This blog reviews Zhao Ye’s report on trade secret adjudication by the SPC IP Tribunal. Based on 11 published cases from 2025, the report highlights a sharp increase in damages, systematic reversal of lower court decisions, expanded use of burden-shifting, and stronger sanctions for evidence spoliation. In my view, these decisions also function as a form of strategic signaling, indicating a more rights-protective orientation in judicial practice. However, they do not yet constitute binding, system-wide legal change, which would require further judicial interpretations or formal designation as guiding cases. The emerging judicial trends may make Chinese civil courts a more viable forum for trade secret enforcement.
Regifting, Signaling, and Implementation: Comparing China’s IP Commitments Across the 2026 NTE, Phase One, and the 2016 JCCT
The recently released 2026 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (March 31, 2026) (the “NTE”) provides a useful opportunity to reassess U.S.–China intellectual property negotiations, particularly the Phase One Trade […]
Reading the SPC IP Court’s 2025 Annual Report: Data, Composition, and Reporting Structure
This post examines the SPC IP Court’s 2025 Annual Report by focusing on underlying data, case composition, and reporting structure rather than headline claims. It shows that foreign participation is concentrated in administrative appeals, that punitive damages and trade secret cases remain a small share of the docket, and that plant variety protection is receiving increased attention. The post argues that careful attention to denominators, omissions, and how data are presented is necessary to understand what the report actually shows.
Post-Filing Data in Chinese Pharma Patents: Why It Took So Long — and What Finally Worked
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) upheld a decision of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversing a China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) invalidation decision and confirming the validity of Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide compound patent. Although the final written decision has not yet been publicly released, official summaries indicate that the court accepted post-filing experimental data where “the technical effect can be derived from the original specification” (技术效果可由原说明书得出), reversing an administrative invalidation decision. Public reporting further indicates that the dispute turned on whether CNIPA would accept post-filing experimental data demonstrating semaglutide’s surprising pharmacokinetic effects in animal models, where the application as filed contained no experimental data.
Explore Shifting IP Landscapes at Upcoming Conferences
Mark Cohen’s spring lecture agenda focuses on new developments in US-China IP relations, developments under Donald Trump, and practical aspects of licensing to or from China.
Navigating Innovation: How the Presidential Candidates Address Technology, IP, and the China Challenge
This article examines the candidates’ positions and accomplishments in four key areas implicating technological competition: derisking, negotiating, and advancing new trade policies, reorganizing government structures to promote competitiveness, and developing policies to address new technology issues. On the surface, the differences in approaches appear to focus primarily on matters of degree. Both parties support such tools as continued tariffs against Chinese imports, use of export controls and other trade sanctions, and enhanced efforts to “de-link” or “de-risk” from dependency on Chinese imports. Nonetheless, candidates Trump and Harris have sparred over the extent and impact of the tariffs, and the track records and rhetoric of the candidates suggest more differences than may initially be evident.
EU Files Request for Consultations on Chinese Judicial SEP Practices
On February 18, 2022, the EU filed a request for consultations at the WTO regarding China’s SEP practices as well as China’s failure to respond to the prior Article 63 transparency request […]
USTR, IP and US-China Trade
On October 4 2021, USTR Katherine Tai delivered her much-awaited speech at CSIS outlining US-China trade policy under the Biden Administration. The speech summarizes her “top to bottom” review of US-China trade policy. Sadly, it was one of the most IP-free speeches that we have heard from USTR on China trade policies. USTR Tai mentioned intellectual property only once when she briefly talked about the Phase 1 Agreement. An Administration orientation towards increasing market access for grains and goods, but not protection and commercialization of intangible rights, could have long-term adverse consequences.
Synthesizing Developments on Linkage from the July 15 Berkeley Program
China’s new patent linkage regime involves parallel civil and administrative enforcement mechanisms. Innovative pharmaceutical companies should prepare for the possibility of generic challengers and determine which mechanism will best suit their purposes. Biologics are not protected under this new regime.
What the 301 Report Says About Future Relations on IP with China
USTR released its Special 301 Report (the “Report”) on April 30, 2021. The China except is attached here. The Report addresses a wider range of IP issues than in many prior years. […]
China IPR - Intellectual Property Developments in China 