China IP, Beijing, Beijing (2026)

10/06/2026

Vladimir Biriulin, Partner at Gorodissky & Partners shares a China-Russia Trademark Case：ПОЙЗОН Company Lost to POIZON Platform.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gDC68msQ

04/06/2026

CNIPA Invalidates Two DKEM Patents, Collapsing RMB 1 Billion Claim Foundation

On June 2, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued a decision declaring both of two Wuxi DK Electronic Co., Ltd. (DKEM) patents (Patent Nos. ZL201180032359.1 and ZL201180032701.8) wholly invalid.

The patents share the same title: "Thick Film Paste Containing Lead-Tellurium-Lithium-Titanium-Oxide and Use Thereof in Manufacturing Semiconductor Devices." They are conductive silver paste patents originally held by DuPont de Nemours' Solamet photovoltaic paste business. DKEM gained control of the portfolio through its RMB 696 million acquisition of a 60% stake in Solamet Materials Science Co., Ltd. in May 2025.

The CNIPA panel ruled that both patents fail to comply with Article 26.4 of the Chinese Patent Law, meaning the claims are not supported by the description. According to the panel, a person skilled in the art could not determine, based on the patent descriptions, that all claimed technical solutions would achieve the effects described in the patents.

This decision is another case of CNIPA's increasing reliance on Article 26.4 (support by the description) in invalidation proceedings, raising the bar for patent drafting quality.

DKEM had used these two patents to launch six separate patent infringement lawsuits over the past five years, with claims in each case ranging from RMB 100 million to 200 million, for a cumulative claimed amount of RMB 1 billion.

In August 2021, Solamet Materials Science Co., Ltd., affiliated with DKEM, sued Changzhou Fusion New Material Co., Ltd. for infringement of both patents in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, filing two cases with RMB 100 million sought per patent. The parties reached a settlement in August 2022.

In November 2025, Zhejiang Suote Material Technology Co., a holding subsidiary of DKEM, sued Zhejiang Gonda Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. in the Zhejiang High People's Court for infringement of Patent No. ZL201180032359.1 alone, claiming RMB 200 million. It was Gonda that filed the successful invalidation actions against both patents.

In January 2026, DKEM filed two separate RMB 200 million lawsuits at the Jiangsu High People's Court against Jiangsu Riyu Photovoltaic New Materials Co., Ltd. and Suzhou iSilver Materials Co., Ltd.

In April 2026, DKEM sued Pharos Materials Co., Ltd. and its Shanghai branch in the Shanghai High People's Court for infringement of both patents, claiming RMB 200 million.

With both core patents invalidated, the legal and factual basis for all pending claims has effectively evaporated. Whether DKEM will appeal remains uncertain.

Photo Source: DKEM
For more:
https://lnkd.in/gv5JwscW

29/05/2026

Shanghai IP Court Grants Honor RMB 30 Million, Applies Punitive Damages in Trademark Case

On April 20, 2026, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rendered a second-instance judgment in the trademark infringement case brought by Honor Terminal Co., Ltd. ("Honor") against Shenzhen Chuang XX Company and six other defendants. The court reversed the first-instance ruling of RMB 12 million in damages, fully granted Honor's claim for RMB 30 million, and explicitly applied punitive damages.

Case Background
Honor asserted ownership of the well-known Trademark No. 10638363 "荣耀" (Honor), registered for use on mobile phones, tablet computers, and other goods. The mark has been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trademark and enjoys substantial reputation. Honor discovered that the seven defendants, including Chuang XX and Mai XX, were selling laptops bearing the mark "荣耀剑舞" (Honor Sword Dance) online. Honor filed a trademark infringement lawsuit, requesting a multiplier of two for punitive damages and seeking joint and several liability among the seven defendants in the amount of RMB 50 million.

