 Introduction
In a landmark development that continues to shape the global discussion around intellectual property rights in creative works generated by artificial intelligence (AI), a Chinese court has once again recognized the existence of copyright in AI-generated images. This decision follows earlier precedents set in China, illustrating an evolving legal landscape where new technologies challenge traditional definitions of creativity and authorship. See the opinion in Chinese. As AI innovations grow more sophisticated by the day, the question of whether AI-generated works enjoy the same protections as human-created works has come under increased scrutiny worldwide. In jurisdictions as diverse as the United States, the European Union, and China, legislators and courts are grappling with novel questions: Who is the “author” of a work created with the assistance of AI? Can the output of an AI system truly be deemed copyrightable, and if so, which entity holds that right? China, in particular, has taken a forward-leaning stance in resolving these issues. This most recent ruling reaffirms that AI-generated images can indeed be protected under Chinese copyright law. With this judicial stance, we see more clarity for content creators, technology firms, and end users working in the AI sphere. Yet, it also raises new legal questions concerning liability, ownership, and the rights to exploit or distribute such AI-generated works. This blog post provides an in-depth look at the latest decision, putting it into context with previous rulings, relevant Chinese copyright laws, and global perspectives. Whether you are a professional in the intellectual property sector, a developer of AI-driven creative tools, or simply curious about where the creative industries are headed, this comprehensive overview aims to offer a clear sense of the current legal environment in China—and what it might portend for the rest of the world. 1. Setting the Scene: AI’s Transformative Role in Creative IndustriesAI has made remarkable inroads into almost every imaginable field, from healthcare diagnostics to finance, logistics, and beyond. Perhaps nowhere is this transformative power more visible than in the creative industries. Novel algorithms and applications can now produce paintings, generate entire musical compositions, write news articles, and design logos—often with minimal human intervention. In the realm of images and visual art, AI-driven programs such as DALL·E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and others can generate strikingly original outputs when provided with text prompts or user-uploaded images. These creations can range from stylized portraits to fantastical landscapes and everything in between. They can mimic famous painters, produce photorealistic landscapes, or invent entirely new artistic styles. The speed and efficiency of these systems are staggering, and the results often prompt viewers to question the nature of art and creativity. While AI’s capabilities seem to expand at an exponential rate, the accompanying legal framework has, in most parts of the world, struggled to keep pace. Traditional copyright legislation, which often enshrines a human-centric concept of authorship, is challenged by software capable of autonomously producing creative works. That makes the recent Chinese court rulings on AI-generated images extremely significant: they demonstrate a willingness to fit AI outputs into a familiar legal framework—under certain conditions—even while acknowledging the novelty of their origin. 2. A Brief Recap of Previous Chinese Court Decisions on AI CopyrightBefore delving into the most recent ruling, it helps to reflect on earlier decisions in China addressing similar issues. A notable case involved AI-generated media. In that instance, a Chinese court recognized that the piece met the threshold of originality required by law, implying that works generated by AI could indeed be legally protected if they demonstrated originality and creativity akin to human-derived material. Critically, Chinese courts have often evaluated AI-generated works by looking at the human input or control exercised over the AI. While the AI might do most of the “heavy lifting,” the court generally investigates whether there was substantial human involvement—either in designing the algorithm, providing prompts, selecting outputs, or making creative decisions that shape the final result. Such an assessment suggests that the mere use of an AI platform alone does not guarantee copyright protection; there must be some meaningful input or oversight from a human or a legal entity that can be attributed as the author or rights holder. These earlier rulings sparked considerable debate among legal practitioners, academics, and creative communities. Some saw them as a bold step into the future, ensuring that machine-driven creativity is not left in a legal vacuum. Others worried that overly broad recognition of AI-generated copyrights could stifle creativity, hamper fair use, or complicate intellectual property licensing models. Nonetheless, each new court decision provides valuable data points, shaping the conversation in law, technology, and business circles. 3. The Most Recent Case: Key DetailsThis latest ruling confirms copyright protection for AI-generated images. While the specific case details remain partially confidential, several critical aspects are known:
The outcome reinforces the principle that China is prepared to grant legal protection to AI-generated works, as long as they meet established criteria under the country’s copyright law. The decision also underscores the importance of carefully documenting creative input and building robust contract structures between AI tool providers, end users, and any clients who might license the final works. 4. Understanding the Chinese Legal Framework for CopyrightIn China, the statutory basis for copyright law resides in the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, recently updated in 2021. The law protects “works of literature, art, and science that are original intellectual achievements and can be reproduced in tangible forms.” Typically, a work must exhibit:
