SAMR Releases Typical Cases of Unfair Competition in the AI Field
The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has released five typical cases of unfair competition in the field of artificial intelligence. The cases are as follows:
1. Beijing Chaoyang District Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with Beijing Aolande Information Technology Co., Ltd. for engaging in acts of market confusion through the internet.
2. Shanghai Xuhui District Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with Shanghai Entropy Cloud Network Technology Co., Ltd. for engaging in acts of market confusion through the internet.
3. Shanghai Municipal Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with Shanghai Qiaopin Network Information Technology Co., Ltd. for assisting false advertising.
4. Hangzhou Municipal Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with a trade secret infringement involving an individual Min.
5. Hangzhou West Lake District Market Supervision Bureau investigated and dealt with Hangzhou Boheng Cultural Media Co., Ltd. for conducting confusion to customers online. (Mar. 25, 2026, Shi Shuo Xin Yu)
Cases
Shandong High People’s Court Releases Typical Cases on Punitive Damages for IP Rights
Recently, the Shandong High People’s Court released the typical cases from 2025 adopting punitive damages for intellectual property rights, covering fields such as biotechnology, health and medical care, and clothing design. The cases are:
1. Patent infringement case of “Long-chain Dicarboxylic Acid”
2. Trademark infringement case of the feed brand “大北农”
3. Trademark infringement and unfair competition case of “美年” in health examination services
4. Trademark infringement case of “华喜达”, a nutritional products
5. Trademark infringement case of Fila, in clothes (Mar. 18, 2026, China Intellectual Property News)
Trade Secrets
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) made a final judgment in a dispute over technical secret infringement concerning blast furnace gas purification technology, clarifying that the overall technical secret can constitute a trade secret. The court applied punitive damages-two times-against the malicious infringing party and ordered the infringing party and co-infringing entities to pay a total of CNY 50.3 million for economic losses and reasonable costs for rights protection.
In this case, a Beijing technology company held technical secrets for dry blast furnace gas purification processes and equipment design, and were in cooperation with a Jiangsu environmental protection company to start project, signing a confidentiality agreement. Subsequently, the environmental protection company, without authorization, utilized the involved technical secrets and collaborated with a Beijing environmental engineering company and other companies to undertake BOT related projects. The contract value reached approximately CNY 309 million, which severely infringing the technology holder’s rights and benefit.
The Supreme People’s Court found that the involved technology, as a whole, possessed secrecy, value, and confidentiality measures, thus legally constituting a trade secret. The Jiangsu environmental protection company maliciously violated its confidentiality obligations, and the other two defendants failed to exercise reasonable due diligence, constituting joint infringement. Considering the infringing circumstances, malicious intent, and project scale, the court applied punitive damages against the primary infringing party.
Given the project’s environmental public welfare attributes, the court did not order the cessation of project operation but explicitly prohibited the three defendants from continuing to use or disclose the involved technical secrets outside of the project in question. The court also delineated joint liability, ordering the Beijing environmental engineering company and Qian’an wire company to bear joint liability within specified amounts.
This final judgment further strengthens judicial protection for technical secrets, clarifies the rules for applying punitive damages in cases of malicious infringement, and serves as a typical guiding case for regulating technical cooperation in the environmental field and curbing the misappropriation and use of technical secrets. (Mar. 27, 2026, IP Economy)
Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trade Secret Case After 5 Years, Awards CNY 10 M in Damages
In December 2020, Falan Company filed a lawsuit in the Nanchang Intermediate People’s Court against the Xinyu and its related companies, alleging infringement of its trade secrets related to automated production technology for high-strength coated packaging steel strips, claiming CNY 25 million in damages, including CNY 5 million and a punitive damages of 4 times. In September 2022, the first-instance court dismissed all of Falan Company’s claims.
Falan Company appealed. The Supreme Court accepted the case in April 2023 and held two court hearings in June 2024 and June 2025. Falan Company adjusted its claim to CNY 18.6 million, including CNY 3.1 million + a punitive damages of 5 times.
On October 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its judgment, finding that Xinyu and its related companies had infringed Falan Company’s trade secrets, thus revoking the first-instance judgment and awarding CNY 10.27 million in damages with additional CNY 200,000 for reasonable expenses incurred in enforcing its rights. (Apr. 8, 2026, IP Code)
Statistics
China Rises to Third Globally in European Patent Applications
According to the European Patent Office’s 2025 Technology Board Report (formerly the Patent Index Report) released recently, the EPO received 22,031 patent applications from China in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 9.7%. China's ranking rose to third globally for the first time, with the fastest growth rate among the top ten applicant countries.
Overall, the European Patent Office received a total of 201,974 patent applications from around the world in 2025, a year-on-year increase of 1.4%, reaching a record high. The top five countries for patent applications were the United States, Germany, China, Japan, and South Korea.
The report shows that Chinese patent applications accounted for 10.9% of the total applications received by the European Patent Office in 2025. Digital communication was the field with the most Chinese patent applications. Additionally, transportation and semiconductors were the fastest-growing fields for Chinese patent applications, with year-on-year growth exceeding 30% each.
In terms of corporate rankings, among all companies that filed patent applications with the European Patent Office in 2025, China’s Huawei ranked second with 4,744 patent applications. China’s CATL ranked tenth with 1,305 patent applications, marking the first time two Chinese companies have entered the top ten list. South Korea’s Samsung ranked first, and LG and the Qualcomm from United States in third and fourth places, respectively. Besides Huawei and CATL, four other Chinese companies: Xiaomi, ZTE, OPPO, and Tencent also entered the top 50.
By technology field, the field with the most patent applications received by the European Patent Office in 2025 was computer technology, with 17,844 applications, a year-on-year increase of 6.1%. The report suggests that the rapid development of artificial intelligence is the main driver of patent growth in this field. The digital communication field saw the largest increase in patent applications, rising 11.4% year-on-year to 17,802 applications. (Mar. 24, 2026, Xinhua.com)
Government Affairs
Full Text of “Guidelines for Intellectual Property Protection in AI New Drug R&D Industry” Released
Recently, at the 2026 Zhongguancun Forum “Global IP Protection and Innovation”, the Haidian District Market Supervision Administration of Beijing officially released the “Guidelines for Intellectual Property Protection in AI New Drug R&D Industry” (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines), providing a systematic solution for building a solid intellectual property protection basis for this strategically important emerging industry.
Based on the realities of the industry, the Guidelines focus on the pain points and difficulties in the entire chain of intellectual property protection for AI new drug discovery, offering detailed references from four key dimensions, such as optimizing portfolios in diversified way, strengthening protection in full-process, reducing costs in enforcing rights, and building robust defense to prevent risks. (Apr. 7, 2026, IPRdaily)
