ACT, OPPO dispute over audio SEPs
CATEGORIES: Patents; mobile communications
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng represented OPPO.
KEY POINTS: Advanced Codec Technologies (ACT) sued OPPO for allegedly infringing six standard essential patents (SEPs) and delaying licensing negotiations, seeking RMB342 million (USD47.2 million) in damages. OPPO countersued, accusing ACT of violating FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations and requesting the court to confirm the breach and determine a licensing fee.
The first-instance court ruled that the patents in question were SEPs. The second-instance court further applied the comparable agreement method to set the licensing fee and calculated damages based on both parties’ fault liabilities. OPPO was ordered to pay RMB15.39 million in licensing fees, which is lower than ACT’s initial claim.
The ruling provides critical guidance for licensing and litigation practices involving audio-video patents. As the Supreme Court’s first ruling addressing the complexities of determining FRAND licensing rates for SEPs, this case marks a landmark in Chinese intellectual property jurisprudence.
Argo, Novartis collaborate on RNAi therapeutics
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Goodwin advised Argo Biopharmaceutical.
KEY POINTS: Shanghai-based Argo Biopharmaceutical entered into two exclusive license and collaboration agreements with Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis. Under the arrangement, Novartis receives an exclusive licence for two early-stage RNA interference (RNAi) candidates targeting cardiovascular disease. The two companies will also collaborate in cardiovascular disease research.
Argo receives USD185 million in upfront payments from Novartis and is further eligible to receive potential option and milestone payments potentially valued up to USD4.17 billion, as well as tiered royalties on commercial sales.
AstraZeneca fights patent invalidation claims
CATEGORIES: Patents; pharmaceuticals
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons acted as AstraZeneca’s counsel.
KEY POINTS: AstraZeneca successfully defended against 31 invalidation claims on dapagliflozin’s crystalline and formulation patents. Dapagliflozin, sold under the brand name Farxiga, is an inhibitor developed by AstraZeneca for treating adults with type 2 diabetes. Since 2020, multiple domestic drug manufacturers have filed numerous invalidation claims against dapagliflozin's crystalline and formulation patents, making it the most challenged drug in China's pharmaceutical sector.
BeiGene partners with Ensem on CDK2 inhibitor
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biotech
LEGAL COUNSEL: Morrison Foerster advised Ensem Therapeutics.
KEY POINTS: Global biotechnology companies BeiGene and Ensem Therapeutics entered into a partnership that saw BeiGene acquire an exclusive global licence to an investigational new drug (IND) application-ready oral cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2) inhibitor.
Under the partnership, Ensem stands to receive an upfront payment, as well as up to USD1.33 billion development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments, in addition to tiered royalties.
BMW protects trademark from toymaker
CATEGORIES: Trademarks; unfair competition; automotive
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng represented BMW.
KEY POINTS: BMW sued a Hebei-based toymaker Beiduoqi for trademark infringement and unfair competition. BMW accused the toymaker of producing and selling children’s electric vehicles that used its "宝马" (the Chinese name of BMW) and the BMW trademarks without authorisation and imitated the appearance of the BMW Z4 model, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ruled in favour of BMW, finding that the toymaker’s infringement was malicious and ordered the defendants to pay RMB10.8m in damages. The punitive damages reflected the Chinese courts’ strict stance against malicious infringement and equal protection for both domestic and foreign entities.
CATL, CALB patent infringement disputes
CATEGORIES: Patents; new energy
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng and Guantao Law Firm represented CATL in two different litigation cases.
KEY POINTS: A patent litigation battle has intensified between CATL and CALB, two leading players in China’s power battery industry. Since July 2021, CATL has filed six patent infringement lawsuits against CALB, targeting technologies such as explosion-proof devices and battery packaging components, while challenging the legitimacy of CALB’s key automotive client orders. The total claims amount to RMB800 million (USD110.4 million).
In October 2024, CALB retaliated by accusing CATL of infringing on four of its patents, seeking more than RMB1 billion in damages. CATL’s key automaker clients were also impacted. A RMB560 million claim over liquid-cooling technology marks the highest single claim in the disputes between CATL and CALB.
As of January 2025, courts had ruled in favour of CATL in three cases, invalidating two CATL patents, with one case still pending. CALB and other defendants were ordered to pay CATL about RMB100 million in damages.
The patent war between CATL and CALB highlights the growing urgency for companies to establish competitive barriers through intellectual property amid increasing market homogenisation. The outcome of these lawsuits is expected to have far-reaching implications for the future of the new energy industry.
China’s first ‘unfair’ blind box dispute
CATEGORIES: Unfair competition; toys
LEGAL COUNSEL: Llinks Law Offices represented Xunlin Culture and Entertainment.
KEY POINTS: This case marks China’s first unfair competition dispute involving an online blind box pre-sale business model, emerging amid the global popularity of mystery-packaged toys. The plaintiff, Xunlin Culture and Entertainment, is the parent company of the blind box brand “Finding Unicorn” while the defendant OU QI Blind Box operates an “online blind box vending machine” business.
The defendant copied images and product details from Xunlin Culture’s unreleased blind box series and published them on its platform for promotional purposes. Additionally, the defendant sold the plaintiff’s newly released blind box series at inflated prices, pre-selling at least 36 product series.
In the first instance, the People’s Court of Binjiang District ruled that the defendant's pre-sale business constituted false advertising and violated the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, ordering the defendant to compensate the plaintiff RMB850,000 (USD118,660). The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, in the second instance, dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Data IP certificate used as evidence
CATEGORIES: Anti-Unfair Competition Law; data protection
LEGAL COUNSEL: Yinghe Law Firm represented DataTang Technology
KEY POINTS: For the first time, Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the second instance recognised that the Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate can serve as preliminary evidence to protect proprietary interests.
Data service provider DataTang Technology’s 1,505-hour Mandarin speech dataset had obtained the Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate, but the subset of this dataset was disseminated without authorisation by a Shanghai-based data-sharing platform operator Hidden Wood Technology.
