3SBio licenses SSGJ-707 globally to Pfizer
CATEGORIES: Licensing; pharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Han Kun Law Offices acted as legal adviser to 3SBio. Cooley and Morgan Lewis provided antitrust advice to 3SBio and Pfizer, respectively.
KEY POINTS: 3SBio entered into an agreement through its subsidiary to grant Pfizer exclusive global rights (excluding the Chinese mainland) to develop, manufacture and commercialise its independently developed PD1/VEGF bispecific antibody, SSGJ-707. Under the agreement, 3SBio will receive an upfront payment of USD1.25 billion, along with development, regulatory approval and sales milestone payments of up to USD4.8 billion. In addition, Pfizer will subscribe, on the effective date of the agreement, for USD100 million worth of 3SBio’s ordinary shares.
China’s National Medical Products Administration has designated SSGJ-707 for the treatment of PDL1-positive locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.
AI voice cloning dispute over Super Dubbing
CATEGORIES: Artificial intelligence; dubbing
LEGAL COUNSEL: Hai Run Law Firm and Long An Law Firm represented the developer and operator of the Super Dubbing application, Chengdu Shengjinrenxin Network Technology.
KEY POINTS: The Chengdu Railway Transport No. 1 Court ruled at first instance that two voice modes in the Super Dubbing application merely “approximated” the voices of two voice artists and did not constitute infringement, dismissing all claims. The case marked the first victory for an AI technology company in such litigation.
The two voice artists accused the app of imitating and cloning their vocal tones, alleging it used their voices for model training and speech generation, thereby infringing their voice rights, and filed separate lawsuits. One plaintiff later withdrew his appeal during the second instance, allowing the judgment to become final.
In a prior, national first-instance AI voice infringement case concluded by the Beijing Internet Court, the defendant was found liable for directly using and replicating specific natural person voice samples. By contrast, this case focused on the technical nature of the AI model, holding that the application in question was trained on legally sourced audio data and generated new speech, rather than directly copying or cloning a specific individual’s voice. This ruling provides a judicial precedent for defining the boundaries of AI-generated content.
The Hai Run team explained the principles of AI model training to the court and defined the protectable subject matter of voice rights as personality interests tied to identifiable identity, rather than mere vocal tone or voiceprints.
ASR v Eigencomm trade secret dispute
CATEGORIES: Trade secrets; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: AllBright Law Offices acted as counsel to the plaintiff, ASR Microelectronics, while King & Wood Mallesons represented the defendant, Eigencomm Technologies.
KEY POINTS: ASR Microelectronics entered into an agreement in 2017 with a third party, Marvell International, under which it acquired all IP rights relating to mobile chip technology owned by Marvell and its subsidiaries, including proprietary know-how, methods, processes and technical materials, as well as other proprietary or confidential information. Several employees subsequently left Marvell or its subsidiaries and joined Eigencomm Technologies. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, together with other individual defendants, had misappropriated its technical secrets and derived substantial profits as a result.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. On appeal, the Supreme People’s Court upheld the first-instance judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
The case provides guidance on determining trade secret infringement where source code is asserted as a protected technical secret. The Supreme People’s Court held that source code is difficult to fully reproduce from memory, and that the plaintiff was therefore required to prove bulk copying of relevant files by the defendant. Such copying is typically subject to strict safeguards in the computer industry and would usually leave audit trails or records. In this case, however, no evidence of such copying records was provided.
Baidi fighter jet artistic copyright dispute
CATEGORIES: Copyright; defence industry
LEGAL COUNSEL: Kangda Law Firm acted for AVIC Global Cultural Technology (Beijing), formerly known as AVIC Culture. AllBright Law Offices represented the defendants: Xi’an Xianghui Mechanical and Electrical Technology; Shaanxi Hanyu Mengfei Aviation Technology; and Xi’an Xianghui Aviation Culture and Tourism.
KEY POINTS: The Shaanxi Provincial High People’s Court overturned a first-instance judgment on appeal, ruling that the conceptual sci-fi “Baidi advanced air combat system” constitutes a protected artistic work under copyright law. The court ordered the infringing parties to cease infringement, dismantle the imitative “Kundi fighter jet” models, and pay RMB200,000 (USD28,800) in compensation. The Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court at first instance held that the design was a mere combination of elements from the public domain and lacked originality.
The dispute arose when the rights holder discovered that a former contractor, Shaanxi Hanyu Mengfei Aviation Technology, commissioned to produce official models, had, jointly with affiliated companies, replicated the artistic work to create highly similar “Kundi” models. These were used for commercial gain in ticketed exhibitions at several Xi’an shopping malls, prompting the rights holder to sue five related entities.
A key legal challenge was proving the work’s originality, requiring a demonstration that it formed a unique expression of aesthetic significance through artistic selection and arrangement of known aircraft elements. The case sets an important precedent for protecting intellectual property in defence industry cultural creations.
Beijiachun TM reconsideration dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; FMCG
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng represented Beijiachun, while Zhuojian Law Firm acted for the Baoan branch of Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulation.
KEY POINTS: Beijiachun Technology successfully appealed an administrative penalty for trademark infringement, with a second-instance court overturning all prior unfavourable rulings against the company.
The case stemmed from a market regulator’s decision that Beijiachun’s electric toothbrush heads infringed upon Gillette’s three-dimensional trademark. The company then lost both an administrative review and a subsequent first-instance lawsuit.
Key legal issues involved assessing the distinctiveness of a 3D mark, its non-functionality, and what constitutes “trademark use”. The appellant’s legal team successfully argued that enforcing a 3D trademark should not impede the use of known public domain technology – a novel legal point accepted by the court.
This ruling is the first in China to explicitly state that exercising a 3D trademark right should not block the free use of public domain features, establishing a judicial precedent. The case has been selected as a 2024 exemplary intellectual property case by courts in Guangdong province and Shenzhen.
China Resources wins MixC TM dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark review; real estate
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons acted for China Resources Group.
