The Supreme People’s Court Issues "Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Serving and Safeguarding Scientific and Technological Innovation with High-Quality Adjudication"

The Opinions propose 98 policy measures across six key areas: general requirements, strengthening judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation outcomes, protecting innovation entities, safeguarding innovation activities, fostering a legalized and internationalized market environment for scientific and technological innovation, and establishing judicial protection systems and mechanisms. These measures span the three major domains of criminal, civil, and administrative law.

In terms of strengthening judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation outcomes, the Opinions call for improving the standards for adjudicating administrative litigation related to patent authorization and confirmation, while proposing judicial protection rules for innovation outcomes in key areas such as industrial design and trade secrets. Regarding the judicial protection of innovation entities, the Opinions require clarification of judicial adjudication rules for cases involving the ownership of scientific and technological achievements, disputes over technology contracts, the reasonable mobility and normal performance of duties by scientific personnel.

In enhancing the protection of innovation activities, the Opinions emphasize leveraging the effectiveness of preservation systems and preliminary judgments, refining the methods for issuing injunctions to cease infringement, increasing damages for intellectual property infringement, and fully utilizing the deterrent effect of punitive damages. They also call for regulating illegal acts such as sham litigation, malicious litigation, and abuse of litigation rights. In terms of fostering a legalized and internationalized market environment for scientific and technological innovation, the Opinions mandate the lawful regulation of unfair competition and monopolistic practices in the field of scientific and technological innovation, severely punishing market-disrupting behaviors such as platform-enforced "either-or" choices, big data-driven price discrimination, predatory pricing, and forced bundling. 

The Opinions further require adjudicating standard-essential patent infringement and licensing fee disputes based on principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination, taking into account industry characteristics, the nature of standards, and formulation procedures. They also emphasize protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties, ensuring equal status for all market entities, and simplifying the certification requirements for foreign public documents in accordance with the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents.

In improving fair judicial systems and mechanisms, the Opinions call for enhanced coordination with public security organs and procuratorates in intellectual property criminal justice procedures, refining the integration of civil, administrative, and criminal litigation procedures for intellectual property cases, further promoting the coordinated adjudication of patent authorization and confirmation administrative cases with civil infringement cases, and advocating for the development of special procedural laws tailored to the characteristics of intellectual property cases.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Serving and Safeguarding Scientific and Technological Innovation with High-Quality Adjudication provide legal safeguards for scientific and technological innovation on multiple levels, reflecting a strong emphasis on intellectual property protection. Particularly in strengthening judicial protection for innovation outcomes and entities, the clarification of adjudication standards for patent authorization and confirmation, as well as the protection of scientific personnel’s rights, contributes to creating a more favorable innovation environment. Furthermore, by regulating unfair competition, reinforcing punitive damages, and combating sham litigation, the Opinions demonstrate robust judicial support for scientific and technological innovation.

The State Administration for Market Regulation and the National Intellectual Property Administration Jointly Issue "Provisions on Case Causes for Intellectual Property Cases in the Field of Market Regulation (Trial)"

The Provisions categorize case causes for intellectual property cases in the field of market regulation into ten types, including "General Trademark Use," "Trademark Infringement," and "Trademark Application Agency," while specifying the corresponding specific case causes for each type.

Regarding the format of case cause names, the Provisions require that each type of case cause be structured with "Level 1 Cause, Level 2 Cause, and Level 3 Cause," with lower-level causes serving as refinements of higher-level ones. When determining a case cause, the principle of progressive hierarchy should be followed, prioritizing the application of Level 3 causes from bottom to top; if no corresponding lower-level cause applies, the higher-level cause should be used. In cases where a lower-level cause is applicable, the higher-level cause should not be directly applied. For situations involving multiple illegal acts within a single case, different case causes may be applied concurrently; for multiple illegal acts of differing natures, case causes from different levels may also be applied concurrently.

ZLWD Commentary：

The issuance of the Provisions on Case Causes for Intellectual Property Cases in the Field of Market Regulation (Trial) clarifies the classification and application principles for intellectual property cases in market regulation, significantly enhancing the standardization and transparency of case handling. By refining the hierarchy of case causes and specifying application rules, it aids courts and relevant authorities in more precisely defining the nature of cases, reducing uncertainty in adjudication. Additionally, the principle of concurrent application for cases involving multiple illegal acts reflects the law’s flexibility and adaptability to complex cases, improving the meticulousness of case handling.

Provincial Court Issues Fifteen Judicial Measures to Strengthen Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Chinese Medicine

Recently, the Provincial Court issued the Fifteen Judicial Measures of Courts Across the Province to Strengthen Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Chinese Medicine, requiring courts throughout the province to fully leverage their adjudication functions, enhance judicial protection of intellectual property in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and promote the creative transformation and innovative development of TCM. These measures include:

1· Strengthening patent protection related to TCM;

2· Enhancing protection of commercial identifiers related to TCM;

3· Protecting resources of Chinese medicinal materials;

4· Strengthening copyright protection related to TCM;

5· Enhancing protection of trade secrets and state secrets related to TCM;

6· Strengthening protection of TCM varieties;

7· Safeguarding the rights and interests of holders of traditional TCM knowledge;

8· Maintaining fair competition order in the TCM market;

9· Properly handling technology contract disputes involving TCM intellectual property;

10· Properly resolving disputes over the ownership of TCM achievements;

11· Increasing penalties for acts infringing TCM intellectual property;

12· Improving mechanisms for ascertaining technical facts in TCM-related cases;

13· Strengthening collaborative protection of TCM intellectual property;

14· Actively fostering a legal atmosphere for TCM intellectual property protection;

15· Supporting and safeguarding the international development of TCM.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Fifteen Judicial Measures of Courts Across the Province to Strengthen Intellectual Property Protection for Traditional Chinese Medicine provide a comprehensive and specific framework for protecting intellectual property in the TCM sector, reflecting legal support for the innovative development of this traditional medical industry. By reinforcing protections in areas such as patents, copyrights, and commercial identifiers, these measures not only effectively prevent misappropriation and infringement but also encourage the innovative transformation and market application of TCM. 