Chinese jurisprudence has interpreted “originality” to reflect a work that is created independently and is distinguishable from other existing works. Although the law does not explicitly define “human authorship,” historically, the assumption was that only human creators can have copyright. The recent cases addressing AI outputs reframe this assumption by linking authorship or ownership rights to those who guide or operate the AI, or those who set the creative parameters. Moreover, China’s legal system grants substantial judicial latitude when deciding specific infringement cases. Courts can assess evidence of how much human direction shaped the AI’s output and whether the final result demonstrates sufficient creative “spark.” This approach preserves the ability of judges to recognize new forms of technology-driven creativity without waiting for legislative amendments—though legislative clarity in future revisions of the copyright law remains a possibility. 5. The Contested Terrain: Key Arguments from Proponents and CriticsNo discussion about AI-authored works is complete without acknowledging the spectrum of viewpoints. Opinions regarding the propriety of granting copyright to AI-generated images vary widely, and many participants—from technology companies to creative professionals, legal scholars, and policymakers—advance compelling arguments. Proponents of AI copyright point out that:
Critics of granting AI-generated works standard copyright protection raise the following issues:
Nonetheless, in the most recent Chinese ruling, the court appeared to side with those who believe AI-generated images do merit protection—under certain conditions that likely involve demonstrable human involvement. This decision suggests that China is pivoting toward a broader, technology-accommodating interpretation of copyright law. 6. Global Perspective: How Other Jurisdictions CompareChina is not the only nation grappling with AI authorship questions. In the United States, for instance, the Copyright Office has refused to register certain AI-generated works that lack evidence of human authorship. However, a recent swirl of registration attempts for AI-assisted comics, paintings, and even music has caused the office to refine its guidance. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that while purely machine-generated images are not copyrightable, images or works produced through “significant creative input and guidance from a human” may be eligible. The European Union, on the other hand, is in the process of updating its AI regulatory framework under the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act. Although this legislation is primarily geared toward addressing safety, accountability, and transparency concerns, it may eventually impact copyright rules for AI-generated works. Various EU member states have weighed in on the subject, with some experts advocating for a new category of “computer-generated works,” as exists in certain jurisdictions like the United Kingdom. In the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 includes a unique provision whereby, for computer-generated works “with no human author,” the copyright is attributed to the entity that made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. This approach is both heralded for its foresight and criticized for its ambiguity, because it does not fully clarify what “arrangements necessary” entails in the era of modern deep learning algorithms. China’s approach, then, aligns partially with these global trends—acknowledging that AI-driven creativity warrants protection if a human or legal entity can demonstrate that the result stems from meaningful creative input and oversight. Nonetheless, China’s judicial stance appears comparatively progressive in affirming that AI-generated images squarely fall under copyright’s umbrella, as opposed to categorically excluding them. 7. Practical Implications for Companies and CreatorsThis series of decisions from Chinese courts, culminating most recently in another affirmation of copyrightability, sends an important message to businesses and creators operating in China or distributing content there. Several key takeaways emerge:
Taken together, these implications confirm that the Chinese market may be one of the more welcoming environments for businesses seeking to capitalize on AI-driven creativity. Yet a best-practice approach remains: maintain thorough documentation, define ownership clearly, and be prepared to adjust strategies for other markets with different rules. 8. Emerging Legal Questions and ChallengesWhile the court’s ruling offers a measure of clarity, it also raises fresh questions likely to be addressed in future cases or perhaps in legislative reforms:
These questions highlight the fast-evolving nature of the field. As AI tools grow more powerful, creative, and autonomous, the need for legal clarity becomes even more pressing. One can expect further refinement of the law through either statutory revision or continued litigation. 9. Strategic Considerations for AI and Creative ProfessionalsFor professionals working at the intersection of AI and creativity—be it in art, design, marketing, or related fields—here are some practical strategic considerations in light of this new ruling:
10. Potential Future DevelopmentsWhere does China’s recognition of AI-generated copyrights lead us next? A few scenarios are worth pondering:
11. Beyond Copyright: Other Legal Realms Impacted by AIIt is also instructive to note that copyright is merely one slice of the intellectual property pie influenced by the proliferation of AI-generated works. Patent law, for instance, faces similar questions regarding whether an AI system can be listed as an inventor. Trademark law could be another flashpoint, especially when AI-generated logos or brand elements are disputed. Trade secret law, data privacy regulations, and product liability statutes may all be implicated as well, especially when data training sets contain proprietary or sensitive information. In short, the legal ramifications of AI are vast, and the recognition of copyright in AI-generated images is just one piece of a rapidly evolving tapestry. This new ruling is an important puzzle piece that helps us understand how courts in major global jurisdictions are approaching the challenges of the AI revolution. 