However, the court failed to do so. 2. The second-instance judgment improperly allocated the burden of proof. This case involves a method invention patent. The implementation of the method steps involved in the patent is generally completed within the management and control of the accused infringer. Once completed, the patent holder usually cannot directly prove that the accused infringer used the method steps protected by its patent; it can only determine whether its patent has been infringed through the accused infringing product. Based on the comparison of the patterns in this case, the findings of related cases, and the fact that a certain construction company admitted to being the user of the building in question but intentionally concealed this fact during the litigation, it can be reasonably inferred that the allegedly infringing product was likely manufactured using the method of the patent in question. The expert opinion further corroborates this inference. Therefore, XX has made reasonable efforts, and this case meets the conditions for shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof should fall on the construction company to prove that the painted patterns on the building in question were not manufactured using the method of the patent in question. The second-instance judgment’s failure to preserve the evidence in question was improper, and the allocation of the burden of proof was inappropriate, failing to comply with Article 3 of the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation.”

The prosecutor attended the retrial court.

During the retrial hearing at the Supreme People’s Court, the prosecution requested that expert witnesses attend the retrial court session. During the hearing, these experts demonstrated and explained the expert evaluation process, the basis for their evaluation, and their opinions. Both parties had no objection to the expert opinions. On November 20, 2025, the Supreme People’s Court issued a civil mediation agreement, confirming that both parties had reached a settlement and that it had been fully implemented.

[Typical Significance]

In patent infringement cases involving method inventions, once the infringement is completed, the patent holder typically finds it difficult to directly prove that the accused infringer used the method steps protected by their patent. They can only determine whether their patent has been infringed by examining the accused infringing product. If the accused infringing product is actually controlled and managed by the accused infringer, the patent holder finds it even more difficult to conduct their own investigation and evidence collection. In handling patent infringement cases involving method inventions, the procuratorate should focus on reviewing the appropriateness of the allocation of the burden of proof, and, when necessary, actively exercise its investigative and verification powers. This can be achieved through the participation of procuratorial technical personnel in case handling and commissioned expert evaluations, thereby clarifying the key technical facts of the case and addressing the pain points of “difficulty in providing evidence” and “difficulty in determining technical facts” for the patent holder. This will solidify the factual foundation for accurate supervision. Simultaneously, by requesting expert evaluations to appear in court and provide a full explanation of the relevant technical facts, the procuratorate can help the court accurately understand the technical logic of the relevant professional issues and help the parties clearly understand the technical basis of the infringement, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the procuratorate’s presence in the retrial court of appealed cases.