KEY POINTS: China Resources Group achieved a legal breakthrough by securing registration for its core property brands, including “万象里” (MixC Life) and “万象天地” (MixC World) series marks. This success overcame the absolute ground for refusal under article 10(2) of China’s Trademark Law, which prohibits the use of “publicly known foreign geographical names”. The outcome led to the registration of the marks and prompted the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to revise its internal examination standards, clearing a path for the registration of hundreds of the group’s related trademarks.
The dispute originated when the group’s flagship commercial brands, such as “万象城” (The MixC) and “万象天地” (MixC World), faced repeated rejections during registration. The trademark office held that the Chinese characters “万象”, which correspond phonetically to the name of the Laotian capital, Vientiane, violated the absolute prohibition. This created commercial constraints, preventing new brand registrations, threatening the validity of existing marks, impeding the brand licensing business model and exposing the group to competitor challenges.
China Resources demonstrated that, through extensive and long-term commercial use, the characters “万象” had acquired a unique association with its commercial real estate business in the minds of the public. This distinctiveness surpassed the term’s primary geographical meaning, thereby overcoming a major legal obstacle in trademark review.
Through in-depth legal argument and communication with the CNIPA, King & Wood Mallesons facilitated the transition from an individual case breakthrough to broader changes in trademark review standards.
Christian Silvain wins Ye Yongqing art case
CATEGORIES: Copyright; art
LEGAL COUNSEL: Duan & Duan Law Firm acted for the Belgian artist, Christian Silvain.
KEY POINTS: In 2025, the international copyright dispute between Belgian painter Christian Silvain and Chinese artist Ye Yongqing concluded with a final judgment. The Beijing High People’s Court dismissed Ye’s appeal, upholding the first-instance ruling of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Ye published a statement of apology in the state-owned Legal Daily newspaper. The case concluded with a comprehensive victory and enforcement outcome for the foreign artist.
The dispute originated when Silvain discovered that Ye’s “bird series” works, produced since the 1990s, systematically replicated his core visual motifs – such as the single-legged bird and grid birdcage – and profited from them through global distribution via international auction houses.
The court adopted a model for determining “substantial similarity of artistic elements”, clearly defining the boundary between artistic inspiration and plagiaristic copying. The awarded compensation of RMB5 million (USD720,500) also set a record among similar cases. The case was selected as an exemplary case by both the Supreme People’s Court and the Beijing High People’s Court.
Condé Nast v Lyu Biao copyright dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; copyright; mass media
LEGAL COUNSEL: Tahota Law Firm advised Condé Nast.
KEY POINTS: The world-renowned mass media company Condé Nast sued Lyu Biao and his affiliated company, Kouzi Company, for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The allegations centred on the production, sale and promotion of infringing products bearing the “GQ” mark. The Beijing Haidian District People’s Court issued a first-instance judgment in favour of Condé Nast, ordering Lyu Biao to pay damages and reasonable expenses totalling RMB2.1 million (USD303,800). The judgment was upheld by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
Condé Nast claimed that the “GQ” mark was an original creation of the company, having been used in China as an identifier for its men’s magazine for more than 20 years, thereby constituting a commodity name with a certain influence under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The company’s website was also recognised as a well-known domain and website name with a certain influence.
Despite Lyu Biao and Kouzi having registered the mark in class 3 (Nice Classification, cosmetics), class 10 (condoms) and other categories for 15 years, their use of the mark on cosmetics, personal care products and similar items could have led to consumer confusion. Lyu Biao’s use of the GQ mark beyond the approved scope of goods for his registered trademark infringed Condé Nast’s copyright.
The judgment demonstrated that even the use of a registered trademark might constitute infringement of prior copyright or commodity name rights. It also affirmed the copyrightability of the GQ mark and extended the scope of trademark protection from men’s magazines (class 16) to male-oriented products.
Court overturns CNIPA fruquintinib ruling
CATEGORIES: Patent; pharmaceuticals
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) acted as counsel to HUTCHMED, the patent owner.
KEY POINTS: Fruquintinib is an anticancer drug independently developed in China and primarily used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In October 2024, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) declared the drug’s Form I crystal patent invalid. Acting for the patent owner, KWM subsequently initiated administrative litigation challenging the decision.
On 25 September 2025, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, at first instance, set aside the CNIPA’s invalidation decision, holding that the crystal form patent met the requirement of inventiveness. The CNIPA’s October 2024 invalidation decision was selected as an “examplary case” by the authority for that year. As a result, the first-instance court’s decision to overturn the invalidation attracted attention within the pharmaceutical and IP sectors.
Elanco-FelicaMed pet drug licensing deal
CATEGORIES: Licensing; pet medicine
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Elanco.
KEY POINTS: Elanco Animal Health reached a licensing agreement with FelicaMed Biotechnology for the pet pruritic skin disease drug, Lirucitinib. This marked the first domestic licensing co-operation between a multinational corporation and a pet drug innovation company, with upfront and milestone payments exceeding USD8 million, followed by royalties based on annual sales.
Lirucitinib was jointly developed by Elanco and FelicaMed, approved as a national class I new veterinary drug in 2024, and officially launched in China in 2025 to address the demand for treating canine pruritus.
EverSkill, Horizon trade secret dispute
CATEGORIES: Trade secret; machinery
LEGAL COUNSEL: Long An Law Firm represented EverSkill. China Commercial Law Firm acted for Horizon Energy.
KEY POINTS: The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a guiding ruling in a trade secret appeal between the machinery traders EverSkill and Horizon Energy, clarifying when a lawsuit constitutes duplication.
The litigation arose after EverSkill alleged that a contracted manufacturer leaked its confidential technical and commercial information to Horizon. An initial attempt to sue the contractor and name Horizon as a third party failed, followed by a separate suit directly against Horizon.
This created an overlap of trade secret and contract claims, hinging on whether the second suit was duplicative. The first-instance court held that it was, and dismissed the case. On appeal, the SPC determined that the different legal status of a third party versus a direct defendant meant the actions were not identical, compelling a fresh hearing.