The legal team representing DataTang used the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the publicly available dataset. After both first and second-instance trials, the Beijing IP Court ruled that the defendant constituted an act of unfair competition. Furthermore, the court’s recognition of the Data Intellectual Property Registration Certificate as evidence has strengthened the legal basis for data rights protection. It provides an essential reference for similar cases in the future.
Decathlon defends retail store designs
CATEGORIES: Unfair competition; trade dress; retail
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Intellectual Property represented Decathlon, Heli Law Firm and Zhong Yin Law Firm counselled Outcool Sports Goods and Shenlan Law Firm acted for Wangzi.
KEY POINTS: Anhui High People’s Court awarded Decathlon RMB2 million (USD279,000) in compensation in an appeal that found mainland sports good retailer Outcool committed acts of unfair competition.
Decathlon first sued Outcool for unfair competition as the interior design of the latter’s stores were similar to Decathlon, while Outcool’s former business partner Wangzi who operates several of Outcool’s chain stores was also sued. Decathlon also demanded Outcool to stop using images resembling its stores in their promotional materials and remove false promotional articles from the internet.
The Wuhu Municipal Intermediate People’s Court in Anhui ruled in the first instance that Outcool’s interior design did not constitute unfair competition, but its promotional activities did. Decathlon then filed an appeal to Anhui High People’s Court, which recognised Decathlon’s significant influence in the Chinese market and the similarity in trade dress between the two companies. Ultimately, the court ordered Outcool to stop using decoration elements similar to those at Decathlon stores and compensate the appellant RMB2m, almost sevenfold that awarded by the lower court. Outcool applied for a retrial with the Higher People’s Court of Anhui province, but it was rejected.
Delixi Group, Delixi Switch trademark dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademarks; electric
LEGAL COUNSEL: Sunhold Law Firm represented the plaintiff. Guantao Law Firm represented the defendant.
KEY POINTS: Founded in 1991, Delixi Group is a leading player in China’s electrical industry. Delixi Switch, established in 1994, had long prominently used the Delixi name in its products and promotions, allegedly piggybacking on the well-known brand. Delixi Group had initiated multiple legal actions since 1999, culminating in a 2024 ruling by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, which ordered Delixi Switch to cease using the Delixi name and pay RMB5 million (USD690,000) in damages.
The case faced challenges, including lost historical evidence and a complex legal process. The legal team uncovered media reports from 1993 to 1994 to prove Delixi Group’s established reputation prior to the defendant’s incorporation. They also demonstrated that Delixi Switch’s prominent use of the Delixi identifier on its e-commerce platforms and official website constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.
This landmark case strengthens trademark protection, curbs unfair competition practices and carries substantial legal and market significance for brand rights enforcement in China.
Dragon Nest operator sues Nanjing theme park
CATEGORIES: Trademark; litigation; entertainment; online games
LEGAL COUNSEL: Co-effort Law Firm advised Shengqu and Shulong. Refcoo PRC Lawyers represented Huachang Group and Jinsha.
KEY POINTS: Shengqu Games, brand owner of the popular MMORPG series, Dragon Nest, together with its subsidiary Shulong Technology, launched a lawsuit against Huachang Group and Nanjing Jinsha Tourism Development for infringing on their registered trademark exclusive rights before the Pudong New Area People’s Court of Shanghai.
The dispute centred on the Huachang Dragon Valley theme park in Nanjing, which Huachang Group invested in to the tune of RMB8.8 billion (USD1.2 billion), and which was constructed by Jinsha Tourism Development. The Chinese name of Dragon Valley is identical to that of Dragon Nest, hence the perceived infringement.
According to Co-effort, the first-instance trial lasted for almost two years due to delays from the covid-19 pandemic. To further complicate the matter, an affiliated company of Huachang obtained the trademark of “华昌龙之谷” (Huachang Dragon Nest) during that time. Co-effort argued to the court that the registration was conducted in bad faith, the basis for its trademark rights was not stable, and the class under which the trademark was registered was inconsistent with its real-life usage.
The first-instance court ruled for Huachang and Jinsha to cease infringing on the contested trademarks and compensate for RMB1.6 million. Huachang and Jinsha subsequently appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, which dismissed the case.
Dragon Nest was originally developed by Eyedentity Games, a South Korean studio that Shengqu (then Shanda) acquired in 2010. The theme park has since made subtle changes to its Chinese name to differentiate it from the video game.
Dreame, Roborock patent dispute
CATEGORIES: Patent; litigation; household appliances
LEGAL COUNSEL: Fangda Partners, Co-effort Law Firm and Jingda Law Firm represented Dreame. Lifang & Partners and Liu Shen & Associates represented Roborock.
KEY POINTS: Dreame Technology, a leading smart home appliance manufacturer, alleged that competitor Roborock’s floor-cleaning robots infringed its invention patent for “cleaning devices and equipment”. It filed a pre-litigation injunction application with the Quanzhou Intermediate People’s Court, demanding an immediate halt to the manufacturing and sales of infringing products. The court granted this request.
Roborock appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, contesting the validity of third-party product comparison assessments from the first-instance trial. It argued that the patent could be invalidated and that there was no evidence to support the urgency in the halting request. The court overturned the first-instance ruling.
Clashes between the two companies extended to Germany, where Dreame sued Roborock at a regional court in Düsseldorf. Following Roborock’s absence from proceedings, the court ordered the company to cease sales, use and importation of products involving the contested patent in Germany. Violations may incur administrative fines of EUR250,000 (USD272,600) per instance.
Eccogene, AstraZeneca collaboration on ECC5004
CATEGORIES: Lisensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Cooley advised Eccogene. Covington advised AstraZeneca.
KEY POINTS: Eccogene, a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company based in Shanghai, entered into an exclusive license agreement with AstraZeneca, under which the latter gains the exclusive global rights for the development and commercialisation of ECC5004 outside China, while the two parties will co-develop and co-commercialise the treatment in China.
Under the agreement, Eccogene will receive USD185 million in upfront payment and about USD1.83 billion in future clinical, regulatory, and commercial milestones, as well as tiered royalties on product net sales.
ECC5004 is a small molecule GLP-1 receptor agonist that potentially treats obesity, type-2 diabetes and other comorbidities.