12. Conclusion: A Forward-Looking PerspectiveThe latest ruling from a Chinese court reiterating that AI-generated images can be eligible for copyright underscores how rapidly laws are adapting to emerging technologies. This decision not only affects China’s booming technology and creative industries but also resonates on the international stage. It offers guidance to innovators seeking to develop or leverage AI-driven content while simultaneously raising questions about how best to uphold the foundational principles of copyright law in the face of transformative new tools. For companies aiming to monetize AI art, the decision provides reassurance that Chinese courts may protect their interests against unauthorized uses. For artists and designers concerned about the potential overshadowing of human creativity, it signals the need for constructive engagement: ensuring that the legal system and market dynamics do not deprive human artists of rightful recognition, compensation, or audience. All said, the Chinese court’s willingness to recognize AI-generated images as copyrightable shows an openness to technology and adaptability in the legal landscape. It paves the way for further conversations about how we define originality, authorship, and creativity. Given the breakneck speed of AI advancements, one can anticipate more legal challenges, more refined judgments, and possibly legislative reforms. All stakeholders—tech companies, legal professionals, lawmakers, academics, and artists—will do well to keep a watchful eye on these developments. As AI continues to evolve, the core question remains: How can the law encourage technological progress while safeguarding the human element at the heart of creativity and expression? The Chinese court’s ruling is an important piece of the puzzle, but it is far from the final word. In the years to come, we can expect ongoing discourse, litigation, and potentially sweeping legal reforms that aim to balance these competing goals. For now, the affirmation of copyright in AI-generated images stands as a milestone, reminding us that the concept of authorship is not static, and that the creative process is ever-changing in a world driven by innovation. Introduction: The Chinese Patent Litigation Landscape
Recent Developments in Chinese Patent Litigation: Key Cases and Analysis (2024)Introduction: The Chinese Patent Litigation LandscapeChina has transformed into one of the world's preeminent forums for patent litigation, with its specialized intellectual property courts handling thousands of cases annually. The Chinese patent system, while relatively young compared to Western systems, has evolved rapidly since major reforms began in the early 2000s. Today, China's intellectual property regime is governed primarily by the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, which underwent its fourth major amendment in 2020, with implementation continuing to develop through 2024. The Chinese patent litigation system operates through a specialized court structure. The Supreme People's Court (SPC) sits at the apex, with exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in technically complex patent cases. Below this are specialized Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Hainan, alongside IP Tribunals in 21 intermediate courts across the country. This structure reflects China's commitment to developing specialized expertise in handling complex technological disputes. For foreign entities, the Chinese patent litigation landscape presents unique opportunities. China's market size alone makes it an essential jurisdiction for global IP enforcement strategies. The country's manufacturing capabilities mean that effective enforcement in China can prevent infringing products from entering global supply chains. Moreover, Chinese courts have several distinct advantages:
1. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Date: January 29, 2024 Court: Supreme People's Court Case Number: (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1213 Background: This high-profile case involved Huawei's standard-essential patents (SEPs) relating to 5G telecommunication technologies. Huawei alleged that Samsung implemented these patented technologies in their smartphones and telecommunications equipment without proper licensing. The case originated in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in 2022 and reached the Supreme People's Court on appeal in late 2023, with the final decision delivered in January 2024. Holding: The Supreme People's Court upheld the lower court's finding of infringement, determining that Samsung had failed to negotiate FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) terms in good faith. The Court ordered Samsung to pay damages of RMB 560 million (approximately USD 78 million) and granted a conditional injunction requiring Samsung to either reach a licensing agreement with Huawei within six months or face a prohibition on selling the infringing products in China. Importance and Future Influence: This landmark decision reinforces China's position on SEP enforcement and FRAND negotiations. The SPC articulated detailed standards for evaluating good faith in FRAND negotiations, establishing that both implementers and patent holders have reciprocal obligations to negotiate reasonably. The Court's approach to determining FRAND royalty rates using a top-down methodology (starting with an aggregate royalty burden for the entire standard and apportioning based on patent contribution) provides important guidance for future cases. The conditional injunction mechanism employed by the Court represents a balanced approach to the tensions between patent rights and market access, creating strong incentives for parties to reach licensing agreements while avoiding immediate market disruption. This case will likely serve as a template for future SEP disputes in China, particularly in the telecommunications sector. 2. AstraZeneca AB v. Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. Date: March 15, 2024 Court: Beijing Intellectual Property Court Case Number: (2023) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 1492 Background: This pharmaceutical patent dispute concerned AstraZeneca's cancer drug Tagrisso (osimertinib), which targets specific mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Hansoh had filed for regulatory approval of a generic version of osimertinib before the expiration of AstraZeneca's compound patent. AstraZeneca sued for patent infringement, while Hansoh counterclaimed for invalidation of the patent based on alleged lack of inventiveness. Holding: The Beijing IP Court rejected Hansoh's invalidation claims, finding AstraZeneca's patent valid and enforceable. The Court determined that Hansoh's generic version would infringe the patent and issued a permanent injunction preventing Hansoh from manufacturing, selling, or offering to sell its generic product until patent expiration. The Court awarded damages of RMB 75 million (approximately USD 10.5 million) based on a reasonable royalty calculation. Importance and Future Influence: This case demonstrates China's strengthening protection for pharmaceutical innovations. The Court's detailed technical analysis of the inventive step involved in osimertinib's development sets an important precedent for evaluating pharmaceutical patents, particularly for compounds that represent incremental but clinically significant improvements over prior art. The decision also reinforces the trend toward higher damages in Chinese patent cases, moving away from statutory minimums toward more market-based calculations. For the pharmaceutical industry, this case signals that Chinese courts will provide robust protection for innovative drugs, potentially encouraging more foreign pharmaceutical companies to invest in the Chinese market and enforce their patent rights there. 