It marks the SPC’s first articulation of a comprehensive framework for assessing “duplicative litigation” in trade secret contexts, installing “identity of matters” as a key preliminary filter and setting a vital precedent.
Ferrero Rocher wins rare TM recognition
CATEGORIES: Trademark; food
LEGAL COUNSEL: JunHe represented Ferrero.
KEY POINTS: Ferrero successfully petitioned the court to invalidate an eyeglasses trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” registered by an individual named Chen Wei.
Although the Chinese mark “费列罗” ("Ferrero") had been widely recognised as well known in prior cases, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court did not automatically treat “FERRERO ROCHER” in English as a mere translation. Instead, the court recognised “FERRERO ROCHER” itself as a well-known trademark, ruling that Chen’s mark directly imitated it.
The case marks a departure from rigid judicial convention through its flexible application of the “recognition on demand” principle, signalling an update in the criteria for trademark protection.
Ford, Huamao Auto Parts patent dispute
CATEGORIES: Automotive manufacturing; patent; design
LEGAL COUNSEL: Lifang & Partners represented the plaintiff, Ford. Zheng Qi Hao Ran Law Firm represented the defendant, Huamao Auto Parts.
KEY POINTS: Ford sued Changzhou Huamao Auto Parts for infringing on the company’s product design patents. Huamao manufactured and sold counterfeit parts imitating Ford’s design patents, and displayed them on its official website, Taobao, and other online platforms, which severely disrupted Ford’s normal sales. The Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province issued a judgment in January 2025, supporting Ford’s claims. The case is part of the largest patent infringement litigation initiated by Ford in China.
Lifang & Partners, by listing the legal representative as a co-defendant and implementing measures such as interim property preservation, supported the litigation claims and maximised enforcement. The defendant paid full compensation after the judgment.
Gan & Lee v Tonghua Dongbao TM dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; pharmaceuticals
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Law Firm and Merits & Tree Law Offices represented Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals. King & Wood Mallesons and Anli Partners acted for Tonghua Dongbao Pharmaceutical. Chang Tsi & Partners counselled Leiyunshang Pharmaceutical.
KEY POINTS: Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals, owner of the “长秀霖” (Basalin) mark, won its trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute against its former shareholder, Tonghua Dongbao, and was awarded about RMB61 million (USD879,000) in damages. The case sets a record for the highest publicly disclosed compensation in a pharmaceutical trademark case in China to date.
The dispute originated when Tonghua Dongbao registered and began using the highly similar “长舒霖” (Changsulin) trademark and packaging for a competing insulin product after divesting its stake in Gan & Lee. Key legal challenges involved the proof and calculation of the “profit margin” and “contribution rate” within the damages formula for pharmaceutical trademark infringement, as well as demonstrating the defendant’s “bad faith” and the “seriousness of the circumstances”.
The court introduced the parameter of “trademark contribution rate” and applied punitive damages based on the defendant’s malicious intent and the high-risk nature of pharmaceutical products. This case was selected as one of the Supreme People’s Court’s Model Intellectual Property Cases for 2024, establishing a legal benchmark.
GenScript v Frank Fan trade secret dispute
CATEGORIES: Biotechnology; trade secret
LEGAL COUNSEL: Hui Zhong Law Firm represented Frank Fan.
KEY POINTS: GenScript Biotech filed a lawsuit against former employee Fan Xiaohu in the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province, alleging that during his employment, he obtained the company’s trade secrets through improper means, including sending company documents to his personal email. The company requested that Fan cease trade secret misappropriation, compensate for economic losses, return incentive shares and provide other remedies. The first-instance court rejected most of the plaintiff’s claims. Both parties appealed, and the Supreme People’s Court reversed the judgment and rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims, resulting in a complete victory for the defendant.
The defendant, by requesting the first-instance court to require the plaintiff to clarify the “return of incentive shares” claim and to pay additional litigation fees of up to RMB16 million (USD2.3 million), successfully forced the plaintiff to withdraw it, preventing this claim from conflicting with related litigation in the Cayman Islands courts. The defendant further argued that his actions did not constitute trade secret infringement or unfair competition, and the relevant views were adopted by the Supreme People’s Court.
Golden-Elephant, Hualu IP settlement
CATEGORIES: Trade secrets; patent infringement; chemicals manufacturing
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons advised Golden-Elephant Sincerity Chemical, the rights holder.
KEY POINTS: The enforcement phase followed a Supreme People’s Court (SPC) final ruling in late 2022, which found Hualu Hengsheng and other defendants liable for infringing Golden-Elephant’s melamine production trade secrets and patents. The court awarded RMB218 million (USD30.3 million) in damages and ordered the destruction of the infringing production line.
Enforcement then stalled as dismantling large chemical plant equipment raised safety, cost and local economic concerns. In 2024, the SPC put the case under central supervision as an early showcase for its cross-jurisdiction enforcement mechanism. Under co-ordination with the SPC’s enforcement bureau, nine courts across Sichuan, Guangdong and Shandong worked in tandem. After multiple rounds of talks, the parties agreed to replace the dismantling order with patent licence fees and reached a package settlement covering related disputes. The settlement totalled RMB658 million, paid in full in December 2024.
The case was named among the “Top 10 Cases of 2024 on Advancing the Rule of Law in the New Era”, jointly selected by the SPC and China Media Group.
Golfzon China golf-sim piracy crackdown
CATEGORIES: Copyright; unfair competition; sports tech software
LEGAL COUNSEL: JunHe advised Golfzon.
KEY POINTS: Golfzon, South Korea’s leading golf simulator group, filed a wave of IP lawsuits in courts in Shenyang, Guangzhou, Dalian and Tianjin, alleging that simulator venues in China had pirated its software. Claims focused on software copyright infringement, with unfair competition allegations added where venue names or product descriptions were said to cause confusion. In some cases, controllers were joined as co-defendants based on evidence obtained.
The main hurdles were on-site evidence collection and the damage baseline. Courts in multiple jurisdictions granted evidence preservation orders, and in the Liaoning cases, the Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court also issued a conduct preservation order (an interim injunction). In cases that have reached judgment, courts supported Golfzon’s claims.