Escugen, Foreseen license FIC drug to Ipsen
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Llinks Law Offices represented Escugen. Cooley and Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Foreseen Biotechnology.
KEY POINTS: Two Chinese innovative drug developers, Escugen and Foreseen, entered into an exclusive global licensing agreement with Ipsen, under which the French pharmaceutical giant was granted the global exclusive rights to develop and commercialise FS001, a first-in-class (FIC) antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) developed by Escugen and Foreseen. Prior to this, Escugen and Foreseen signed an agreement to jointly develop FIC ADC using their respective proprietary technologies.
Under the agreement with Ipsen, Escugen and Foreseen are eligible to divide up to USD1.03 billion in upfront payments, development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments, and tiered royalties on global sales, subject to successful development and obtaining the required regulatory approval.
Employing a rare two-to-one licensing model, the deal took into account the mutual exclusivity in the cross-licensing of Escugen and Foreseen’s respective technologies and exclusive licensing to Ipsen, while retaining flexibility to conjugate with other products under certain circumstances.
FMC sues for chemical patent infringement
CATEGORIES: Pesticide; patents
LEGAL COUNSEL: GEN Law Firm represented FMC Agro Singapore, the plaintiff. Sijing Law Firm, Yueyan Law Firm and Lexiance Partners represented the defendants, Runyu New Material Technology, Yongfeng Chemical, and Haide Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals, respectively.
KEY POINTS: FMC Agro Singapore discovered that multiple companies and individuals had been manufacturing and selling the patented compound “K Acid” without authorisation. In response, FMC filed a request for an administrative ruling with the Xinxiang Intellectual Property Office in 2022.
However, the proceedings were suspended due to a patent invalidation challenge initiated by the infringers. FMC subsequently filed a civil lawsuit with the Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court, which, in the first instance, ordered the infringers to pay more than RMB2 million (USD275,890) in damages. Dissatisfied with the ruling, FMC appealed, and in the final ruling in 2023, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) increased the damages to three times the initial amount, ordering the infringers to pay RMB6.73 million, one of the highest compensation awards in the agrochemical sector in recent years.
The case involved multiple defendants, a complex evidentiary chain, and intricate patent technology, highlighting challenges in cross-regional and foreign-related evidence collection and infringement determination. Despite this, the first-instance court delivered a swift judgment in just four months, reflecting the efficiency of judicial protection in IP cases. The case was selected as one of the 100 exemplary cases for the fifth anniversary of the SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal, underscoring the judiciary’s commitment to protecting foreign investments and safeguarding intellectual property in the agricultural sector.
FutureGen licenses AbbVie to develop FG-M701
CATEGORIES: Lisensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Cooley advised FutureGen. Covington represented AbbVie.
KEY POINTS: FutureGen Biopharmaceutical (Beijing) and New York-listed AbbVie entered into a license agreement to develop FG-M701, a next generation TL1A antibody for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) currently in preclinical development.
Terms of the agreement dictate that FutureGen grants AbbVie an exclusive global licence to develop, manufacture and commercialise FG-M701. FutureGen receives USD150 million in upfront and near-term milestone payments, and is further eligible for USD1.56 billion in clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones, as well as tiered royalties up to low-double digit percentages on net sales.
Galanz, MeiG patent dispute
CATEGORIES: Home appliances; trade secrets
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm represented Galanz Microwave Electrical Appliances Manufacturing, the plaintiff, while Henghua Zhixin Intellectual Property represented MeiG Smart Technology, the defendant.
KEY POINTS: In the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Galanz against MeiG, the Supreme People’s court overturned the first-instance ruling, supporting Galanz’s claim for compensation in full.
Galanz alleged that MeiG, with the assistance of former Galanz employees and the third-party company, Donlim Weili Electrical Appliances, had utilised its patented technology to mass produce one of the core components of microwave ovens, the cavity magnetron. In the first-instance trail, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled that MeiG had not committed infringement, citing the principle that “the doctrine of equivalents should be applied strictly to essential technical features”.
During the second instance, Zhong Lun’s team provided detailed technical arguments and employed innovative courtroom demonstration techniques to successfully establish the equivalence between the accused solution and the patented solution. The Supreme People’s Court accepted these arguments, overturned the first-instance ruling on the interpretation of technical features, and confirmed that the accused technical solution constituted equivalent infringement. The court ordered MeiG to cease its infringing activities and pay RMB10 million (USD1.4 million) in damages along with RMB200,000 in reasonable expenses.
Geely, WM Motor settle patent dispute
CATEGORIES: Patents; trade secrets; automotive
LEGAL COUNSEL: Kangda Law Firm advised Geely. Global Law Office advised WM Motor.
KEY POINTS: The six-year dispute between two Chinese auto giants, Geely and WM Motor, came to a close with the Supreme People’s Court ordering WM to pay Geely RMB640 million (USD90 million), setting a record in China for IP infringement compensation.
The clash began in 2018, when 40 senior managers and technicians resigned from a Geely subsidiary and joined WM. Geely filed a lawsuit months later, alleging that WM’s new EX electric vehicle used Geely’s stolen chassis technology, drawings and digital models, thereby infringing its trade secrets.
The Shanghai High People’s Court ordered WM to pay RMB7 million in the first-instance ruling, to which both sides appealed. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court found WM’s infringement to be malicious in nature, and led to Geely’s substantial losses. The eventual amount imposed included compensation for losses, double punitive damages and reasonable expenses for rights protection.
Gree v Aux in patent infringement dispute
CATEGORIES: Patents; infringement disputes
LEGAL COUNSEL: JunHe and King & Wood Mallesons acted for Zhuhai Gree Electric.
KEY POINTS: The high-profile six-year lawsuit between Gree and Aux’s patent infringement case ended in 2023 when the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court in the second instance ruled that the compressor patent bought by Aux was invalid and therefore dismissed its infringement claim against Gree.
Gree was first ordered by the Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court and Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court to pay Aux a total of RMB220m (USD30.7m) in compensation for infringement. However, the validity of the patent was questioned as the technology lacked innovation and was not supported by a manual. This is a classic case that demonstrates how Chinese courts strike a balance between protecting widely adopted technologies and embracing new inventions.
