China IP, Beijing, Beijing (2026)

01/07/2026

China's top court rejects Mengniu retrial, upholds 5 mln yuan award in Yili packaging case

China's Supreme People's Court has rejected a retrial application from China Mengniu Dairy Company Ltd, upholding a lower court's ruling that the packaging of its "Selected Meadow" milk constituted unfair competition. The decision brings a definitive end to the IP dispute between two of the country's largest dairy companies and establishes a legal standard protecting the "overall visual effect" of product packaging.

In a June 2026 ruling identified as (2026) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 1294, the top court ordered Mengniu to immediately cease infringement and pay Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 5 million yuan in damages and legal costs, affirming a Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court decision.

The dispute centered on the packaging that Yili introduced for its "SATINE" pure milk in 2020, featuring a creamy white background with dark green accents and artistic grassland motifs. Yili argued that since launching the brand in 2006, and particularly after the packaging update, it had achieved national recognition through extensive advertising and promotion, including hiring renowned singer Zhang Jie as brand ambassador. Mengniu countered that its "Selected Meadow" brand had existed since 2014, and the accused product entered the market in December 2023, promoted by famous actor Xiao Zhan.

All three court levels adopted a holistic test for infringement. The Jiangsu high court noted in its 2025 judgment that the two packages were similar in the color, style, and placement of logos; font, shade, and positioning of text; and the overall artwork featuring dairy cows and pastures. The overall visual effect was found to be similar, likely causing consumer confusion. The court rejected Mengniu's defense that its packaging used common dairy industry elements—cows, pastures, greenery—and therefore lacked distinctiveness.

In its ruling, the Supreme People's Court provided final clarity on this issue. The court held that while such elements are common in dairy packaging, their combination could still serve to identify the source of goods, and their distinctiveness should not be denied merely because they were commonly used. The court also affirmed that Yili's packaging had acquired "certain influence" through extensive sales and promotion before Mengniu's accused product launch in December 2023.

Separately, Mengniu argued that some individual elements of its packaging were derived from its own prior design patents. The top court rejected this defense, stating that the law protects the "pattern, arrangement, and overall style" of a trade dress, and local elements' sources could not negate a finding of overall similarity.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/eCvD-Wni

Yili SATINE (top) and Mengniu Selected Meadow (bottom) packaging (Source: JD.com)

24/06/2026

China's Top Court Sets New Specialized Commercial Vehicle Industry Patent Damages Record in Zoomlion Environment v. Chengli

The patent infringement dispute between Changsha Zoomlion Environmental Industry Co., Ltd. ("Zoomlion Environment") and Hubei Chengli Special Automobile Co., Ltd. ("Chengli") has reached its final conclusion, with the Supreme People's Court of China delivering a landmark ruling that sets a new compensation record for the specialized commercial vehicle industry.

The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, in its final appellate judgment under docket number (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1253, rejected Chengli's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. Chengli was ordered to pay Zoomlion Environment a total of RMB 24.19 million – comprising RMB 24,004,880 in economic damages and RMB 188,488.6 in reasonable legal expenses. The court also issued a permanent injunction, mandating that Chengli immediately cease the manufacture, sale, and offering for sale of the infringing products.

The RMB 24.19 million award represents a nearly threefold increase over the previous benchmark in the sector – the consolidated RMB 8.4 million judgment in the Sany Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Jiuhe Heavy Industry Machinery Co., Ltd. concrete pump truck case – signaling a robust judicial commitment to bolstering damages for intellectual property rights infringement.

The plaintiff, Changsha Zoomlion Environmental Industry Co., Ltd., was formerly the environmental sanitation division of Zoomlion Heavy Industry. Following an equity transfer completed between 2017 and 2018, it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infore Environment Technology Group Co., Ltd., specializing in sanitation equipment and holding a substantial portfolio of invention patents related to street sweepers and cleaning suction nozzles. The defendant, Hubei Chengli Special Automobile Co., Ltd., established in September 2004, is headquartered in Suizhou, Hubei Province.