In a final ruling, the Liaoning High People’s Court moved away from using import declaration prices as a proxy for software value and awarded punitive damages, lifting per device awards to the upper end of comparable China enforcement cases. Other matters, including those in the Tianjin Intermediate People’s Court and the Dalian Intermediate People’s Court, were settled. The Dalian case also led to a commercial partnership.
Hengrui-GSK USD1.25bn licensing deal
CATEGORIES: IP licensing; biopharma
LEGAL COUNSEL: Cooley acted as global counsel to Hengrui, the licensor. Han Kun and Davis Polk advised GSK as China and global counsel, respectively.
KEY POINTS: On 28 July 2025, China’s innovative drugmaker, Hengrui Pharma, signed a licensing and co-development deal with UK drugmaker GSK for HRS-9821, a clinical-stage PDE3/4 inhibitor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. GSK received an exclusive licence outside Greater China. The deal includes upfront and milestone payments, with a total potential value of up to USD12 billion.
The structure follows a “1+11” model. Alongside the HRS-9821 licence, GSK secured exclusive options on up to 11 additional early stage programmes, each with its own economics. Hengrui will lead the development of these programmes through completion of phase I trials, including overseas subjects. Hengrui will receive USD500 million upfront and is eligible for development and commercial milestones.
The transaction ranks among the largest outbound licensing deals by a China-based biopharma group in 2025, underlining growing international uptake of homegrown innovation.
Hollywood v Renren Video piracy case
CATEGORIES: Copyright; entertainment
LEGAL COUNSEL: Watson & Band Law Offices represented the plaintiffs. Merits & Tree Law Offices acted for Renren Video.
KEY POINTS: Eight major Hollywood studios including Disney, 20th Century Fox, Sony, Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Netflix and Amazon, made progress in their litigation campaign against the Chinese streaming platform, Renren Video.
The lawsuits stemmed from the platform’s provision of a large volume of pirated US television series. After all matters were executed and concluded, the series of lawsuits, among the largest ever initiated by Hollywood in China, successfully overcame the platform’s “safe harbour” defence.
The studios’ legal team demonstrated that the platform, by setting up dedicated sections for American series and actively promoting content, was aware of the piracy, establishing grounds for direct infringement liability. The platform removed a volume of infringing content far exceeding the titles directly named in the lawsuits.
The outcome stands as a successful benchmark case for intellectual property rights enforcement between the US and China.
Huawei wins China AASI
CATEGORIES: Standard essential patents; telecoms
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons advised Huawei.
KEY POINTS: The dispute arose from a deadlock in licensing talks over Huawei’s Wi-Fi standard essential patents (SEPs) with US networking group Netgear. From 2022, Huawei sued in multiple jurisdictions. Netgear countered in early December 2024 by seeking a US anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction to block Huawei from enforcing any judgments it might obtain, including in China.
Huawei applied on 20 December to China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) for conduct preservation relief. The SPC held that Netgear was at fault in the negotiations and that, without urgent measures, Huawei would suffer irreparable harm. Within 48 hours, it ordered Netgear not to seek from, or enforce in, any overseas court any anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction aimed at Huawei’s China proceedings.
The ruling, China’s first conduct preservation order in the nature of an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI), reaffirmed protection of domestic jurisdiction. Alongside parallel European measures, it helped push the parties towards a global settlement, and offers a landmark template for parallel cross-border IP litigation.
Huawei, MediaTek global SEP dispute
CATEGORIES: Standard essential patents; telecoms
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons advised Huawei.
KEY POINTS: Huawei and MediaTek began negotiating a licence for 4G/5G cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs) in 2022. After 26 months without agreement, the dispute moved into litigation in May 2024, and quickly spread across China, the UK, Germany, Brazil and the Unified Patent Court. Nearly 100 matters were filed worldwide, spanning infringement claims, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate-setting proceedings, and antitrust allegations, making it one of the most consequential telecom SEP disputes in recent years.
In spring 2025, Brazilian courts issued two preliminary injunctions blocking the importation of relevant MediaTek chip products and directing customs to assist with seizures. Chips were detained at the Port of Manaus. The measures materially increased settlement pressure. Meanwhile, China’s Supreme People’s Court dismissed MediaTek’s jurisdictional challenges, clearing the way for merits hearings. The combined momentum across forums ultimately drove a global settlement on 8 October 2025, ending all litigation.
The dispute highlights how China’s court process, alongside fast-moving customs enforcement in emerging markets such as Brazil, can become decisive variables in steering global SEP settlements.
Innovent-Takeda strategic partnership
CATEGORIES: Out-licensing; pharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Skadden advised Innovent Biologics. Baker McKenzie advised Takeda.
KEY POINTS: Hong Kong-listed Innovent Biologics entered into a global strategic partnership with Takeda, under which Takeda gained certain rights outside Greater China of two of Innovent’s experimental cancer therapies in late-stage testing: IBI363 and IBI343.
The companies expressed strong expectations that the two drugs would address treatment gaps for solid tumours. Takeda also received an option for the ex-Greater China licence of IBI3001, an early-stage investigational medicine.
Under the agreement, Innovent receives a USD1.2 billion upfront payment, which includes a USD100 million strategic equity investment at a premium, as well as potential milestone payments and royalties. The total deal value amounts to USD11.4 billion.
King Spider et al v Pandabuy
CATEGORIES: Trademark; copyright; cross-border e-commerce
LEGAL COUNSEL: Dorsey acted for Pandabuy, while Boss & Young Attorneys-at-Law provided support for evidence collection and related matters in China.
KEY POINTS: In January 2025, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dissolved a preliminary injunction imposed against the Chinese cross-border e-commerce platform Pandabuy, and unfroze millions of dollars of its restrained assets. The court held that the plaintiff’s brands had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their trademark and copyright infringement claims.