Hengrui out-licenses GLP-1 portfolio to Hercules
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Cooley advised Hengrui Pharmaceuticals. Ropes & Gray represented Bain Capital. Sidley Austin advised one of the investors.
KEY POINTS: Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, a manufacturer and distributor of innovative drugs headquartered in Lianyungang, Jiangsu province, licensed the global rights for the development, production and commercialisation of three of its proprietary glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs to Hercules CM Newco. Hercules was incorporated in Delaware in May 2024, with backings from Bain Capital Life Sciences, RTW Investments, Atlas Venture and Lyra Capital amounting to USD400 million. GLP-1 agonists are designed to help manage type-2 diabetes and obesity.
Under the agreement between Hengrui and Hercules, Hengrui receives an upfront payment of USD100 million and a near-term tech transfer milestone payment of USD10 million. In the long run, it is eligible for clinical development and regulatory milestone payments of up to USD200 million, sales milestone payments of up to USD5.7 billion, and sales royalties. Hengrui acquires a 19.9% equity stake in Hercules.
The transactions set a new record among Chinese biotech companies for overseas out-licensing of innovative drugs, and paves the way for a new deal structure where they can go overseas via a joint venture set up by leading venture capitals.
Apart from advising Hengrui on the licensing and equity agreements, Cooley assisted on CFIUS filing, antitrust analysis, IP filing, patent transfer and other related matters. It also helped design the eventual deal structure.
ImmuneOnco licensing and collaboration with Instil Bio
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: JunHe represented ImmuneOnco. Cooley advised Instil Bio.
KEY POINTS: Hong Kong-listed ImmuneOnco and Nasdaq-listed Instil Bio signed an agreement pursuant to which SynBioTx, a wholly owned subsidiary of Instil, was granted the global development and commercialisation rights of IMM2510 and IMM27M, both proprietary antibodies of ImmuneOnco.
ImmuneOnco will receive up to USD50 million in upfront payments and potential near-term payments, and is eligible for additional payments, subject to fulfillment of development, regulatory and commercial milestones, exceeding USD2 billion as well as single to low double-digit percentage royalties on global sales outside of Greater China.
Invisalign, Youhui patent infringement
CATEGORIES: Patents; dental medicine
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Align Technology.
KEY POINTS: In November 2022, Shanghai Yuhui Investment Consulting filed an administrative adjudication request with the Beijing Intellectual Property Office (BIPO), alleging that Align Technology and related hospitals had infringed its patent for a “system and method for repositioning teeth”. Align Technology responded by filing a request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to invalidate the patent.
In 2023, the CNIPA declared the patent entirely invalid. Subsequently, the BIPO adopted a “preliminary dismissal with separate request” approach, rejecting Shanghai Youhui’s administrative adjudication request on the grounds of patent invalidity. The office clarified that the rights holder could refile the request if the invalidation decision were overturned. This case was included in the CNIPA’s 2023 list of guiding cases for administrative protection of intellectual property.
The case highlights Align Technology’s dual-track strategy of pursuing both patent invalidation and infringement defence. Zhong Lun Law Firm analysed the examination history of the disputed patent and its related patents, conducted prior art searches, and introduced evidence from multiple domestic and international experts, ultimately leading to the CNIPA’s decision to invalidate the patent. In the infringement proceedings, Align Technology promptly submitted a request to suspend the trial and presented a defence, effectively countering the infringement allegations.
Jiuwu, Tus-Membrane patent dispute
CATEGORIES: New energy materials; patents
LEGAL COUNSEL: Dacheng Law Offices represented the two defendant companies under Tus Holdings in different proceedings, while Yingke Law Firm acted for the plaintiff, Jiuwu Hi-tech.
KEY POINTS: In a patent infringement case against Jiangsu Jiuwu Hi-tech, Tus-Membrane (Shanghai), a subsidiary of Tus Holdings, secured a victory. The Xining Intermediate People’s Court in Qinghai province dismissed all claims brought by Jiuwu.
Previously, in 2018, Jiuwu filed a lawsuit against another Tus Holdings subsidiary, Qinghai Tus-Membrane, alleging patent infringement and seeking RMB15.53 million (USD2.14 million) in damages. That case was resolved through a settlement after a second-instance hearing at the Supreme People’s Court, with Qinghai Tus-Membrane ultimately paying RMB2.28 million. However, following the settlement, Jiuwu pursued another lawsuit against Tus-Membrane (Shanghai) over a different patent. Due to the presiding judge being the same as in the 2018 case, Tus-Membrane (Shanghai) faced the challenge of overcoming potential preconceived notions based on the prior ruling.
The Dacheng team adopted an innovative approach by presenting animated slides to vividly illustrate the accused technical solution, clearly demonstrating the significant differences between Tus-Membrane’s technology and Jiuwu’s patented technology. This successfully changed the judge’s perspective, leading to a favourable ruling for Tus-Membrane. The case was recognised by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the 50 exemplary intellectual property cases of 2023, providing valuable guidance for the protection of technological innovation within the industry.
LaLiga, Super Sports Media licensing dispute
CATEGORIES: Licensing; sports events
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng advised LaLiga.
KEY POINTS: This case arose from a contractual dispute between LaLiga and Super Sports Media over an audiovisual rights licensing agreement. Under the agreement, LaLiga granted Super Sports Media exclusive broadcasting rights for LaLiga matches in China, with the obligation to pay licensing fees on schedule. However, Super Sports Media failed to pay the licensing fee for the 2021/2022 season. LaLiga filed a lawsuit in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, seeking payment of the licensing fee, interest and penalties.
The court ruled in favour of LaLiga, ordering Super Sports Media and its parent company, WuHan DangDai Science & Technology Industries, to jointly pay EUR45 million (USD49.5m) in licensing fees, along with interest and penalties, totalling more than EUR100m. Additionally, the court required the defendants to cover LaLiga’s legal fees and property preservation costs. The judgment stipulated that failure to fulfil monetary obligations on time would result in a doubling of the late payment interest. This case highlights the need for rational bidding in China’s sports copyright market, improved pricing mechanisms and financial risk controls. It also provides significant guidance on Chinese courts’ handling of licensee breaches and penalty determinations.