First-Instance Decision
The court of first instance held that three of the seven defendants (Ao XX, Xue XX, and Ge XX) were not liable for damages: Ao XX supplied only bare-bone products without knowledge of potential infringement; there was no evidence of infringing conduct by Xue XX; and Ge XX, as an internet service provider, had fulfilled its duty of care. Defendant Mai XX had assigned the disputed Trademark No. 30502169 "荣耀剑舞" from a third party and licensed it to Chuang XX and others. Chuang XX sourced bare-bone products, affixed the mark, and acted as the manufacturer of the accused products. Wu XX and Ci XX displayed and sold the accused products through their online stores.

After the "荣耀剑舞" trademark was subsequently invalidated, the court found that the four defendants had infringed Honor's registered trademark rights and should bear liability. However, because the "荣耀剑舞" mark had once been a registered trademark, the court declined to apply punitive damages. It ordered Mai XX and Chuang XX to jointly pay Honor RMB 12 million in damages, with Wu XX and Ci XX jointly liable for RMB 10,000 and RMB 70,000 of that amount, respectively.

Second-Instance Decision
Honor appealed, challenging not only the amount of damages but also arguing that the first-instance court had failed to assess the defendants' standalone use of the textual mark "荣耀剑舞" and had not granted an injunction. Honor requested the appellate court to order all seven defendants to cease infringement, apply punitive damages, and award a total of RMB 30 million in economic damages and reasonable expenses.

Photo source: leiphone
Click to visit the original article:
https://lnkd.in/gNB8wPik

22/05/2026

Dialogue with BDPE: Navigating High-Stakes Patent Litigation in Germany and the UPC

As global IP governance undergoes accelerated transformation, Europe is evolving from a traditional litigation hotspot into a decisive rule-shaping hub. Since the Unified Patent Court (UPC) came into operation in 2023, its centralised jurisdiction and cross-border remedies have begun redefining patent enforcement. At the same time, German courts — with their proven efficiency and mature case law — remain irreplaceable in bet-the-company disputes. Together, these parallel systems are creating a more diverse, strategy-driven litigation landscape in Europe.

For Chinese tech companies racing to expand globally, this shift brings both fresh institutional opportunities and steeper professional demands. Whether navigating SEP disputes, coordinating parallel proceedings across jurisdictions, or building evidence and technical arguments, what awaits them in Europe is no longer a series of standalone legal questions, but a highly systemic strategic challenge.

Within this landscape, BDPE Patent Attorneys and Attorneys at Law (hereinafter, "BDPE"), headquartered in Germany, continues to distinguish itself through a singular focus on patent litigation. Unlike conventional IP law firms, BDPE handles no prosecution work and runs no trainee program.

As a pure-play litigation team with deep battle-tested experience in complex technologies such as 5G and WiFi, the firm has built a reputation for technically complex, multi-jurisdictional litigation, particularly in standard-essential patent (SEP) and FRAND matters across fields such as cellular communications, WiFi, and IoT/connected vehicles. The team has played pivotal roles in multiple landmark cases shaping European SEP jurisprudence, and regularly represents leading Chinese technology companies including Huawei and Honor before German courts, the European Patent Office (EPO), and the UPC.

Combining deep technical expertise with litigation strategy, BDPE is known for its ability to translate complex technologies into clear, evidence-driven arguments aligned with judicial expectations across jurisdictions. In 2025, the firm was recognised for the third time with the "Outstanding International IP Service Teams" award.

Intellectual Property Observers recently spoke with the firm again to explore the strategic divergence between the UPC and German courts, how to navigate complex technical disputes, the real-world use of AI in litigation, and key insights from serving Chinese clients. Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Click to read the full interview:
https://lnkd.in/gT7hsEin

21/05/2026

Pinming Technology sues former employee, company for 12.2 mln yuan over software copyright

Pinming Technology Co., Ltd, a Chinese construction software provider, has filed a lawsuit against a former employee and his company, alleging copyright infringement over its engineering pricing software and seeking 12.2 million yuan in damages, the company said in a regulatory filing on May 16.

The lawsuit, filed at the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang province, names Yunyi Fengcheng Technology (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd and its legal representative, Huang Xi’an, as defendants. The court has accepted the case under docket number (2026) Zhe 01 Min Chu No. 1324.