The case originated from a joint action by seven internationally renowned apparel brands, including Sp5der, Denim Tears, and Off-White. They alleged that the Pandabuy platform provided a sales channel for infringing goods originating from China, constituting trademark and copyright infringement. The lawsuit was the first intellectual property case in the US directly targeting a China-operated cross-border shopping agent platform, and its outcome sets a precedent for how similar platforms handle global IP complaints.
The Dorsey team persuaded the US court to reject the plaintiffs’ core claims before a full trial on the merits, securing a procedural victory. The case involved navigating cross-border injunctions from a US court, co-ordinating evidence collection between China and the US and addressing the issue of platform liability to distinguish the legal role of a technology platform provider from that of a direct infringer.
Kings Resource v Tinci trade secret dispute
CATEGORIES: Trade secret; new material
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm and DeHeng Law Offices represented China Kings Resources Group. King & Wood Mallesons and Chuo Li Law Firm represented Tinci Materials.
KEY POINTS: The high-profile trade secrets dispute, in which Tinci Materials claimed RMB90 million (USD13 million) from China Kings Resources Group, concluded with Tinci Materials voluntarily withdrawing its lawsuit.
The dispute originated from Tinci Materials’ allegation of technical secret infringement against China Kings Resources Group. It claimed that a former employee, who later joined Kings Resources, had taken secrets related to lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), a core material for lithium-ion batteries. The case arose amid rapid technological iteration and frequent talent movement in China’s new-energy sector, with its core issue being the legal boundary between legitimate job mobility and trade secret infringement.
Zhong Lun’s team executed a systematic, multi-layered defence strategy, including challenging jurisdiction to move the venue, utilising prior art evidence to narrow the plaintiff’s claims, severing the evidential chain for any alleged access to secrets, and demonstrating Kings Resources’ independent R&D capability. The case required navigating the complex identification of technical secrets involving detailed process know-how and countering allegations that the former employee could have accessed and disclosed specific secrets years after leaving the plaintiff’s company.
Minwei licenses MWN105 to Sidera Bio
CATEGORIES: Out-licensing; pharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Lepu Medical and Minwei Biotechnology.
KEY POINTS: Minwei Biotechnology, a subsidiary of Shenzhen-listed Lepu Medical, licensed its MWN105, a GLP-1/GIP/FGF21 triple agonist, to Copenhagen-based Sidera Bio, which obtained exclusive global rights (outside of Greater China) to develop and commercialise the next-generation drug.
Under the transaction, Minwei will receive USD35 million for the initial investment and near-term milestones, as well as up to USD1 billion in cumulative milestone payments. In addition, Minwei is entitled to tiered royalties based on actual annual net sales.
Motorola v Hytera Communications
CATEGORIES: Trade secret; telecommunications
LEGAL COUNSEL: Steptoe and Commerce & Finances Law Offices acted for Hytera, while Fountain Court Chambers provided UK counsel. Kirkland & Ellis, King & Spalding and Zhong Lun Law Firm advised Motorola.
KEY POINTS: The multi-front court battle between Motorola and Hytera continues. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois determined that Hytera had continued to use Motorola’s trade secrets in its digital mobile radio H-series products, finding that Hytera’s redesign was built on the foundation of Motorola’s technology. Hytera was ordered to pay USD59 million in royalties and USD11 million in interest to Motorola. Hytera has since appealed the decision.
Elsewhere, Motorola continued to file motions to overturn decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that substantially reduced copyright damages awarded against Hytera, and stayed a global sales injunction against any Hytera product containing Motorola’s trade secret, allowing sales to resume.
Beyond civil lawsuits, the US Department of Justice brought indictment charges against Hytera for conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets. Hytera obtained dismissal of 20 out of 21 criminal counts while pleading guilty to the federal charge of conspiracy to steal trade secrets. Under the plea agreement, Hytera will pay a fine of up to USD60 million (reduced from USD900 million) and make “full restitution” to Motorola.
Ne Zha 2 European distribution rights deal
CATEGORIES: Copyright; film
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm represented Trinity CineAsia.
KEY POINTS: Trinity CineAsia, a film distributor dedicated to bringing Asian films to the UK and other markets, acquired theatrical rights from Enlight Media to Ne Zha 2 across 37 territories in Europe including the UK, Ireland, Germany, France and Spain.
Ne Zha 2 was the highest-grossing film in 2025, and the fifth highest-grossing film of all time, with USD2.2 billion in worldwide box office. The deal required rapid completion, as delays could have resulted in substantial revenue loss. Zhong Lun was tasked with balancing differences in IP laws, cinema chain policies and revenue distribution mechanisms across European countries within a tight timeframe.
NetEase Youdao v iFLYTEK design dispute
CATEGORIES: Design patent; dictionary pen
LEGAL COUNSEL: Guantao Law Firm represented iFLYTEK. Hui Zhong Law Firm represented NetEase Youdao.
KEY POINTS: NetEase Youdao and iFLYTEK engaged in a series of disputes concerning the design of translation pens. Under the mediation of the Supreme People’s Court, the parties eventually reached a settlement.
In 2021, NetEase Youdao filed a lawsuit against iFLYTEK in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, alleging infringement of its third-generation translation pen design patent. The court found infringement and fully supported NetEase Youdao’s claim for RMB5 million (USD7.2 million) in damages.
iFLYTEK, using NetEase Youdao’s second-generation dictionary pen product design patent as a comparative reference, initiated an invalidation request against the disputed design patent. In the administrative litigation concerning the invalidation, the first-instance court ruled that the patent should be invalidated. NetEase Youdao then appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. Following negotiation facilitated by the court, the companies reached a comprehensive settlement, with each party withdrawing its respective administrative and civil lawsuits.
The case addressed the protection of designs in product iteration, an issue not explicitly regulated under China’s current intellectual property laws, which frequently arises in IP disputes. The settlement also provided a model for resolving similar disputes.
New Balance v New BailunLP TM dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: Wanhuida Intellectual Property represented New Balance. Dacheng Law Offices advised New BailunLP. In the appeal, King & Capital Law Firm and Shengheng Law Firm represented New BailunLP and other appellants.