Michael Kors sues trio for counterfeiting
CATEGORIES: Consumer goods; copycat
LEGAL COUNSEL: Chang & Tsi Partners represented Michael Kors, Jianhan Law Firm and Yingke Law Firm represented Yuantai Leather and Huazheda Trading, and King Virtue Attorneys at Law represented Mumuguo Brand Management.
KEY POINTS: The Beijing Haidian District People’s Court, in its first-instance judgment, ruled that Yuantai and its affiliated companies, Mumuguo and Huazheda, had committed trademark infringement and unfair competition against Michael Kors. The court ordered the three companies to pay RMB5 million (USD689,726) in damages and legal expenses to Michael Kors, fully supporting the plaintiff’s claims.
The case arose from the three companies’ long-term use of trademarks, designs and packaging highly similar to Michael Kors’ “MICHAEL KORS” and “MK” marks to produce and sell backpacks. They were accused of disrupting market order through large-scale online and offline promotions and low-price sales tactics. After legal warnings failed to resolve the issue, Michael Kors filed a lawsuit.
In this case, the court imposed the maximum statutory damages, setting a clear standard for determining trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court also took a strict stance against the defendants’ refusal to provide sales data, treating it as evidence obstruction. Due to the complexity of the evidence chain involved, the Chang & Tsi team conducted a thorough investigation and implemented precise legal strategies, successfully proving the infringement to the court.
Michelin, Mi Zhi Lian trademark dispute
CATEGORIES: Catering; trademark
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Intellectual Property represented Michelin Group, the plaintiff, in all proceedings. Zhong Lun Law Firm represented the defendant, Mi Zhi Lian Catering Management, in the first instance, while Jincheng Tongda & Neal and HongFangLaw represented the defendant in the second instance.
KEY POINTS: The French company Michelin Group filed a lawsuit against Shanghai-based Mi Zhi Lian Catering Management and its franchise stores, accusing them of trademark infringement and unfair competition. Michelin argued that “Mi Zhi Lian” is the Cantonese transliteration of its brand name and is closely associated with its registered “Michelin” trademark in mainland China. In 2018, the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court ruled in favour of Michelin, ordering the defendants to cease using the “Mi Zhi Lian” brand and related domain names and to pay damages of RMB10 million (USD1.4 million). The Hubei Higher People’s Court upheld the original judgment in its final ruling at the end of 2023.
In this case, the defendants contended that their Chinese name differed from the one used by Michelin in China. However, the second instance court emphasised that a single foreign name can have multiple Chinese transliterations. It noted that “the translation of a trademark is not merely a linguistic conversion but a cultural translation, which requires blending different languages and cultures from a cross-cultural perspective, rather than a straightforward wording substitution”.
The case was included in the Supreme People’s Court’s list of 50 exemplary intellectual property cases for 2023, highlighting the continued efforts of Chinese courts to “combat brand imitation and free-riding behaviour while protecting the legitimate rights of foreign rights holders in accordance with the law”.
Motorola Solutions v Hytera Communications
CATEGORIES: Trade secrets; copyright; telecoms
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steptoe and?Commerce & Finance Law Offices?represented Hytera. Kirkland & Ellis, King & Spalding and?Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Motorola.
KEY POINTS: In an appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Hytera successfully reduced a previous USD543.7 million award in compensatory and punitive damages by challenging the “copyright damages” portion, with Steptoe in particular arguing that profits from foreign sales should be excluded. The court ruled for the copyright damages, originally at USD136.3 million, to be recalculated and “reduced substantially”, while affirming the remaining USD407.4 million of the award.
In the UK, Hytera initially consented to a USD136.3 million award, plus interests, under the US Copyright Act, while opposing Motorola’s enforcement of its remaining claims. The judgment received a stay of execution pending the Seventh Circuit decision and was eventually revoked in January 2025. A separate trial over Motorola’s aforementioned “remaining claims” took place in November 2024, with the court declaring them unenforceable.
The Seventh Circuit also suspended in April 2024 a global sales injunction against Hytera issued by a district court earlier in the same month, which ordered Hytera to halt the sales of any products containing two-way radio technology anywhere in the world, until it can fully comply with the order, pay a hefty fine of USD1 million per day.
The saga began in 2017 when Motorola accused Hytera of recruiting Motorola employees to steal its confidential trade secrets and proprietary information. In January 2025, Hytera pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy charges for the theft. Sentencing is scheduled for November.
NBA sues hfsfy.com for copyright infringement
CATEGORIES: Copyright; live-streaming
LEGAL COUNSEL: GEN Law Firm represented the plaintiff.
KEY POINTS: At the start of the 2022 to 2023 preseason, the NBA filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, accusing the live-streaming platform, Zhuafan, and its shareholder of jointly committing direct infringement with streamers through a collaborative division of labour. The case challenged the traditional safe harbour principle, which limits platform liability to secondary infringement. The plaintiff presented substantial evidence, including the platform’s active promotion of unauthorised NBA streams, marketing of the games, and profit-sharing arrangements with streamers, to establish direct infringement.
The court accepted the plaintiff’s method of calculating damages based on judicial pricing, ordering the platform and its shareholder to jointly pay RMB25 million (USD3.5 million) in compensation. It marks China’s first ruling recognising a live-streaming platform and streamers as direct co-infringers, setting a record for the highest single-case damages awarded in sports broadcasting infringement litigation. The verdict is a landmark in holding platforms directly liable for infringement and seeking substantial damages.
Net Books, Huayue dispute over copyright
CATEGORIES: Copyright; API framework
LEGAL COUNSEL: DeHeng Law Offices advised Shenzhen Huayue Culture Media and DHH Law Firm counselled Nanjing Popular Net Books Culture.
KEY POINTS: During the transformation of its digital reading platform business, Shenzhen Huayue Culture Media renegotiated and entered into a licensing agreement with the novel copyright holder, Nanjing Popular Net Books Culture.