The litigation, which commenced in 2024, was accompanied by an aggressive invalidity strategy from Chengli. During the proceedings, Chengli challenged a total of six Zoomlion Environment patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), filing multiple invalidation requests to undermine Zoomlion Environment's legal standing.

The six contested patents are:

Cleaner suction nozzle and cleaner vehicle (ZL201410624124.7)

Suction nozzle assembly and sweeper vehicle (ZL201611239086.9)

Suction pipe dust suppression device for suction-sweeping sweeper vehicles and sweeper vehicle (ZL201210590516.7)

Clean suction nozzle and clean vehicle (ZL201410624335.0)

Cleaning suction nozzle and cleaning vehicle (ZL201410624859.X)

Urban road curb and curbstone cleaning vehicle (ZL200610031818.5)

Photo source: Zoomlion
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/g3P_XCUM

18/06/2026

ROFS Microsystem sues Wuhan MEMSonics over BAW filter patent

ROFS Microsystem (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. said on June 12 it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wuhan MEMSonics New Technologies Co., Ltd. with a Shenzhen court, alleging that the rival's BAW filters infringe its invention patent.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court has accepted the case for docketing, ROFS said in a statement carried on its official WeChat account. The company said the litigation is aimed at safeguarding its lawful rights and warned relevant parties of potential risks associated with using infringing products.

Wuhan MEMSonics responded later on Friday, saying it had not received any court documents and that its products were developed through independent research and development. The company said its filters do not incorporate all the technical features recited in the asserted patent claims and therefore do not constitute infringement.

ROFS, established in September 2011, is one of China's earliest BAW filter developers and operates a dedicated 6-inch production line in the northern city of Tianjin under an IDM model. Wuhan MEMSonics, founded in 2019 by Professor Sun Chengliang of Wuhan University, focuses on high-end radio frequency filters. Both companies are leading players in China's domestic BAW filter sector, which has seen intensifying competition.

The patent at the centre of the dispute, ZL201010267632.6, covers a piezoelectric resonator structure. It was filed in August 2010 by ROFS founders Pang Wei and Zhang Hao and granted in October 2012.

The same patent was at the heart of a high-profile legal battle between ROFS and U.S. chipmaker Broadcom Inc. In 2017, ROFS sued Apple Inc. and its supplier Avago Technologies –now Broadcom – before a Tianjin court, alleging that filter chips used in multiple iPhone models infringed its patent. Avago then filed a counterclaim with the same court seeking ownership of the patent, while Apple challenged the patent's validity before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

The dispute ended on July 3, 2024, when ROFS announced a global settlement with Broadcom. Both sides withdrew all pending lawsuits and entered into a cross-licensing agreement covering certain Chinese patents.

According to records from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the patent was partially invalidated in October 2017, with claims 1 and 2 struck down while claims 3 through 15 were upheld. A preservation order was placed on the patent in March 2024 and lifted in March 2025.

In February 2026, ROFS filed another patent suit based on the same patent with the Shenzhen court, this time against Heyuan Aifo Guangtong Technology Co., Ltd.

Photo source: ROFS Microsystem

For more:
https://lnkd.in/gppkwzJu

16/06/2026

Wins Chinese Ban on GaN Products as Global Patent Battles Fragment

Photo: Innoscience

China's Supreme People's Court ruled on June 12, upholding the preliminary sales injunction previously issued by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court against Infineon Technologies. The Supreme Court rejected all reconsideration requests filed by the German semiconductor manufacturer.

Under the ruling, Infineon is prohibited from selling, offering for sale, or importing specific gallium nitride (GaN) products into China. The decision is final and not subject to further appeal.

China: A Decisive Victory for Innoscience

The Chinese proceedings between the two parties began in early 2025, when InnoScience (Suzhou) Technology Holding Co., Ltd. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Innoscience (Suzhou) Semiconductor Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit with the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court. The defendants included Infineon Technologies (China) Co., Ltd., Infineon Technologies (Wuxi) Co., Ltd., and local distributor Suzhou Chipswork Electronics Technologies Co., Ltd.