KEY POINTS: Following a December 2023 decision by the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court supporting New Balance’s claims against Jiangxi-based New BailunLP for trademark infringement and unfair competition, New BailunLP appealed before the Jiangsu High People’s Court.
The court subsequently upheld the first-instance decision, ordering New BailunLP to cease infringing the disputed marks, publish a statement to eliminate the negative effects, and pay New Balance RMB58.9 million (USD8.5 million) in damages.
New BailunLP’s own admission of achieving sales revenue of RMB2.4 billion in 2020, which it later claimed was for promotional purposes, was considered by the courts in calculating the damages.
New BailunLP produced and sold sneakers bearing a logo mimicking New Balance’s “N” trademark and decoration. The Chinese name of New BailunLP contains the same characters as New Balance’s Chinese brand name. The matter was complicated by the fact that, when it first entered China’s market, New Balance adopted a different Chinese mark (纽巴伦), while its intended trademark (新百伦), by which it was widely known, had been acquired by trademark squatters.
NIO v Bswolf trademark infringement
CATEGORIES: Trademark; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: Hengdu Law Offices represented the plaintiff, NIO.
KEY POINTS: The logo of electric vehicle brand NIO was registered in 2017 as a class 12 trademark for electric vehicles. Bswolf, an outdoor equipment company, manufactured barbecue grills featuring vents whose shape closely resembled the NIO logo. NIO subsequently brought a trademark infringement action before the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu province.
Bswolf argued that barbecue grills and electric vehicles are different products and would not cause consumer confusion, and that the shape of the vent did not serve a trademark function. NIO contended that its logo constituted a well-known trademark and should therefore enjoy cross-class protection.
The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court held that the NIO logo qualified as a well-known trademark, based on its market recognition, duration of continuous use, and extent of promotion. The court further found that the ventilation hole design used on Bswolf’s barbecue grills was not a customary shape, and that the defendant had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its use, indicating an intention to freeride on the goodwill of the disputed trademark.
The court ruled in favour of NIO, finding trademark infringement and ordering the defendant to pay damages of RMB300,000 (USD43,234).
Panasonic, Oppo patent dispute, settlement
CATEGORIES: Patent; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng advised Oppo. In the UPC appeal, Oppo and its German subsidiary, Orope, were represented by Vossius & Brinkhof, and Panasonic by Kather Augenstein.
KEY POINTS: Panasonic, the owner of several standard essential patents (SEPs) related to 4G technologies, accused Oppo of infringement and sought injunctions after negotiations broke down. Oppo hit back with a revocation claim, arguing that Panasonic failed to offer a licence on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.
The Mannheim local division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), in its November 2024 ruling, rejected the FRAND argument and affirmed the validity of Panasonic’s patents, marking the first time the UPC ruled on and elaborated FRAND issues. The UPC found that Panasonic complied with the negotiation framework set out by the EU Court of Justice in Huawei v ZTE (2015), which prevents SEP holders from abusing their dominant positions by seeking injunctions against willing licensees.
The UPC further ordered Oppo to pay EUR250,000 (USD297,300) in provisional damages. Two months after the ruling, Panasonic and Oppo entered into a global patent cross-licence agreement under which they agreed to terminate all outstanding lawsuits in all jurisdictions.
Paul Frank v Grand Union licensing dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; consumer product; arbitration; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: DHH Law Firm represented Grand Union International in arbitration. Global Law Office and Procopio represented Tianfeng Yongdao (Fujian) Venture Capital, a brand partner with Paul Frank and Hongfang Culture Development. Jingtian & Gongcheng represented Grand Union, Hongfang and downstream licensees in Chinese mainland lawsuits.
KEY POINTS: The longstanding dispute between lifestyle brand Paul Frank and its Chinese licensee, Grand Union International, with its operating entity Hongfang Culture, has come to an end. In July 2025, the JAMS International Arbitration Centre in California held that Paul Frank’s unilateral termination of their agreement was invalid. Grand Union International retained its exclusive licensing rights for the Paul Frank brand in the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macau.
Paul Frank alleged that Grand Union exceeded the scope of trademark use, and failed to fulfil reporting and declaration obligations under the licensing agreement, constituting breach of contract and infringement. Grand Union countered that Paul Frank had unilaterally terminated the exclusive agreement and unlawfully authorised the brand to a third party.
In its final award, JAMS determined that Grand Union did not commit an actionable breach under the agreement, and ruled that Paul Frank must pay damages in tens of millions of US dollars for failure and refusal to perform.
In 2024, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court also ruled in favour of Grand Union in a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit initiated by Paul Frank in the Chinese mainland. The court held that, as the exclusive licensee for the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macau, Grand Union had the right to license the Paul Frank brand to third parties.
Pregene strategic collaboration with Kite
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jingtian & Gongcheng advised Pregene on PRC law.
KEY POINTS: In October 2025, Pregene Biopharma signed a global licensing and collaboration agreement with Kite Pharma, the cell therapy subsidiary of Gilead Sciences, to jointly develop and commercialise next-generation in vivo (inside the patient’s body) CAR-T therapies, a cancer treatment based on in situ (at the target site) gene editing.
Under the agreement, Pregene has received an upfront payment of USD120 million and is eligible to receive up to USD1.52 billion in milestone payments tied to development, regulatory and commercial achievements, as well as tiered royalties based on sales.
The transaction marks the first publicly disclosed deal by a Chinese biopharmaceutical company in the in vivo CAR-T space, and sets a record for outbound licensing by a Shenzhen-based biotech. The deal balances international partnership standards with compliance under Chinese regulatory frameworks, signalling a shift for China’s in vivo gene editing therapies from followers to co-developers.
Rise of Kingdoms v Forevernine plagiarism
CATEGORIES: Copyright; online gaming
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons represented the rights holder of Rise of Kingdoms.
KEY POINTS: Rise of Kingdoms, developed by Legou Technology and operated by Lilith Games, is a leading global simulation mobile game. The defendant, Forevernine Games, developed and operated a visually distinct simulation game titled Commander, which was found to have copied the core gameplay mechanisms of Rise of Kingdoms, a practice commonly referred to in the industry as “reskin plagiarism”.