However, due to an employee’s negligence, Popular Net Books opened its application programming interface (API) for Huayue to access its novel content without signing a written contract. Several years later, Popular Net Books sued Huayue for copyright infringement, seeking RMB5 million (USD698,000) in compensation. Huayue insisted it had already obtained permission from Popular Net Books.
The first-instance court ruled that Huayue did not commit infringement, but ordered it to compensate Popular Net Books Culture RMB1.2m. In a landmark decision, the second-instance court held that opening an API interface constitutes the establishment of a copyright licensing contract, even in the absence of a written agreement. Ultimately, the second-instance court dismissed all Popular Net Books’ claims.
New Balance sues Warrior, Qili, Hansen
CATEGORIES: Trademarks; litigation; apparel
LEGAL COUNSEL: Lusheng Law Firm advised New Balance. Hui Ye Law Firm represented Warrior Shoes. Dowway & Partners represented Qili Shoes. Balance Law Firm and Ji Li Law Firm represented Hansen Fashion.
KEY POINTS: New Balance China discovered that a Warrior Shoes store on Tmall was selling a sneaker featuring similar decorations to its own New Balance 327. After issuing a “cease and desist” letter to Qili Shoes, the manufacturer, the production and sales of infringing products persisted.
New Balance brought a lawsuit against Warrior, Qili and Hansen Fashion, the store operator, to the Nanchang Intermediate People’s Court. It argued that the imitation of product decorations with certain market influence constituted unfair competition, and the fact that they deliberately continued infringement even after being warned was an act of bad faith, warranting punitive damages.
While supporting New Balance’s claims in general, the court dismissed the allegations against Warrior due to a lack of evidence. As for Qili, the court, after calculating New Balance’s actual losses based on the sales volume of infringing products and reasonable profit per item, ordered it to pay compensation of RMB380,000 (USD52,000). Supporting Hansen’s “legitimate source” argument, the court ordered Hansen to pay only RMB20,000 in reasonable expenses, recognising the difficulty for vendors to identify IP infringement.
The case was selected among the Top 10 Exemplary IP Protections Cases by Jiangsu Courts in 2023. It differentiated the liabilities and duty of care between manufacturers and vendors, which set a valuable precedent, as well as a warning, for the market.
Palace Museum wins lawsuit over trademark
CATEGORIES: Trademarks;unfair competition
LEGAL COUNSEL: Tahota Law Firm advised the Palace Museum.
KEY POINTS: Sichuan Gugong Wine Industry Sales Company registered the trademark “Palace” under Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) in the 1980s, citing historical ties to tribute liquor during the Kangxi era. After collaborating with the Palace Museum, the partnership was terminated to protect the cultural value of the “Palace” brand. However, the company continued using the name and phrases like “supervised by the Palace Museum” in its marketing, misleading the public and engaging in free-riding behaviour.
The Palace Museum filed an unfair competition lawsuit, arguing that the defendant’s actions exceeded the scope of trademark protection. The court ruled that “Palace”, as the trade name of the Palace Museum, held unique distinctiveness. The defendant’s conduct infringed on trade name rights and misled consumers, constituting false advertising and joint infringement. The court ordered the defendant to cease infringement, issue a public apology and pay more than RMB3.8 million (USD527,78) in damages and expenses.
This case highlights the need to overcome registered trademark barriers through unfair competition claims to prevent misuse of culturally significant names like “Palace”.
Ping An tackles open-source software compliance
CATEGORIES: Copyright; insurance
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhuojian Law Firm advised Ping An Insurance.
KEY POINTS: Ping An Life Insurance launched an open-source software compliance programme. According to Zhuojian, compliance in open-source software not only entails legal considerations but is also heavily reliant on technical specifics.
As such, Zhuojian helped establish repositories for open-source licence compliance indicators, behavioural characteristic indicators, and judicial cases to enable rapid identification and management of open-source software risks, alongside real-time monitoring and periodic report generation.
The compliance framework also involves engaging open-source experts, establishing allowlists and blocklists for open-source software, and active participation in open-source communities and forums.
In February 2025, Ping An announced the completion of DeepSeek’s localised deployment.
Samsung, Datang settle patent dispute
CATEGORIES: Patent; litigation; telecoms; electronics
LEGAL COUNSEL: Guantao Law Firm represented Datang. JunHe represented Samsung in some of the cases. In the lawsuit in Germany, EIP and df-mp advised Datang. Rospatt Osten Pross, Glade Michel Wirtz, Zimmermann & Partners and Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman) advised Samsung.
KEY POINTS: Leading telecoms device manufacturer Datang entered into a global licensing agreement with Samsung Electronics over 4G/5G standard essential patents (SEPs), signalling that the two disputing parties had, after a year-and-a-half of global litigation, decided to seek co-operation.
In October 2023, Datang launched lawsuits against Samsung in both Fuzhou, China, and Munich in Germany, alleging that Samsung products infringed Datang’s patents. Six cases totalling RMB120 million (USD16.6 million) were involved in the lawsuit. In response, Samsung initiated its own lawsuit against Datang in the US, requesting the invalidation of Datang’s patents.
The ruling made by the Munich Regional Court in April 2024 turned the tide. The court, determining that Samsung did infringe upon Datang’s 4G SEP, ordered Samsung to pay a fixed-percentage compensation for every 4G smartphone sold in Germany since 21 August 2021. All affected models in circulation had to be destroyed. Datang, however, did not pay the EUR2.5 million (USD2.7 million) in security to enforce the ruling.
The parties settled a few months later, with a joint stipulation of dismissal submitted to the US court.
Shanghai Pharma collaboration with Sanofi Aventis
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Sidley Austin represented Sanofi Aventis.
KEY POINTS: Shanghai Pharmaceutical and Sanofi Aventis China entered into a strategic co-operation agreement, under which Shanghai Pharma is granted rights to import, distribute and promote 21 drugs developed by Sanofi, including both domestic drugs and imported drugs.
According to Sidley Austin, this was the largest deal of multinational pharmaceutical companies in China to date in terms of the amount and sales value of licensed-out drugs.
Sina Weibo wins unfair competition lawsuit
CATEGORIES: Data security; internet
LEGAL COUNSEL: Gen Law Firm advised the plaintiff, Weimeng Chuangke Network Technology.