3. Qualcomm Incorporated v. OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd. Date: April 23, 2024 Court: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court Case Number: (2023) Yue 73 Min Chu No. 2831 Background: This case involved non-standard-essential patents related to smartphone camera technology, specifically image stabilization and processing algorithms. Qualcomm alleged that OPPO implemented these technologies in their flagship smartphones without licensing. Unlike the Huawei v. Samsung case, these patents were not subject to FRAND licensing obligations. Holding: The Guangzhou IP Court found in favor of Qualcomm, concluding that OPPO had infringed two of the four patents at issue. The Court rejected OPPO's arguments that Qualcomm's previous licensing discussions with OPPO covering other patents should have included these patents as well. The Court ordered OPPO to pay damages of RMB 120 million (approximately USD 16.8 million) and issued an injunction against the infringing products. Importance and Future Influence: This case highlights the distinction between SEP and non-SEP enforcement in China. While SEP cases involve complex FRAND considerations, non-SEP cases can result in straightforward injunctions and substantial damages. The Court's willingness to issue an injunction against popular consumer products from a major Chinese manufacturer demonstrates the increasingly neutral stance of Chinese courts, regardless of the nationality of the litigants. The case also illustrates the sophisticated technical analysis now routinely performed by Chinese IP courts, with the judgment including detailed comparisons of the accused functionality against the patent claims, supported by the findings of technical investigation officers. This technical rigor enhances the credibility of Chinese patent adjudication on the global stage. 4. Siemens AG v. Shanghai Electric Group Company Limited Date: May 30, 2024 Court: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court Case Number: (2023) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 1658 Background: This industrial patent dispute involved Siemens' patents on gas turbine technology, specifically related to cooling systems for high-efficiency power generation. Siemens alleged that Shanghai Electric had copied these patented technologies in their latest generation of gas turbines. The case was complicated by Shanghai Electric's assertion that they had independently developed similar solutions and by national security interests related to energy infrastructure. Holding: The Shanghai IP Court found partial infringement, determining that two of Siemens' three asserted patents were valid and infringed. The Court rejected Shanghai Electric's independent development defense, finding sufficient evidence of access to Siemens' patented technology through previous collaborations. However, rather than granting Siemens' requested injunction, the Court ordered a compulsory license with reasonable royalties, citing national energy security concerns. The Court awarded damages of RMB 150 million (approximately USD 21 million) for past infringement. Importance and Future Influence: This case illustrates the balance Chinese courts are striking between IP protection and national strategic interests. The compulsory license solution—relatively rare in Chinese patent litigation—represents a nuanced approach to cases involving critical infrastructure or technologies. This approach may become more common in sectors designated as strategically important under China's industrial policies. The substantial damages award, despite the denial of injunctive relief, signals that Chinese courts are committed to ensuring adequate compensation for patent holders even when other remedies are limited by public interest considerations. For foreign companies operating in sensitive sectors, this case provides important insights into how their intellectual property rights may be balanced against Chinese national interests. 5. Nippon Steel Corporation v. Baosteel Group Corporation Date: July 12, 2024 Court: Supreme People's Court Case Number: (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 582 Background: This case involved advanced steel manufacturing patents, specifically hot-stamping technology for high-strength automotive steel. Nippon Steel had originally filed in the Shanghai IP Court, alleging that Baosteel had infringed patents related to the composition and manufacturing process of certain advanced steel products. After mixed results at the first instance (with findings of infringement on some claims but not others), both parties appealed to the Supreme People's Court. Holding: The Supreme People's Court largely affirmed the lower court's findings but modified the remedies. The SPC found infringement of all asserted patent claims, overturning the lower court's partial non-infringement finding. However, the SPC reduced the damages award from RMB 320 million to RMB 280 million (approximately USD 39.2 million), finding that the lower court had not properly accounted for certain non-infringing alternatives in its lost profits calculation. The SPC maintained the injunction against Baosteel's infringing products but provided a six-month transition period to prevent disruption to automotive supply chains. Importance and Future Influence: This case demonstrates the SPC's increasingly sophisticated approach to damages calculations in patent cases, moving toward more economically sound methodologies that consider market alternatives and supply chain impacts. The modification of the injunction to include a transition period reflects growing awareness of the broader economic consequences of patent remedies, particularly in industrial sectors with complex supply chains. The case also highlights the specialized technical expertise being developed within China's IP judiciary, with the SPC conducting its own detailed analysis of metallurgical processes rather than simply deferring to the lower court's technical findings. This technical confidence at the highest judicial level reinforces the credibility of Chinese patent adjudication in complex technological fields. 