According to King & Wood Mallesons, its team pursued parallel claims under copyright and unfair competition, asserting protection over 218 specific elements and the structural integrity of the game’s systems. The team submitted extensive comparative evidence and successfully argued against deducting marketing expenses from the infringing product in calculating damages.
In May 2023, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court ordered Forevernine to cease the operation of Commander, pay RMB10.5 million (USD1.5 million) in full damages and publish a public apology. In January 2025, the Guangdong High People’s Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
The case has been recognised as an exemplary case by both the Supreme People’s Court and the Guangdong High Court. It clarified that while gameplay rules themselves are not protected under copyright law, they can be addressed under China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law, providing a clear judicial framework for tackling reskinned game plagiarism.
Ruxolitinib patent invalidation reversal
CATEGORIES: Patent; pharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: King & Wood Mallesons acted as counsel to Novartis, the patent owner.
KEY POINTS: Ruxolitinib phosphate is the world’s first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, with approved indications including myelofibrosis, atopic dermatitis and vitiligo. Two patents relating to ruxolitinib phosphate, both due to expire in 2028, were previously declared invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The two patents cover Jakavi (ruxolitinib phosphate tablets), a JAK inhibitor jointly developed by Novartis and Incyte.
Following re-examination, the CNIPA issued a review decision upholding the validity of both patents. The decision was selected by the CNIPA on 25 April 2025 as one of its “Top 10 Patent Re-examination and Invalidation Cases of 2024”, underscoring its precedential significance.
Schneider Electric v Zhenjiang Schneider name dispute
CATEGORIES: Unfair competition; electrical equipment
LEGAL COUNSEL: T&C Law Firm represented plaintiff Schneider Electric. Lexiance Partners and Sundy Law Firm acted for the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider.
KEY POINTS: Schneider Electric filed an unfair competition lawsuit in China against Zhenjiang Schneider, accusing the latter of long-term misappropriation of Schneider Electric’s trade name and trademarks. Since 1999, the defendant had operated under the name “Schneider” and systematically used the plaintiff’s Chinese and English trademarks, corporate history and branding slogans without authorisation. Zhenjiang Schneider supplied electrical equipment to major sectors including healthcare, nuclear power and metro systems. Its conduct caused widespread market confusion and enabled it to reap substantial unlawful profits.
T&C Law Firm represented the plaintiff to investigate the defendant’s tax records and reconstruct its project structures and profit flows. This evidence demonstrated the wilful infringement and the severity of the misconduct.
On this basis, the court applied punitive damages calculated as three times the defendant’s operating profit and ordered the defendant to pay RMB106 million (USD15.3 million) in damages. This award represents the highest damages to date in a Chinese unfair competition case involving enterprise name rights. The court further held the company’s ultimate controller jointly and severally liable for the full amount, as it found that the company had been deregistered to evade legal liability.
Shanghai launches first corporate IP trust
CATEGORIES: IP trust; corporate operated
LEGAL COUNSEL: Veriton Law Firm advised on the transaction.
KEY POINTS: Shanghai International Trust signed China’s first company-operated IP service trust agreement with the Academy for Clinical Innovation and Translation of Shanghai (ACITS) and Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital. The deal marked the systematic commercialisation and financialisation of intellectual property through the model of “technology licensing + joint venture operations + revenue-rights trust”.
Under this model, the hospital first obtained an exclusive patent licence and granted the usage rights to the ACITS. The ACITS then established a joint venture with a third party and sublicensed the patent to the JV. The equity income rights derived from the JV were subsequently used to establish a service trust.
The project responded to Shanghai’s institutional innovations aimed at promoting the translation of biopharmaceutical research into practical outcomes. It enabled hospitals to contribute intangible assets as equity holdings via professional custodians. Through compliant structuring, the initiative created channels for patent commercialisation among universities, hospitals, research institutes and state-owned science and technology enterprises. The use of the trust framework, with its built-in asset segregation, further strengthened asset protection and revenue distribution.
Solex v Yela Sports trade secret dispute
CATEGORIES: Patent; sporting goods
LEGAL COUNSEL: Zhong Lun Law Firm represented plaintiff Solex Industries in the appeal. Zhen Rong Law Firm acted for the defendant.
KEY POINTS: Solex Industries developed a breakthrough technical solution for inline skates and implemented confidentiality measures to protect it. Yela Sports, an affiliate of Solex’s contract manufacturer, later filed a utility model patent application based on substantially the same technology, triggering a dispute over trade secret misappropriation and patent ownership.
In the first instance, the Guangdong Intellectual Property Court ruled that the disputed technical information did not constitute a trade secret and did not address the patent ownership claim. Zhong Lun represented Solex Industries to file an appeal to the Supreme People’s Court.
On appeal, the court adopted the principle of applying new procedural laws, finding that the existence of a confidentiality clause alone was sufficient to establish Solex’s intention to maintain secrecy, and shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. It ultimately ruled that trade secret infringement had occurred and that the disputed patent rightfully belonged to Solex.
The case was included in the Summary of the Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (2024), and set an important precedent for the recognition of trade secrets, allocation of evidentiary burdens and resolution of patent ownership disputes.
Tencent v Baidu communication right dispute
CATEGORIES: The right of communication to the public on information networks; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: ZHH & Robin represented the plaintiff, Tencent.
KEY POINTS: Tencent holds the copyright to the popular television drama A Dream of Splendor. When users entered relevant keywords into Baidu’s search engine, the search results displayed infringing links allowing direct access to the drama. Services provided by Baidu further enabled users to stream high-definition infringing content smoothly.
Tencent filed a lawsuit against Baidu, alleging infringement of the right of communication to the public on information networks and unfair competition.
The Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court did not fully uphold Tencent’s claims. Following Tencent’s appeal, the Chongqing High People’s Court issued a final judgment ordering Baidu to pay RMB5 million (USD722,000) in damages, which is the statutory maximum for infringement of the right of communication to the public on information networks, and to cease the relevant acts of unfair competition.