Pinming alleges that Huang, whose responsibilities at the company included direct oversight and development of the Pinming Engineering Pricing Software, left Pinming and later became legal representative and the largest shareholder of Yunyi Fengcheng. The defendant then launched "Fengcheng Digital Pricing Software V1.0" — a product directly competing with Pinming's own "Pinming Shengxuan V7.0."

According to Pinming's filing, the company began developing its engineering pricing software on January 1, 2010, and completed the initial version in 2012. The latest iteration, version 7.0 (branded as "Pinming Shengxuan V7.0"), received a computer software copyright registration certificate on January 27, 2022.

Pinming claims that the competing software shows "high consistency" in unique identifiers, constituting clear copyright infringement. The company is asking the court to order an immediate halt to the alleged infringement, a public apology on national media and the defendant's official website, plus 12.2 million yuan to cover economic losses and legal costs.

Pinming Technology, which listed on Shanghai’s STAR Market in 2021, focuses on digital construction applications for the construction phase. Its main businesses include construction information software and smart construction site products. The company holds more than 330 software copyrights, according to its website.

Yunyi Fengcheng, founded in January 2025, provides digital solutions for the construction sector, including housing, municipal works, water conservancy, and transportation. Its core product is the "Fengcheng Digital Pricing Software."

Photo Source: Pinming
Click to read the original article:
https://lnkd.in/gkMy-5fR

08/05/2026

China's Supreme People's Court Adopts New Interpretation on Punitive Damages in IP Civil Disputes

On April 7, 2026, China's Supreme People's Court adopted the newly revised Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights at the 1972nd Session of its Judicial Committee. Taking effect on May 1, 2026, the Interpretation repeals the 2021 version and introduces stricter rules targeting malicious actors who "engage in IP infringement as a business" – imposing a sales profit calculation base for such actors versus an operating profit base for ordinary infringers. The Interpretation also expands the definition of intentional conduct, permits non-integer multipliers up to a cap of five times the base amount, imposes a procedural bar on separate punitive damages claims brought after the first instance, and excludes ordinary unfair competition acts (except trade secrets) from punitive damages.

A translation of the newly revised Interpretation available:
https://lnkd.in/gxrQFkHK

28/04/2026

German Kan, Lawyer at Gorodissky & Partners shares his insights on Riding on Coattails of Fair Business: Combating Brand Squatting in Russian Trademark Law Practice

Russian trademark practice evolves and adapts to modern realities, facing numerous challenges. One of such challenges in Russian practice has been so-called brand squatting.

Brand squatting is a form of bad-faith conduct by a trademark owner or applicant. In practice, the scenario is often the same: a “rights holder” appears with a trademark registration and offers a choice — stop using the designation, pay compensation, or take a license. In most cases, the squatter does not genuinely use the trademark. The registration is obtained primarily as a tool for claims and litigation.

The encouraging trend is that Russian courts are increasingly looking beyond the mere similarity of designations. They are also examining the rights holder’s conduct: why the trademark was registered, whether it is actually used, and whether the owner is simply trying to “commercialize” the registration. In its 2023 Ruling in case No. A11-417/2019, the Supreme Court made it clear that a trademark cannot be used as an instrument of abuse of rights or for gaining unjustified advantages.

The Court confirmed that trademark rights must not be acquired for the purpose of suing bona fide market participants and seeking compensation where there is no genuine economic interest and no real intention to use the mark for the individualization of goods.

That is why, in any dispute of this kind, the context matters. It is important to show whether the rights holder actually uses the trademark for specific goods or services, and whether the owner or the trademark is known to ordinary consumers.

For that reason, when a cease-and-desist letter or claim is received by bona fide market participant, businesses should not rush or accept the proposed terms immediately, even if the situation appears straightforward at first glance. The first step should be getting ready for the proceedings. The common response is to defend the infringement claim and show that there is no likelihood of confusion.

At the same time, Russian law has developed several legal tools for dealing with bad-faith rights holders.

First, it is important to gather evidence showing how the disputed designation had been used before the claim from bad-faith rights holder was received. The date when the actual use began, proof of broad recognition and continuity of use may also help to demonstrate bona fide conduct.

