In an administrative penalty decision dated August 10, 2026, China’s Anhui Provincial Administration for Market Regulation (geoblocked) issued what is believed to be the highest fine ever for the unauthorized practice of patent law – 17,081,860.09 RMB (over $2.5 million USD). This fine was part of a series of fines against Anhui patent agencies issued in August 2026 including another fine of 9,673,112.3 RMB. Previously, the highest fine is believed to be 2.49 million RMB.
China’s SAMR Finds That AI Prompts and Related Materials Can Be Protected as Trade Secrets
On August 20, 2026, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) published six typical cases involving infringement of trade secrets, including a case in which SAMR held that prompts, review rules, and annotation specifications used in an AI large-model system can independently constitute trade secrets, separate from any protection attaching to underlying source code. The six cases were released to illustrate enforcement under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (as amended in 2019) and to inform …
China 2025 Patent Filing Trends: Invention Applications Rise 5.43% as Utility Model Applications Fall 16 .81%
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration’s (CNIPA’s) recently released 2025 Intellectual Property Statistical Yearbook records 1,927,500 invention patent applications in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 5.43 percent, and 2,649,201 utility model applications, a year-on-year decrease of 16.81 percent, or approximately 535,000 fewer filings than in 2024.
China’s Supreme People’s Court Clarifies That Seed Sales After Variety Right Expiration Can Still Constitute Infringement Where Production Occurred During the Protection Period
(2026) 最高法知民终51号 — decided April 3, 2026; published August 4, 2026 The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued a decision addressing a recurring problem in plant variety right enforcement: what happens when the accused infringer produces protected propagating material during the term of protection, but the resulting seed is not sold until after the variety right has expired. The court held that the timing of production, not the timing of sale, controls the infringement analysis, and that …