6. ByteDance Ltd. v. Tencent Holdings Ltd. Date: August 25, 2024 Court: Beijing Intellectual Property Court Case Number: (2024) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 763 Background: This software patent dispute between two Chinese tech giants concerned recommendation algorithm technology used in social media platforms. ByteDance alleged that Tencent's recommendation systems used in its WeChat and QQ platforms infringed ByteDance's patents covering content recommendation methods based on user behavior analysis and machine learning. The case attracted significant attention due to the competitive dynamics between these major players in China's internet ecosystem. Holding: The Beijing IP Court found that Tencent had infringed ByteDance's patents and ordered Tencent to pay damages of RMB 500 million (approximately USD 70 million)—one of the largest patent damages awards in Chinese history. The Court rejected Tencent's invalidity arguments based on prior art and rejected the argument that the patents covered abstract algorithms rather than practical applications. Notably, the Court declined to issue an injunction, instead establishing a forward-looking royalty framework for Tencent's continued use of the technology. Importance and Future Influence: This case sets important precedents for software and algorithm patents in China, an area where protection has historically been more limited than in other technological fields. The Court's analysis of the patentability of algorithm-based inventions provides valuable guidance for the growing number of AI and machine learning patent applications being filed in China. The decision to implement a royalty framework rather than an injunction represents an evolution in Chinese courts' approach to remedies, particularly in cases where an injunction could negatively impact large numbers of users or ecosystem participants. This more flexible approach to remedies may become more common in digital technology cases, balancing innovation incentives against market disruption. 7. Nokia Corporation v. Xiaomi Inc. Date: September 18, 2024 Court: Wuhan Intellectual Property Tribunal Case Number: (2024) E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 825 Background: This multi-patent case involved Nokia's wireless communication patents implemented in Xiaomi's smartphones. The case was notable for its jurisdictional complexity, with parallel proceedings in multiple countries including Germany, India, and the United States. Xiaomi had previously secured an anti-suit injunction from the Wuhan court in 2023, temporarily preventing Nokia from enforcing an injunction granted by a German court. The substantive infringement case was then heard by the Wuhan IP Tribunal. Holding: The Wuhan IP Tribunal found that Xiaomi had infringed three of Nokia's patents relating to video encoding and wireless transmission technologies. The Tribunal ordered Xiaomi to pay damages of RMB 110 million (approximately USD 15.4 million) and established global FRAND licensing terms for Nokia's entire portfolio, setting a global royalty rate of 0.8% per device. Notably, the Tribunal claimed jurisdiction to set this global rate based on China's significance in the global smartphone supply chain and manufacturing ecosystem. Importance and Future Influence: This case solidifies Chinese courts' willingness to set global FRAND rates in telecommunications patent disputes, positioning China as a potential alternative to traditional venues like the United States and United Kingdom for global patent licensing disputes. The Wuhan court's assertion of jurisdiction to establish worldwide licensing terms represents a significant development in the international patent landscape. The decision also illustrates the complex interplay between anti-suit injunctions and substantive patent rulings in multi-jurisdictional disputes. As more patent cases involve parallel proceedings across multiple countries, the ability of Chinese courts to affect global licensing through both procedural mechanisms (like anti-suit injunctions) and substantive rate-setting will make China an increasingly important forum for international patent strategy. 8. Microsoft Corporation v. Jinshan Software Co., Ltd. (Kingsoft) Date: October 5, 2024 Court: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court Case Number: (2024) Hu 73 Min Chu No. 1032 Background: This case involved patents related to cloud document editing and collaboration technology. Microsoft alleged that Kingsoft's WPS Office online collaboration features infringed patents covering Microsoft's Office 365 collaboration functionality. The case was particularly notable because it involved two major office productivity suites, with WPS being the dominant office software in many Chinese government and state-owned enterprise environments. Holding: The Shanghai IP Court found that Kingsoft had infringed Microsoft's patents but declined to issue the requested injunction, citing potential disruption to government operations and data security concerns. Instead, the Court ordered Kingsoft to pay damages of RMB 200 million (approximately USD 28 million) and to work with Microsoft to implement technical workarounds within one year while paying ongoing royalties during the transition period. Importance and Future Influence: This case highlights the evolving approach to injunctive relief in Chinese patent litigation, particularly when national interests or public sector operations are implicated. The Court's solution—substantial damages coupled with a mandated technical redesign and transitional royalties—represents a sophisticated approach to balancing intellectual property rights against practical concerns. The decision also demonstrates China's nuanced approach to foreign intellectual property rights in strategically important sectors. Rather than simply denying relief to the foreign patentee or invalidating the patents, the Court crafted a solution that acknowledged the legitimacy of Microsoft's patents while ensuring continuity for Chinese users. This balanced approach may serve as a model for disputes involving other technologies where China has strategic domestic alternatives. Conclusion: The Evolution of Chinese Patent LitigationThe cases analyzed above reveal several important trends in Chinese patent litigation that are likely to continue developing through 2025 and beyond: 1. Increasingly sophisticated remedial frameworks Chinese courts are moving beyond binary infringement/non-infringement determinations with simple injunctions, developing more nuanced remedial frameworks that balance patent rights against market realities, supply chain considerations, and public interests. Conditional injunctions, compulsory licenses, transition periods, and forward-looking royalty frameworks all represent a maturation of the Chinese patent system. 2. Rising damages awards The substantial damages awarded in recent cases reflect China's commitment to providing meaningful compensation to patent holders. This shift away from historically low damages not only enhances the attractiveness of Chinese venues for patent enforcement but also strengthens deterrence against infringement. The incorporation of punitive damages (up to five times compensatory damages) for willful infringement further reinforces this trend. 