Second, it is crucial to show that the squatter is not using his own trademark as intended. In other words, the rights holder may have no legitimate economic interest in the registration at all. Additional support may come from the evidence of numerous trademark registrations or a significant amount of court proceedings initiated by that person or company.

Original article available at:
https://lnkd.in/dWgDFeu4

10/04/2026

DKEM's Patent War Hits 1 Billion Yuan With Another 200 Million Lawsuit Against Pharos

Chinese solar silver paste manufacturer DKEM (Wuxi DK Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.) has filed another 200 million yuan patent infringement lawsuit, raising its total claims against domestic rivals to 1 billion yuan, according to a stock exchange filing disclosed by DKEM on April 3.

The latest case, docketed as (2026) Humin Chu No. 2 at the Shanghai High People's Court, targets Pharos Materials Co., Ltd. and its Shanghai branch. It marks DKEM’s sixth lawsuit since 2021, all based on two core patents covering lead-tellurium-oxide thick-film paste formulations.
The disputed patents — ZL201180032359.1 and ZL201180032701.8 — originated from U.S. chemical giant DuPont de Nemours' Solamet photovoltaic paste business. DKEM gained control of the portfolio through its 696 million yuan acquisition of a 60% stake in subsidiary Solamet Materials Science Co., Ltd. in May 2025. The patents protect lead-tellurium-oxide paste systems enhanced with lithium and lithium-titanium additives — a formulation industry sources describe as essential for manufacturing mainstream solar cell technologies, including p-PERC, n-TOPCon and next-generation xBC cells. As of May 2025, Solamet Materials Science holds 227 active invention patents globally and has successfully defended the patent family against multiple invalidation challenges.

In the latest filing, DKEM alleges the defendants have used the patented technology without authorization over a long period and across a wide geographic area, causing substantial economic losses. DKEM is seeking a court order to stop the defendants from manufacturing, selling or offering infringing products, and to destroy related tooling. It also demands 200 million yuan in economic damages and reasonable enforcement costs, including treble punitive damages, plus all legal fees.

DKEM’s patent war began in August 2021, when it sued Changzhou Fusion New Material Co., Ltd. for 200 million yuan in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court — a case timed to coincide with Fusion’s IPO process. The parties settled in August 2022.

In November 2025, DKEM sued Zhejiang Gonda Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. for another 200 million yuan in the Zhejiang High People's Court. Gonda countersued for 5 million yuan, alleging malicious IP litigation, and challenged court jurisdiction. Both the Zhejiang High Court and China’s Supreme People’s Court rejected the challenge, with the top court’s ruling final.

In January 2026, DKEM filed two separate 200 million yuan lawsuits at the Jiangsu High People's Court against Jiangsu Riyu Photovoltaic New Materials Co., Ltd. and Suzhou iSilver Materials Co., Ltd. Both cases have been docketed and are awaiting trial.

Photo source: DKEM
Click to read the full article:
https://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=2283

08/04/2026

Midea v. Xiaomi: Fourth patent lawsuit heads to trial as IP battle intensifies

The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court will hear on Friday the fourth patent infringement lawsuit filed by Midea against Xiaomi, as the two electronics giants shift from partners to rivals in China’s fiercely competitive smart home appliance market.

The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court is scheduled to hear case No. (2025) Zhe 01 Zhi Min Chu 91 on April 10, according to court dockets updated on April 5. The lawsuit was filed by Guangdong Midea Air-Conditioning Equipment Co., Ltd. against Beijing Xiaomi Electronics Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., and e-commerce platform Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd.

The first three other cases — Nos. 88, 89, and 90 — were all filed in August 2025 and were heard on March 9, 2026. Combined damages sought in those cases total RMB 65 million, with RMB 10 million, RMB 50 million and RMB 5 million claimed respectively, according to a Chinese intellectual property database. The specific damages sought in the fourth case have not yet been disclosed.