Additionally, enhancing the handling of technology contract disputes and ownership disputes over TCM achievements contributes to improving the legal environment for the TCM industry.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office Announces New Artificial Intelligence Strategy

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a new artificial intelligence (AI) strategy to guide the USPTO in harnessing AI’s potential within its operations and the broader intellectual property ecosystem. The strategy focuses on five key areas:

1· Advancing intellectual property policy development to promote inclusive AI innovation and creativity;

2· Building top-tier AI capabilities through investments in computing infrastructure, data resources, and business-driven product development;

3· Responsibly utilizing AI within the USPTO;

4· Cultivating AI expertise within the USPTO workforce;

5· Collaborating with other U.S. government agencies, international partners, and the public on shared AI priorities.

ZLWD Commentary：

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s new artificial intelligence strategy demonstrates its profound foresight into future technological development. By promoting inclusive policy development and innovation, the USPTO aims to lay a foundation for intellectual property protection in the AI domain, potentially enhancing the efficiency and transparency of the entire intellectual property ecosystem. 

Investments in computing infrastructure and workforce training, in particular, provide robust support for innovation in the AI sector. However, a key challenge in implementing this strategy will be balancing the reasonable regulation and utilization of AI while ensuring data privacy and security. Collaboration across government agencies and with international partners will also be critical to enhancing the strategy’s effectiveness and global competitiveness.

The National Intellectual Property Administration Announces the Adoption of the Twelfth Edition 2025 Text of the Nice Classification

In accordance with the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), member states of the Nice Union will officially adopt the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification), Twelfth Edition 2025 text, starting January 1, 2025. 

Trademark registration applications filed on or after January 1, 2025, will apply the new version of the Nice Classification for categorizing goods and services, while applications filed before this date will adhere to the previous version. Based on the Nice Classification, the Trademark Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration has made corresponding adjustments to the Table of Similar Goods and Services, with the revised content of the Nice Classification and the Table of Similar Goods and Services published on December 26, 2024.

ZLWD Commentary：

The decision by the National Intellectual Property Administration to adopt the Twelfth Edition 2025 text of the Nice Classification marks a further step toward the global standardization and refinement of the trademark registration system. The updated Nice Classification introduces more precise adjustments to the categorization of goods and services, providing a clearer framework for trademark applications and reviews, and aligning China’s trademark protection system with international standards. This change not only enhances the transparency of intellectual property protection but also offers more explicit guidance for multinational companies registering trademarks in China.

The National Development and Reform Commission and Other Departments Issue "Guiding Opinions on Promoting the High-Quality Development of the Data Industry"

To implement the decisions and deployments of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council and promote the high-quality development of the data industry, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the National Data Administration, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, the Financial Regulatory Authority, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission jointly issued the Guiding Opinions on Promoting the High-Quality Development of the Data Industry (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions).

Guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the Opinions comprehensively implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the Second and Third Plenary Sessions of the 20th Central Committee, fully and accurately adhering to the new development philosophy.

Balancing development and security, the Opinions address data collection and aggregation, computing and storage, circulation and trading, development and utilization, security governance, and data infrastructure construction. They outline a series of policy measures across eight areas: enhancing the planning and layout of the data industry, fostering diverse business entities, accelerating data technology innovation, improving the development and utilization of data resources, promoting data circulation and trading, strengthening infrastructure support, enhancing dynamic security capabilities in the data sector, and optimizing the industry development environment.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Guiding Opinions on Promoting the High-Quality Development of the Data Industry establish a comprehensive and specific policy framework for the long-term development of the data industry, reflecting the state’s strong emphasis on the data economy and digital transformation. Through deployments in planning, technological innovation, and security governance, the Opinions provide robust policy support for the healthy and orderly development of the data industry. Notably, the focus on enhancing data circulation and trading, as well as infrastructure development, can drive the optimization and upgrading of the industrial ecosystem.

The State Administration for Market Regulation Releases Seven Typical Cases of Online Unfair Competition

On December 30, 2024, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) released seven typical cases of online unfair competition to further clarify behavioral norms for online competition, delineate baseline rules, effectively guide business entities to operate in accordance with laws and regulations, continuously standardize their own business practices, and collectively foster a healthy competitive ecosystem.

Among these cases, one involves interference with the normal operation of services, two involve commercial defamation, two involve commercial confusion, and three involve false advertising (one of which also involves trade secrets).

ZLWD Commentary：

The seven typical cases of online unfair competition released by the State Administration for Market Regulation reflect the government’s heightened focus on maintaining order in online competition. By cracking down on unfair practices such as interference with service operations, commercial defamation, and false advertising, these cases further clarify the behavioral norms for enterprises on online platforms, demonstrating the law’s robust support for compliant business operations. 

Particularly, the handling of cases involving false advertising and trade secrets not only enhances public awareness of online integrity but also contributes to building a fair competitive environment. 

The public disclosure of these typical cases is expected to serve as a deterrent, encouraging more enterprises to strengthen self-discipline and avoid engaging in illegal activities.