Innoscience alleged infringement of two of its invention patents: Chinese Patent No. 202311774650.7 titled "a gallium nitride (GaN) power device and preparation method thereof," and Chinese Patent No. 202211387983.X titled "a nitride-based semiconductor device and method for manufacturing the same." Both patents cover key structural and fabrication technologies for GaN power devices.

Infineon filed invalidation actions against both patents with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). On November 19, 2025, the CNIPA maintained all claims of both patents as valid and rejected Infineon's invalidation requests. Infineon then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which on April 24, 2026, issued a first-instance judgment dismissing Infineon's claims and confirming the validity of the two patents.

On May 27, 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court issued a first-instance judgment finding Infineon liable for infringing both patents. The court ordered Infineon to immediately cease sales, offers for sale, and imports of the infringing products, and awarded Innoscience RMB 10 million in economic damages. The judgment became effective immediately.

Infineon sought reconsideration of the preliminary injunction from the Supreme People's Court. On June 12, 2026, the Supreme People's Court affirmed the Suzhou court's injunction, bringing the Chinese proceedings to a close.

Global Landscape: Mixed Outcomes in the U.S. and Germany

The patent disputes between Innoscience and Infineon extend beyond China, with parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany. To date, each jurisdiction has produced a distinct outcome.

Photo: Innoscience
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/g4QkhSkX

12/06/2026

Jiangsu High Court Reverses Crocs' Trade Dress Win Against Hotwind

Recently, the Jiangsu High People's Court issued a second-instance judgment in the unfair competition dispute between Crocs Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Crocs") and Shanghai Hotwind Fashion Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. and related companies (collectively, "Hotwind"). The appellate court held that the clog trade dress asserted by Crocs does not constitute "well-known trade dress," and that Hotwind's production and sale of the accused clogs do not constitute unfair competition. The court reversed the first-instance judgment rendered by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court and dismissed all of Crocs' claims.

Case Background
Hotwind is a well-known fashion retail chain brand in China, operating over 1,000 stores in 140 cities nationwide and enjoying a strong reputation among Chinese consumers. Crocs is a well-known U.S.-based footwear brand that has launched numerous sandal and slipper products on the market. Hotwind and Crocs have a certain competitive relationship in the clog and sandal business.

In October 2022, Crocs sued Hotwind before the first-instance court, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, alleging that 20 clog products sold by Hotwind through its offline physical stores and e-commerce channels such as Tmall, JD.com, and Douyin were highly similar in appearance to five of Crocs' products including the "Classic Clog," and "Little Whale".

Crocs distilled the trade dress of the accused footwear into three core features: (1) a wide, rounded toe box with an arc-shaped design; (2) uniformly distributed circular holes on the upper; and (3) a movable heel strap at the rear that can be freely moved forward and backward, with a circular button inlaid at the connection point between the strap and the shoe body. Crocs argued that trade dress bearing the above three features possesses the function of distinguishing the source of goods and meets the definition of "well-known trade dress" under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Crocs further contended that Hotwind, as a major competitor in the same industry, not only failed to reasonably design around it but instead engaged in conduct that constituted suspected free-riding on its goodwill by copying its trade dress, thereby amounting to unfair competition.

Crocs requested the court to order Hotwind to cease using packaging or trade dress that is identical or similar to Crocs' well-known product packaging and trade dress, to compensate Crocs for economic losses and reasonable expenses in the amount of RMB 15 million, and to publish corrective statements in China Market Regulation News, Consumption Daily, and on the homepages of Hotwind's e-commerce stores to eliminate any negative impact.

Photo source: Crocs
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gWhKFZ5y

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

China IP

01/07/2026

24/06/2026

18/06/2026

16/06/2026

12/06/2026

10/06/2026

04/06/2026

29/05/2026

22/05/2026

21/05/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share