KEY POINTS: On 16 January 2024, the Guangdong High People’s Court delivered a final judgment in China’s first case involving the illegal use of server API interfaces for data extraction and sale. Weimeng Chuangke, the operator of Sina Weibo, sued iDataAPI and its Shenzhen branch for bypassing anti-scraping measures, illegally accessing backend data, and selling it via the iDataAPI website.
The first-instance court found iDataAPI guilty of unfair competition, ordering it to pay RMB20 million (USD2.78m) in damages and RMB500,000 in legal expenses. iDataAPI’s appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was upheld, marking the highest compensation awarded in a data competition case in China.
Weimeng Chuangke embedded encrypted fields in the scraped data, which were later found in the data sold by iDataAPI, confirming the infringement. The court determined that iDataAPI had used methods like changing IP addresses to obtain and sell large volumes of data, severely disrupting market order. This behaviour was ruled as unfair competition under article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Sunlon sues Wuseyang, JD for infringement
CATEGORIES: Trademark; litigation; agricultural; e-commerce
LEGAL COUNSEL: Commerce & Finance Law Offices represented Sunlon. Zhongwen Law Firm, VLaw Law Firm and Handa Law Firm advised Wuseyang. Jinghui Law Firm advised JD.com.
KEY POINTS: Beijing Capital Agribusiness & Foods Group, also known as Sunlon, initiated a lawsuit against Wuseyang, an online store, along with the e-commerce platform, JD.com, at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The dispute originated from the gift booklets sold at Wuseyang’s store bearing the “首农” (Sunlon) trademark.
Sunlon pointed out that, according to the store page information, Wuseyang is operated by JD.com itself, making JD liable as more than just an indulgent platform. However, JD denies this.
The first-instance court decided that Wuseyang had infringed on Sunlon’s trademark, ruling that it must pay RMB2 million (USD276,000) in damages. As for JD, the court determined that it partnered with Wuseyang under the FCS (fulfilment charged sales) model and was not the actual store operator. Nevertheless, JD was held jointly and severally liable for RMB670,000 of the above-mentioned damages. Wuseyang and JD have filed an appeal with the Beijing High People’s Court.
According to Commerce & Finance, Sunlon’s case involved complex proceedings related to cross-class trademark protection, recognition of a “well-known trademark” and a breakthrough in the “safe harbour” principle, usually applicable to e-commerce platforms. The legal team pointed out that as JD failed to de-link or take down the infringing products seven months after receiving the court notice, it should no longer be protected under the “safe harbour” rules, a view supported by the court.
Tencent sues iQiyi, Dongfeng over in-car app
CATEGORIES: Copyright; litigation; video streaming; automotive
LEGAL COUNSEL: Guozun?Cathay Associates advised Tencent.
KEY POINTS: Under a partnership between iQiyi and Dongfeng Nissan, the two jointly operate the car’s built-in video player, which comes pre-installed with the iQiyi app. However, Tencent finds that the app contains an extensive amount of videos suspected of infringing its copyrights, and through the built-in player, users can easily access these infringing videos. As a result, it initiated a lawsuit against both parties.
Tencent and its legal counsel believe that as iQiyi and Dongfeng Nissan operate the app together and share its revenue, they should likewise be jointly held liable for the infringement. Guozun also argued that through the collaboration between a video platform and an auto company, the defendants made dissemination of infringing videos more easily. This gave them an unfair advantage in market competition, and therefore should also constitute unfair competition, in addition to copyright infringement.
After negotiation and mediation, the parties eventually reached a settlement by way of an asset exchange. The dispute marked the first domestic case involving the infringement of in-car ports in co-operation with a video platform. The resolution via a settlement also set a valuable and less costly example for future co-operations between carmakers and video platforms.
Tencent, Kuaishou clash over Joy of Life
CATEGORIES: Copyright; video streaming; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: ZHH Law Firm advised Tencent in the appeal.
KEY POINTS: Tencent brought a lawsuit against Kuaishou upon discovering the massive amount of unauthorised videos containing footage of the popular TV series Joy of Life being published on the rival platform. Tencent Pictures was among the producers of the series, which is now available on Tencent Video for paying VIPs only. The licensing fee amounted to RMB690 million (USD95.2 million).
Tencent held that it suffered great financial losses due to the tens of thousands of infringing videos, playlists and hashtags spreading on Kuaishou, which failed to stop the infringements even after multiple warnings. Kuaishou, on the other hand, argued that as a short video platform, it did not directly commit any infringement. The playlists and hashtags were generated by users, and filtering this content may not be technologically viable. The court ruled that Kuaishou must compensate Tencent for RMB2.6 million, but without punitive damages.
According to ZHH, in preparation for the trial of second instance, the partner in charge focused on calculating the damages by introducing an econometric model that considered various factors such as membership prices, advertising prices and playback hours of infringing videos. Thus, the partner was able to calculate both the losses suffered by the right holder and the profits of the infringer.
On this basis, the second-instance trial also identified the average marketing revenue and hours of use per daily active user. A one-time punitive damage was applied, and the court eventually ordered Kuaishou to pay RMB9.6 million in damages.
Totole trademark infringement case
CATEGORIES: Trademark; litigation; consumer product
LEGAL COUNSEL: Corner Stone & Partners advised Nestlé.
KEY POINTS: Nestlé filed a lawsuit against several entities including Shaoxing Taitaile Foods, Jinhua Wucheng Bayong Convenience Store, Shaoxing Jiuxiang Wine and related individuals, alleging infringement of its “Totole” seasoning sub-brand trademark. The Chinese characters for Taitaile (太太乐) are identical to those of Totole. The Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court heard the case.
Beyond the use of Totole’s name in Taitaile’s company name, the defendants also registered the Totole trademark for products such as cooking wine and yellow wine, affixing the mark prominently on such products. Nestlé argued that this constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, warranting punitive damages based on illegal profits.
The court agreed that the similarity between the contested and official Totole trademarks could cause public confusion, leading consumers to mistakenly believe the products were from Nestlé or its subsidiary, Shanghai Totole Food, thereby constituting unfair competition.