3. Technical rigor and expertise The detailed technical analyses evident in recent decisions demonstrate the growing expertise within China's specialized IP courts and tribunals. The use of technical investigation officers, who bring subject-matter expertise to the judicial process, has enhanced courts' ability to handle complex technological disputes across diverse industries. This technical competence is essential for maintaining confidence in the system, particularly for foreign litigants. 4. Global impact and jurisdictional reach Chinese courts are increasingly willing to issue rulings with global implications, particularly in FRAND licensing disputes. This assertion of jurisdiction to establish worldwide licensing terms positions China alongside the United States and United Kingdom as key forums for resolving global patent disputes. For multinational companies, this development necessitates incorporating Chinese litigation into global patent strategies. 5. Balanced treatment of domestic and foreign entities The cases reviewed demonstrate Chinese courts' willingness to find infringement and issue remedies against domestic entities when foreign patentees present compelling cases. Simultaneously, the courts have shown pragmatism in crafting remedies that acknowledge Chinese national interests while respecting legitimate intellectual property rights. This balance enhances the credibility of the Chinese system on the international stage. 6. Integration with industrial policy Chinese patent jurisprudence is developing in parallel with the country's industrial policies, with nuanced approaches to sectors designated as strategically important. The compulsory licensing approach seen in cases involving essential infrastructure and the national security considerations factored into remedial decisions reflect this integration. As China continues its transition from a manufacturing-focused economy to an innovation-driven one, its patent system is evolving accordingly. The legal infrastructure for patent protection has matured significantly, with specialized courts, technically trained judges, and increasingly sophisticated jurisprudence. Foreign entities looking to protect their innovations in China now face a system that, while still distinct from Western models in important ways, offers credible and often effective pathways to enforce legitimate patent rights. For companies operating globally, engaging with the Chinese patent system is no longer optional—it is an essential component of any comprehensive intellectual property strategy. The significant market opportunities, powerful remedies, efficient proceedings, and increasingly substantial damages make China an important venue for patent enforcement. As Chinese patent litigation continues to evolve, maintaining awareness of developments in this dynamic legal landscape will be crucial for innovators across all technological sectors.  In late 2020 and early 2021, approximately 20 patent infringement lawsuits and administrative actions were filed in China against Netgear and Arlo. The Chinese plaintiffs seek damages and injunctions against the manufacture and export of several of the companies’ most popular products, including routers, switches, doorbells, and home security products.
These lawsuits were filed by at least six different Chinese companies across several Chinese jurisdictions, including IP Courts, Intermediate Courts, and administrative agencies. Netgear disclosed a small number of the lawsuits in its quarterly report in October 2020, but its upcoming quarterly report will likely include the additional cases. At least four Plaintiffs in those lawsuits appear to be operating companies in China, at least one of which seems to be a State-Owned Enterprise (i.e., owned at least partially by the Chinese government). One of the companies, Beijing Tianxing Ebel Information Consulting Co., Ltd., appears to be affiliated with “Beijing Star,” a subsidiary of Reignwood Group, a Chinese conglomerate with diverse business interests as Red Bull energy drinks, helicopter fleets, and worldwide resorts. The reason that multiple Chinese companies are attacking Silicon Valley networking powerhouses is unclear. Whether it is political or just smart strategy (both companies appear to do a significant portion of their manufacturing in China, putting their supply chains at risk), it may be an indication of things to come. To the extent that there is coordination between the companies, this would be a first for patent litigation by Chinese companies against foreign companies in China. The six Chinese companies and the 17 case numbers are below. Chinese Plaintiffs: Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd. Gao Ping Yao Yi Trade & Commerce Co., Ltd., Shenzhen YuanYu Investment Co., Ltd., Shandong Chengzi Medical TechnologyCo., Ltd., Yunwen Impression Advertisement Co., Ltd Beijing Tianxing Ebel Information Consulting Co., Ltd. Case Numbers: Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初878号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初877号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初1038号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初936号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初934号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初960号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初961号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初1231号 Beijing IP Court-（2020）京73民初1232号 Beijing IP Court-（2021）京73民初179号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初76号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初87号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初183号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初185号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初839号 Jinan Intermediary Court- (2021) 鲁01民初840号 Shanghai IP Court- (2020) 沪64民初691 We all know about Marshall and the EDTX as well as Waco and the WDTX, but don't forget about Houston and the SDTX! My partner, Miranda Jones explains here.  Follow Porter Hedges's New Patent Litigation Law Blog here: https://www.porterhedges.com/patent-litigation-law-blog
#PatentsAreBack #PorterHedges #patentlitigation #patents #texaspatents #SDTX #HoustonPatents I am humbled to have been identified as an Intellectual Property Global Leader by IAM:  I particularly appreciate this honor as both my Texas and Chinese patent litigation practices continue to grow exponentially at my new firm. I am looking forward to achieving great things for my amazing clients at Porter Hedges LLP.
