Dispute Resolution IPRIP Protection in Action: Nanjing Court’s Cases

2025年12月2日0

On the occasion of the 2025 World Intelligent Manufacturing Summit held from November 27 to 29, 2025, the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court released typical judicial protection cases involving intellectual property in fields such as high and new technologies with foreign, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan elements. The summaries are as follows:

Case 1: Equal Protection of Foreign-funded Enterprises’ Technical Secrets Facilitates Continuous Optimization of the Law-based Business Environment

Dispute over Infringement of Technical Secrets between A Co., Ltd. (Water Heater), A Co., Ltd. (Environmental Appliances) and B Environmental Equipment Co., Ltd., Mr. Zhu, et al.

Technical secrets constitute the fundamental key information and core intangible assets for intelligent manufacturing enterprises. Particularly in the context of global intelligent manufacturing competition, the protection of technical secrets is directly related to the transformation of technological advantages into market advantages and the restoration of market competition order.

This case clarified the adjudication standards for difficult issues such as the determination of non-public knowledge and consistency of technical secrets and the division of joint tort liability. It defined the review boundaries for the reverse engineering defense, providing a systematic review methodology for handling similar cases.

The clear adjudication rules remind enterprises that a technical secret protection mechanism matching their R&D system must be established during global operations. When infringement is encountered, the scope of protection should be clarified, evidence secured, and rights enforced in a timely manner. Simultaneously, it warns employees and related parties to adhere to the principles of good faith and commercial ethics.

Case 2: Professional Adjudication Resolves Appraisal Difficulties, Alleviating the Burden of Proof for Patentees

Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights between N Company, et al. and B Bio-engineering Co., Ltd., et al.

Technical comparison in patent infringement cases is highly specialized. Traditional judicial appraisal procedures are often lengthy and costly, easily leading to delays in rights enforcement for the proprietor. In this case, the amylase involved is a fundamental enzyme preparation widely used in industrial production, necessitating the determination of the protein sequence of the infringing amylase.

The court accepted the rights holder’s inspection report, which complied with industry standards, in the absence of contrary evidence presented by the accused infringer. This alleviated the patentee’s burden of proof, avoided unnecessary judicial appraisal procedures, and efficiently achieved protection for the innovative achievements.

This case actively responded to the need for efficient rights enforcement by foreign-related rights holders concerning complex bio-engineering invention patents, provided a reference for adjudicating similar cases, and played a positive role in reducing IP rights protection costs and stimulating innovation.

Case 3: Lawful Dismissal of Improper “IPO Sniping” Litigation, Serving Technological Innovation and Ensuring Fair Competition

Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights between M Company and Wuxi S CNC Co., Ltd., et al.

Wuxi S CNC Co., Ltd., as a representative enterprise in China’s intelligent manufacturing sector, holds a significant position in the international market with its core products. In this case, the company faced intellectual property litigation challenges from a foreign enterprise during its critical IPO stage and successfully defended its rights through proactive response and lawful defense.

The two levels of courts conducted efficient trials and accurately determined the facts, effectively curbing the “sniping” behavior where foreign enterprises use IP litigation to interfere with the normal IPO process of Chinese companies. This case provided, for the first time, a handling paradigm for technology enterprises facing cross-border intellectual property “IPO sniping.” It clarified that enterprises facing baseless accusations and malicious litigation should maintain confidence, respond calmly, defend themselves according to law, and skillfully use legal weapons to safeguard their developmental achievements, providing legal safeguards for the global competition of “China’s Intelligent Manufacturing.”

Case 4: Package Mediation of Standard Essential Patent Dispute, Judicial Wisdom Promotes Win-Win Cooperation in Semiconductor Industry

Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights between J Electronics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., et al. and Shenzhen X Semiconductor Technology Co., Ltd.

The licensing agreement reached in this case represents the first mainstream memory card Standard Essential Patent (SEP) licensing agreement between Chinese enterprises in the semiconductor storage industry, which is essential for the intelligent manufacturing field. Against the backdrop of significant external pressure facing China’s semiconductor industry, this case, through judicial mediation, prompted the enterprises to “turn hostility into friendship.” It realized the market value of the patents, met the technology implementation needs of the enterprises, promoted the market circulation of key technologies, and achieved a positive interaction between legal protection and industrial development.

Case 5: “Gap Period” in Trademark Registration is Not a Legal Vacuum; Strong Judicial Protection for Reputation of Unregistered Well-Known Trademarks

Dispute over Infringement of Trademark Rights and Unfair Competition between I Company and M Home Furnishing Co., Ltd., Yang, et al.

Commercial identifiers are of great significance for internationally renowned home furnishing manufacturing brands. This case warns market operators that the “gap period” in a trademark’s registration status is by no means a “legal vacuum” in terms of protection. For trademarks that have already acquired extensive market reputation, even if they are not renewed for certain reasons, the goodwill accumulated over time is still strictly protected by law. Any attempt to “free-ride on a famous brand” or “hitchhike” will not escape legal accountability.

The judgment in this case effectively consolidated the commercial reputation and brand interests of the internationally renowned brand through the recognition of the unregistered well-known trademark. It demonstrated the judiciary’s firm maintenance of a fair competition market order, guiding enterprises that only by relying on independent innovation and honest labor can they achieve steady and sustained development.

From the above five typical cases, it is evident that the current judicial environment is sending a clear signal, whether for foreign-funded enterprises or domestic innovators, whether concerning technical secrets, patents, or trademarks: Innovation achievements will be strictly protected, and fair competition order will be firmly upheld. So, how can enterprises transform this judicial protection into their own competitive advantage? How can they establish an intellectual property protection system compatible with globalized operations?

ICL Consulting, as a professional consulting service agency, deeply understands the intellectual property challenges enterprises face during technology R&D and market expansion. We integrate the latest judicial practices and policy trends to provide enterprises with comprehensive IP protection solutions:

Technical Secret Protection System Design: Assist enterprises in establishing a technical secret identification, classification, protection, and rights enforcement mechanism matching their R&D system to prevent risks of internal leakage and external infringement.
Patent Strategy Layout and Risk Prevention & Control: Provide full-process services from patent application and maintenance to infringement response, especially offering professional defense strategies when enterprises face malicious litigation such as “IPO sniping.”
Trademark and Brand Protection: Include not only registration application and maintenance but also cover legal risk prevention and rights enforcement support for unregistered trademarks, ensuring the security of enterprise brand assets.
IP Dispute Resolution: Provide professional evidence collection, litigation strategy, and mediation/negotiation advisory support when facing infringement or infringement accusations, to maximize the protection of enterprise legal rights and interests.
Cross-border Intellectual Property Management: Provide solutions compliant with the legal environments of different countries and regions for IP issues encountered by enterprises in international operations.

Facing the complex global competitive environment and increasingly severe IP challenges, enterprises need not only the courage to innovate but also professional legal wisdom. ICL Consulting is willing to become your legal partner on the path of innovation, providing comprehensive protection for your core technologies and brand value, enabling you to navigate steadily and go far in global competition.

在法律的世界里，耐心先于正义

Dispute Resolution IPRIP Protection in Action: Nanjing Court’s Cases

发表回复取消回复

链接

免费咨询

在法律的世界里，耐心先于正义

发表回复 取消回复

Cookie Consent

发表回复取消回复