On March 9, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released their 2025 Work Report (最高人民法院工作报告) highlighting past accomplishments and and plans for 2026. Overall, litigation was down in 2025 at the Supreme People’s Court with 29,154 cases accepted and 31,958 cases adjudicated, representing year-on-year decreases of 16.5% and 1.8%, respectively. However, litigation overall was busier with courts at all levels across the country accepting 37.486 million cases for trial and enforcement, and adjudicating 36.2 million cases, representing year-on-year increases of 10.8% and 8.9%, respectively. Regarding intellectual property (IP), 19,000 people were sentenced for intellectual property infringement crimes, a year-on-year increase of 6.2%. 496,000 intellectual property cases were adjudicated, a year-on-year increase of 0.3%. 49,000 foreign-related IP cases were adjudicated during the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025), representing 115.9% growth from the prior five-year plan.
Additional excerpts related to IP follow. The full text is available here (Chinese only).
Serving High-Level Scientific and Technological Self-Reliance and Self-Improvement. Opinions on serving and safeguarding scientific and technological innovation were formulated to promote the development of new productive forces. 496,000 intellectual property cases were concluded, a year-on-year increase of 0.3%. Upholding Legal and Effective Protection. 19,000 people were sentenced for intellectual property infringement crimes, a year-on-year increase of 6.2%. The functions of preservation measures, preliminary judgments, and punitive damages were leveraged to promptly remedy rights and punish infringements. The Supreme People’s Court heard a case involving the infringement of trade secrets in CNC machine tools, ordering the malicious infringer and their company to jointly bear punitive damages of 380 million yuan (three times the amount). Promoting the Deep Integration of Scientific and Technological Innovation and Industrial Innovation. Guidelines for mediation in technology-related intellectual property cases were formulated to promote cooperation and standardized development through mediation. Two leading low-altitude economy companies had a series of disputes over patent rights; a single judgment could potentially harm both. The court facilitated a settlement and patent commercialization through a “license first, then negotiate fees” approach. Maintaining a Sound Innovation Order. The governance of abnormal batch litigation in intellectual property cases was deepened, with 2,331 lawsuits dismissed and 694 cases subject to judicial penalties. The court punished former employees for infringing on trade secrets, convicting and sentencing 14 individuals, including Zhang, for illegally obtaining chip technology information from their former company. Simultaneously, the court ensured the orderly flow of talent, ruling that Zheng’s post-departure employment had no substantial connection to the company’s trade secrets and therefore did not violate any non-compete agreements. The court also promoted the standardized development of artificial intelligence. Cases involving artificial intelligence were handled appropriately according to law, accurately grasping the “tolerance” space for technological innovation. In one case, a generative artificial intelligence service produced an error; the developer had fulfilled its duty of care, and no actual harm was caused to the plaintiff’s rights; therefore, the court ruled that no infringement occurred. The court resolutely regulated acts that used artificial intelligence to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others or disrupt social order, promoting the good use of technology.
…
Safeguarding the healthy development of the digital economy. 908 cases involving disputes over data ownership and transactions were adjudicated, a year-on-year increase of 25.6% . Guiding cases were issued to regulate data collection and use, promoting the full release of data element value. Regulations on trade secret protection, copyright protection, and anti-unfair competition were comprehensively applied to punish acts infringing on data rights . In a data dispute case, a Jiangsu court legally determined that stealing data sets and developing data products constituted unfair competition, awarding punitive damages of 30 million yuan. 915 cases involving disputes over personal information protection were adjudicated, a year-on-year increase of 65%, clarifying that the processing of personal information should adhere to the principles of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and good faith. Cases involving platform algorithms were properly adjudicated, regulating the abuse of algorithms according to law. In a dispute case involving an e-commerce platform, a Sichuan court comprehensively protected the legitimate rights and interests of merchants and consumers, and promoted the resolution of unfair refund rules on multiple platforms.
…
We resolutely safeguard the interests of the nation and its people. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, a total of 159,000 foreign-related cases were concluded, a 66% increase compared to the 13th Five-Year Plan period. Among these, intellectual property cases numbered 49,000 and maritime cases numbered 12,000, representing plan-on-plan increases of 115.9% and 84.6%, respectively. We firmly uphold China’s judicial sovereignty. We implement the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, effectively countering illegal sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction.” For example, when a foreign company refused to sign a bill of lading on the grounds that a Chinese company was sanctioned, a Chinese court issued an injunction upon application, ordering the foreign company to deliver the bill of lading and to compensate for losses. We fully exercise judicial jurisdiction. In cases where a foreign company operating a patent was accused of abusing its market dominance and affecting China’s market competition order, and an overseas listed company made false statements and harmed the interests of Chinese investors, Chinese courts applied the extraterritorial provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Securities Law to exercise jurisdiction.
…
Equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both Chinese and foreign parties. Strict adherence to WTO principles such as national treatment to create a fair, transparent, non-discriminatory, and predictable business environment. In one case, a Sino-foreign joint venture was nearing the expiration of its operating period, and the Chinese shareholder abused its voting rights to refuse profit distribution. The Jilin court, in accordance with the law, protected the rights and interests of the foreign shareholder, who then expanded its investment in China and registered a new company. In another case, a Shaanxi court, in handling a bankruptcy reorganization, applied the facilitation rules of the Hague Convention on the Abolition of the Authentication Requirement for Foreign Public Documents, actively guiding overseas creditors to file their claims and comprehensively and equally protecting the interests of both domestic and foreign creditors. Equal protection of the intellectual property rights of both Chinese and foreign rights holders; ruling that a foreign company’s trade secrets formed abroad should be protected by law; and recognizing supplementary experimental data, ruling that a foreign company’s pharmaceutical patent application should be granted . The World Bank’s Doing Business assessment ranked the Beijing and Shanghai courts as having the highest levels of impartiality and recognition globally.
…
Actively participating in global governance…. The UNCITRAL, UNEP, and WIPO have included 210 typical cases from Chinese courts…
…
We consciously accepted democratic oversight. We handled 185 proposals from the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), carefully studied and adopted them, and provided timely feedback. We actively adopted suggestions from the CPPCC’s bi-weekly consultative meetings to improve the effectiveness of judicial protection of intellectual property rights…
…
Work plan for 2026… Strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property rights and help innovation-driven development. Promote the standardized development of the digital economy and “artificial intelligence +”. Strengthen the judiciary against monopolies and unfair competition.
…
We will deepen the collaborative education mechanism with law schools and accelerate the cultivation and reserve of specialized judicial talents in areas such as foreign affairs, finance, bankruptcy, intellectual property, and environmental resources.