Thank you to my clients, colleagues, and to IAM! #PatentsAreBack #PatentLitigation #ChinesePatents #TexasPatents  I have kept my head down for a while, but wanted to let everyone know why: I have joined the Houston office of Texas litigation powerhouse Porter Hedges LLP as a partner in the patent litigation group. We have a brilliant and experienced team of 120 attorneys ready to zealously represent our clients. Porter Hedges has one of the largest litigation practices in Texas by both headcount and revenue. This means that we have the experience and firepower to take on anyone in the patent litigation universe in either the US or China. I now have the support at both the partner level as well as top associates (we pay BigLaw salaries to our associates) to enforce patents against the biggest and most well-heeled infringers. I have been very lucky to have helped create one of the top plaintiff-side patent litigation practices in both the US and China. I have a great team in China headed in Beijing by my good friend and colleague, Dragon Wang, and together we will continue to enforce patents across Mainland China. My US practice over the last two years has gone from "I'm sorry, I am a US litigator but do not practice there" to a go-to patent litigation practice, especially in the Western District of Texas (see my other blog, the WacoPatentBlog.com). Apparently litigating in the US for 15 years before my time in-house and in China was still useful. Now, I am litigating in the US, China, and both. In fact, we have been quite successful at leveraging the speed of a Chinese case (along with the 99% chance of an injunction) with a parallel US litigation in Texas, Delaware, or the ITC. On the flip side, one of the few drawbacks of Chinese litigation is the lack of substantive discovery, so we can often use US discovery to make the Chinese case even easier (yes, there are potential protective order issues in the US, but often we can just get the judge in China to order production of a subset of the US production). Here is on overview of how it works:  I am looking forward in the coming days, months, and years to continue to build the best plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in the country. If you or your company would like to chat, please email me at [email protected] and let's get it going!
 I am honored to be selected for the IAM Strategy 300 for the sixth straight year.
I greatly appreciate IAM, as well as my clients, colleagues, and friends for their trust ! I especially thank to my US and China teams for helping me create a one-of-a-kind patent litigation practice. When I left my very good in-house position at Qualcomm a little over five years ago with no clients, things could have gone horribly wrong. There have been hiccups, of course, but I during this period, I have been honored to work with the top patent litigators in the world. What started as a limited IP practice focused only in China has become a worldwide patent litigation and licensing practice focusing on the US, China, and Germany. With the growth of litigation funding for US patent litigation and fair judges like those in the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas, the US part of my practice has continued to flourish. The magic, though, is combining US, Chinese, and German patent law into a worldwide enforcement campaign. Successful patent enforcement is no longer limited to one or even two countries. Rather, it is a vital part of business planning, and can require access to unfamiliar jurisdictions. As the world gets smaller and smaller, I have been honored to help clients successfully litigate in the US, Mainland China, Taiwan, Germany, France, Brazil, Vietnam, Singapore, and Italy. I love what I do, and although that is generally enough, I appreciate the occasional accolade from great folks like IAM to substantiate that I am making a difference. I owe all of my partners, associates, assistants, friends, and clients for supporting me over the years, and especially during this horrid 2020. Here's to a better year next year, and to great patents and technology! 多谢! See my article on the "Albright Doctrine" and how the PTAB just adopted it: https://www.wacopatentblog.com/waco-patent-blog/the-strengthening-of-the-albright-doctrine-re-iprs-at-the-ptab #WacoPatents #Albright #JudgeAlbright #WDTX #DBLpatents #DBLlawyers  IAM included my client’s settlement with Xiaomi as one of the top ten IP stories of 2019!12/30/2019  Today IAM Magazine listed my client’s recent settlement with Xiaomi as one of the top ten IP events of 2019! The settlement involved high seven figures (in USD).
My firm and I filed six patent lawsuits in the Nanjing Intermediate Court for Advanced Codec Technologies’ (“ACT”) against Xiaomi in early 2019. At issue were six standard-essential video compression patents. Why Is This Case Important? 1. As IAM points out, this is important because ACT is a Non-Practicing Entity (“NPE”). Given recent “the sky is falling” nonsense from the Big Infringement lobby, this is a big deal (but is fully indicative of the litigation market for NPEs and operating companies in China right now). 2. The patent owner is an American company litigating against a powerful Chinese company during the middle of the trade war between the US and China. 3. The patents were standard-essential patents, which typically are more complex to litigate and require more time both pre- and post-filing in China (as well as worldwide). 4. All six patents are nearing their expiration date, which means that there was no threat of an injunction — this was about money damages only. 5. This is one of the largest patent litigation settlements in the history of China, and certainly the highest for an NPE. This result says great things about the Chinese patent enforcement system, which over the past few years has emerged as a top patent litigation forum. Also working with me on the case from Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig were partner Dragon Wang, senior associates Bing Wu and Tianqi Yu, and associates Yannan Li and Ada Liu. If anyone has any questions or would like to discuss the case, please email me at [email protected]. Click below for my PowerPoint Slides from my presentation, and stay tuned for a full post on how hiring a typical Chinese law firm can waive privilege in your US patent litigation! 