The case marks China’s first successful action brought by a long-form video platform against a search engine for infringement of the right of communication to the public on information networks and unfair competition.
TeraSemi, Chiwei v CMOSTEK injunction case
CATEGORIES: Integrated circuits; intellectual property
LEGAL COUNSEL: GEN Law Firm advised the reconsideration applicants, TeraSemi and Chiwei Semiconductor. DeHeng Law Offices advised CMOSTEK.
KEY POINTS: This was a reconsideration bid against an interim injunction (a conduct preservation order) in a dispute over an integrated circuit layout-design right. CMOSTEK obtained a first-instance order requiring TeraSemi and Chiwei Semiconductor to stop manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products. The pair sought reconsideration before the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC), arguing that they acted only as intermediaries, the underlying right was unstable, and the statutory requirements for urgent relief were not met.
The SPC rejected the application and upheld the original order. The decision is the court’s first reconsideration case affirming a conduct preservation order of this kind, and it clarifies review standards for “urgency” and “irreparable harm” in technology-intensive IP disputes. The key holdings were included in the Summary of the Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (2024).
Tuhu v JD unfair competition dispute
CATEGORIES: Trademark; unfair competition; litigation
LEGAL COUNSEL: Watson & Band represented Lantu Information Technology.
KEY POINTS: Lantu Information Technology, the owner of the popular Tuhu (literally, “paint tiger”) automobile service brand, alleged that competitor JD Auto Service used the term “shock tiger price” in promotional materials. The Chinese character “虎” (tiger) used by JD closely resembled that in Tuhu’s logo. JD also used a series of slogans using the character for tiger in an unfavourable context.
As a result, Lantu filed a lawsuit against Jingdong Century Trading, JD Century Information Technology and Qiguanghang Information Technology, companies behind JD Auto Service and its marketing.
The Minhang District People’s Court of Shanghai ruled in its first-instance judgment that the three defendants fabricated and disseminated false and misleading information portraying the plaintiff as an unscrupulous market operator. Their acts of commercial defamation constituted unfair competition.
The court ordered them to cease infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses totalling RMB5 million (USD720,000). The defendants appealed, but the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The case has since been selected by the Supreme People’s Court as an exemplary case for unfair competition.
United Labs licenses UBT251 to Novo Nordisk
CATEGORIES: Licensing; biopharmaceutical
LEGAL COUNSEL: Han Kun Law Offices acted as legal counsel to The United Laboratories.
KEY POINTS: The United Laboratories announced that its wholly owned subsidiary, Federal Biotechnology, had signed an exclusive licensing agreement with Danish pharmaceutical multinational, Novo Nordisk. Under the deal, Federal Biotechnology granted Novo Nordisk the global rights, excluding Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, to develop, manufacture and commercialise its self-developed GLP-1/GIP/GCG triple receptor agonist, UBT251.
Federal Biotechnology retained all rights to UBT251 in the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, and will receive an upfront payment of USD200 million, as well as up to USD1.8 billion in milestone payments and tiered royalties on sales.
This transaction marks one of the largest upfront payment arrangements to date for a China-origin GLP-1 pathway asset. It is notable for its complexity in terms of territorial rights allocation, high-value consideration structure, multi-jurisdictional regulatory alignment, and intellectual property, data and compliance arrangements.
UBT251 is a class 1 innovative drug in China and has been approved to enter clinical trials in both China and the US. The collaboration is expected to accelerate its global development and commercialisation.
Universal Studios service mark criminal case
CATEGORIES: Service mark; entertainment
LEGAL COUNSEL: Hiways Law Firm represented Universal Studios. Bangyin Law Firm, Jinqi Law Firm, Shengdu Law Firm, Liangquan Law Firm and Jingchi Law Firm acted for the defendants.
KEY POINTS: Universal Studios Beijing pursued criminal action against a six-person group that counterfeited its “VIP tour guide” service. The ringleader, Zhang Xuefeng, was sentenced to four years in prison and fined RMB1.6 million (USD230,500). The other five accomplices received suspended sentences with substantial fines.
This case is the first criminal prosecution in China involving a theme park service trademark, setting an important legal precedent. Key legal challenges included proving the identity of the service and defining the trademark use as unauthorised.
The rights holder’s legal counsel successfully applied a new judicial interpretation to establish the crime. In a notable breakthrough, they also secured a court order to prioritise the frozen assets of the defendants for compensating the rights holder before any state fines were paid. This prioritisation of civil damages over criminal financial penalties provides a reference for the future criminal protection of intangible service trademarks.
Yuewen v LibilibAI AI copyright dispute
CATEGORIES: AI; copyright
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jin Mao Law Firm represented LibilibAI.
KEY POINTS: Yuewen Group filed a lawsuit against the AI platform operator LibilibAI and platform user Li Lei in the Shanghai Jinshan District People’s Court concerning infringement involving AI-generated images. Following the first-instance trial, the court ruled that LibilibAI did not infringe, but ordered Li Lei to cease infringing Yuewen Group’s rights to reproduce and disseminate the character image online, and to pay compensation of RMB50,000 (USD7,200).
Yuewen held the copyright to the Medusa character image in the Battle Through the Heavens anime series. LibilibAI operated the AI platform of the same name, while Li Lei was a platform user. Li Lei uploaded images of Medusa from the anime to the platform and generated two AI models. Other ordinary users, when utilising the models, could generate images identical or substantially similar to the Medusa image by inputting different prompts.
After the trial, the court held that the term “Medusa” was most widely known as referring to the snake-haired gorgon in Greek mythology, providing insufficient basis for protection as a “commodity name with a certain influence”. Li Lei, for commercial purposes, reproduced the original expressions of the prior work and provided the material to the public, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s reproduction rights and information network dissemination rights over the “Medusa” work.
However, the defendant company provided technology and functions that were neutral in nature, fulfilled reasonable notification obligations to users, and promptly removed all Medusa models after receiving the complaint. It demonstrated no subjective fault or failure to meet relevant obligations and was not deemed to have committed infringement.