Beyond the infringement suits, Midea has launched an attack on the validity of Xiaomi’s patents. Between September and October 2025, Midea, through its subsidiary Midea Smart Technology Co., Ltd., filed invalidation requests with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) against two Xiaomi invention patents: ZL201410112307.0, titled “Smart Home Appliance Control Method, Device and Terminal,” and ZL201510595907.1. An oral hearing for the first patent was held on November 26, 2025. The CNIPA has yet to issue final decisions on either request.

The legal offensive marks a dramatic turn in the relationship between the two companies. In 2015, Midea Group invested RMB 1.273 billion in Xiaomi. Following Xiaomi’s IPO, Midea gradually reduced its holdings, cashing out nearly RMB 2 billion. In March 2025, Midea disclosed in its 2024 annual report that it had sold its remaining RMB 902 million stake in Xiaomi, completely liquidating its position. The divestment came just months before Midea filed its patent suits in August 2025.

The tension reflects Xiaomi's rapid expansion into home appliances, traditionally dominated by Midea, Gree and Haier. Xiaomi's air conditioner shipments surged from 1.1 million units in 2020 to 6.8 million units in 2024, making it the country's fourth-largest brand, according to industry data.

Xiaomi, for its part, is defending on multiple fronts. The company is simultaneously engaged in patent disputes with China’s traditional home appliance giants.

Photo Source: Midea
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/dXk8KF3N

03/04/2026

Atom Therapeutics and Evopoint Biosciences Cross-Claim RMB 50 Million in Trade Secret Dispute as Both Pursue IPOs

On March 20, 2026, Atom Therapeutics Co., Ltd. disclosed in its Hong Kong Stock Exchange listing application that it is embroiled in a high-stakes intellectual property dispute with Evopoint Biosciences Co., Ltd., involving competing claims of trade secret misappropriation and malicious litigation. The dispute, which centers on gout treatment technology, has escalated into cross-claims in which each party is seeking RMB 50 million in damages, and the legal battle is closely intertwined with both companies’ IPO timelines.

According to Atom Therapeutics’ disclosure, the company initially filed a trade secret infringement lawsuit against Evopoint Biosciences with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in October 2024. Atom Therapeutics alleges that it had engaged in discussions with a co-founder of Evopoint Biosciences in 2017 regarding potential investment and collaboration opportunities, though no formal cooperation ultimately materialized.

Atom Therapeutics contends that Evopoint’s gout drug candidate, XNW3009—a URAT1 inhibitor that was in Phase IIb/III development until October 2025—was developed based on trade secrets misappropriated during previous discussions.

Atom Therapeutics’s complaint seeks an order requiring Evopoint Biosciences to cease the alleged trade secret misappropriation, terminate all related research, clinical trials, and commercialization activities, and pay RMB 50 million in economic damages and reasonable legal expenses.

Evopoint Biosciences, however, has vigorously denied the allegations. In August 2025—following Atom Therapeutics’s initial filing—Evopoint Biosciences filed a counterclaim in the same court, accusing Atom Therapeutics’ of “malicious initiation of intellectual property litigation.” Evopoint Biosciences asserts that Atom Therapeutics’s claims lack factual basis and may be barred by the statute of limitations. According to Evopoint, the true purpose of Atom Therapeutics’s lawsuit is to disrupt Evopoint’s normal business operations and interfere with its IPO process.

Evopoint’s counterclaim demands that Atom Therapeutics and its legal representative, Shi Dongfang, jointly pay RMB 50 million in economic damages and reasonable legal costs, as well as issue a public apology in national media.

The procedural history of the case took a notable turn in November 2025. Atom Therapeutics voluntarily withdrew its original complaint, and within one week, refiled a substantially identical lawsuit on the same grounds. The court accepted the refiled case that same month. Atom Therapeutics explained that the withdrawal and refiling were intended to “facilitate full communication with the court on administrative matters.”

Photo Source: Evopoint Biosciences

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/eAvfncEC

China IP

10/06/2026

04/06/2026

29/05/2026

22/05/2026

21/05/2026

08/05/2026

28/04/2026

10/04/2026

08/04/2026

03/04/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share