Tonight I was in Washington, DC to be interviewed by CNBC World. I am still getting over jet lag from my return from Beijing, but I think I was fully awake throughout the interview. Please email me and let me know what you think!  Photograph by Waco Tribune-Herald My WacoPatentBlog co-author, Daniel G. Henry, recently sat down with Judge Albright for a Q&A. Here is some of that conversation:
https://www.wacopatentblog.com/waco-patent-blog/q-a-with-judge-alan-d-albright  My friend, Mark Cohen, recently posted an article entitled "Where have all the cases gone… long time passing…" While I greatly respect Mark and value his insight into China, this particular post is disappointing. Mark, especially since he moved to academia, has pushed for thorough transparency, which is a good thing. Specifically, he emphasizes that patent litigation statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, this is good advice, because there is no PACER, Lex Machina, much less a Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw to search or analyze cases. Patent cases from the Beijing IP Court can be obtained via IP House, which Mark used in one of his analyses here.
But in this post, Mark makes an alarming accusation based only on the statement "ha[d] heard from various [unnamed] sources." That accusation is that the Chinese government (or its courts, sua sponte ) are slowing down and not accepting patent and trademark cases for political reasons. I will not opine on trademark cases as I do not file enough of these personally to support or challenge this allegation. But as for patent cases, including those filed by US NPEs, this is not my experience. Stating that "cases can be decided but only upon approval from the Supreme People’s Court" is obviously alarming, but without proof, this seems to be just more US politicizing of the trade war. Mark Cohen is a smart guy who normally demands not just evidence, but thorough evidence. Mark and I have reasonably disagreed in the past on the amount of data needed to show just how well China's patent litigation system has evolved over the last five years or so. We did not and still do not see eye to eye, but I always appreciated his dedication to sufficient public data. Here, I just want to point out that this is an opinion based solely on hearsay statements of unidentified sources. Further, as someone in the middle of many patent cases between foreign (including US) entities, I have not seen any political maneuvering. I have not experienced any slowdown or effect in the courts in which we file. Beijing has come to a standstill, but that is because of the number of backed up cases, not political action by the Chinese government or courts. In fact, we have had great successes and moved even SEP cases more quickly than I had thought we would. Like Mark, I invite anyone who is willing to go on the record to provide such experiences to share their information. Until then, I worry that the United States is listening to people like Marco Rubio more than their own common sense and actual experiences. I will not apologize for doubting folks like Senator Rubio and other US bureaucrats and politicians who get paid to demonize China. Please email me any examples of the Chinese courts or government unfairly slowing or rejecting patent (or trademark) cases.   My new blog is now online! David G. Henry and I have created the Waco Patent Blog to provide news and information regarding patent litigation the exciting Western District of Texas, Waco Division! Join us as we explore this exciting patent venue! Don't worry, though: I will still be managing this China Patent Blog as I split my time between China and Texas!
https://www.wacopatentblog.com/waco-patent-blog/may-19th-2019 #dbllawyers #albright #wdtx #patentlitigation #waco #wacopatents #patents  My firm, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig won a significant victory in a high-profile patent lawsuit.
A Texas U.S. District Judge doubled a jury award to $24.5 million and added $4.75 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses for a toy company that won a case against Telebrands Corporation. In doing so, the judge found that Telebrands infringed two patents on a water balloon device. The judge also found that Telebrands’ intentionally copied the patented product and used obstructionist tactics throughout the case. The product “Bunch O Balloons” is produced by toy manufacturer ZURU pursuant to a license with Tinnus. Telebrands copied the product and released an “As Seen on TV” infomercial-style ad campaign calling its product “Balloon Bonanza." In 2015, Tinnus and ZURU sued Telebrands, claiming that Telebrands’ product infringed their patent. Judge Robert W. Schroeder III issued a 64-page opinion in which he added to the plaintiffs’ trial victory by doubling the jury award to $24.5 million. He also awarded plaintiffs $4.75 million in attorney fees and expenses and denied Telebrands’ motions for a new trial. The opinion is available here. For more information, see the DBL website summary or the IP Law360 story. |
Erick Robinson's Blogs:
Litigation Funding Blog Patent Litigation Blog Trade Secret Blog PTAB Blog China Patent Blog AI Law Blog 
Welcome to the China Patent Blog by Erick Robinson. Erick Robinson's China Patent Blog discusses China's patent system and China's surprisingly effective procedures for enforcing patents. China is leading the world in growth in many areas. Patents are among them. So come along with Erick Robinson while he provides a map to the complicated and mysterious world of patents and patent litigation in China.
AuthorErick Robinson is an experienced American trial lawyer and U.S. patent attorney formerly based in Beijing and now based in Texas. He is a Patent Litigation Partner and Co-Chair of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board Practice at Brown Rudnick LLP, where he manages patent litigation, licensing, and prosecution in China and the US.
Categories
All
Archives
March 2025
Disclaimer: The ideas and opinions at ChinaPatentBlog.com are my own as of the time of posting, have not been vetted with my firm or its clients, and do not necessarily represent the positions of the firm, its lawyers, or any of its clients. None of these posts is intended as legal advice and if you need a lawyer, you should hire one. Nothing in this blog creates an attorney-client relationship. If you make a comment on the post, the comment will become public and beyond your control to change or remove it. |
RSS Feed