Regarding punitive damages, the court determined the basis using Shaoxing Taitaile’s tax returns. Eventually, it ordered for punitive damages in the amount of four times the illegal profits, requiring the defendants to pay Nestlé RMB4 million (USD550,000) in compensation.
The defendants appealed to the Higher People’s Court of Zhejiang, which upheld the first-instance ruling, dismissing the appellants’ claims.
TVBC vs Baidu in copyright infringement
CATEGORIES: Communication rights; cloud storage; broadcast TV
LEGAL COUNSEL: DeHeng Law Offices acted for Baidu, Ronly & Tenwen Partners represents Television Broadcasts China (TVBC) (the representing lawyer is now at Zhihe Partners).
KEY POINTS: Guangdong High People’s Court lowered Baidu’s compensation for indirectly infringing on TVBC’s content, with the latest ruling protecting the legal boundaries of cloud storage technology.
TVBC sued Baidu for indirect infringement, saying its Baidu Netdisk download and sharing function disseminated TVBC’s series Gilded Chopsticks and the company did not promptly delete the infringing file from the cloud storage server.
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court in the second instance ruled that Baidu’s download feature violated the rights of communication via the information network and fined the tech giant RMB500,000 (USD69,800). Subsequently, Baidu’s legal representatives applied for a retrial.
Guangdong High People’s Court then overturned the second instance ruling as it found the Baidu Netdisk download feature did not replace third-party websites in providing the series to audiences, so the company did not directly infringe the content. Baidu is also not obligated to delete files from its cloud storage server, but it should have implemented measures to prevent acts of infringement. The tech company was fined RMB100,000 instead.
Xiaomi protects voice assistant trademarks
CATEGORIES: Unfair competition; artificial intelligence
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Intellectual Property represented Xiaomi, People’s Union Law Firm acted for Chen.
KEY POINTS: China tech giant Xiaomi won a first-instance case protecting its audio assistant XiaoAI from trademark squatting and was awarded RMB1.2 million (USD167, 520) in compensation from Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court.
Chen had applied to register 66 trademarks for “小爱同学” (the Chinese name of XiaoAI) and sent cease-and-desist letters to Xiaomi and its affiliate companies for trademark infringement. Xiaomi retaliated, saying Chen’s actions constituted unfair competition and took legal action.
The court ruled that the term “小爱同学” is protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law as it is an influential word and the name of the tech giant’s AI voice assistant. Therefore, Chen’s actions violated the principle of good faith.
This case proves that influential and well-known terms can be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, setting a precedent for the protection of AI voice assistants.
YETI sues counterfeiters Zhan and Liu
CATEGORIES: Trademark; criminal prosecution; litigation; consumer products
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Intellectual Property advised YETI.
KEY POINTS: YETI Coolers, upon discovering that married couple Zhan Qianqian and Liu Han had been assembling and selling counterfeit YETI rambler products on China’s mainstream e-commerce platforms, filed a complaint before the Jiading branch of Shanghai Public Security Bureau.
After investigations that uncovered more accomplices along the manufacturing and distribution lines across the nation, YETI co-ordinated with officers in a concerted criminal enforcement action that saw the seizure of enormous amounts of assets.
In the criminal proceedings, the Yangpu District People’s Court of Shanghai found Zhan and Liu guilty of counterfeiting a registered trademark, sentencing them to five years and three years of jail time, along with fines of RMB5 million (USD690,000) and RMB1 million, respectively.
YETI then filed a civil suit against the couple for trademark infringement before the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, which affirmed YETI’s request for RMB20 million in damages, half of which were punitive damages. YETI’s methodology for calculating punitive damages, considering the defendants’ bad faith and based on facts determined in the preceding criminal verdicts, was supported.
Yili’s cross-class trademarks lawsuit
CATEGORIES: Trademarks; dairy products; pet products
LEGAL COUNSEL: Chang Tsi & Partners represented Inner Yili Group and Yingke Law Firm acted for Tianyuan Pet Products.
KEY POINTS: China diary giant Yili Group and Hangzhou-based pet products maker Tianyuan endured a three-year tug-of-war on whether four trademarks with the words “伊丽” had infringed Yili’s Chinese trademark “伊利”.
Cross-class protection cases have been challenging due to a lack of similar precedents. In this case, Tianyuan registered “伊丽” in different classes, including pet toys and household goods, their functions and target consumers are widely different from Yili’s dairy products. Yili faced another hurdle in the trial as their reference trademarks had been deregistered.
After being examined by the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and Beijing High People’s Court, Yili Group won the case. The Beijing High People’s Court recognised the“伊利”trademarks as well-known and that exploiting it would harm the rights of Yili Group as the trademark registrant. This judgment provides a significant reference for the cross-class protection of well-known trademarks.
Zhitong, TradeGo dispute over H-share data
CATEGORIES: Data security; finance
LEGAL COUNSEL: Chance Bridge Partners advised Zhitong Finance and Sundial Law Firm advised TradeGo.
KEY POINTS: This case, the first in China concerning unfair competition over securities data rights, centred on the ownership of Hong Kong stock margin data. TradeGo claimed it obtained and organised the data through partnerships with brokers, while Zhitong Finance allegedly used technical means to scrape the data without authorisation and failed to credit the source when providing it externally, violating business ethics and constituting unfair competition. The first-instance court ruled in favour of TradeGo, finding Zhitong Finance’s unauthorised use of processed data to be infringing.
In the appeal, Chance Bridge Partners employed reverse evidence collection, data tracing and technical comparisons to demonstrate that the data in question was original and publicly available. There was no evidence proving Zhitong Finance’s data originated from TradeGo. Furthermore, TradeGo’s actions involved only basic collection and aggregation, lacking substantial labour contributions, and thus did not warrant exclusive rights. The appellate court overturned the first-instance ruling, dismissing all claims by TradeGo, granting Zhitong Finance a complete victory. The court also emphasised the need for reasonable allocation of the burden of proof in complex technical cases, ensuring fair use of fundamental data resources, preventing monopolisation, and promoting fair competition and innovation.
