Voice: Yajing WANG

Project Administrator

Copyright Infringement / Unfair Competition
 

Damages of RMB 10 Million Awarded! Copying the Core Gameplay of a Card Game Constitutes Unfair Competition

It has long been debated whether card games can be protected as audiovisual works under copyright law, and whether copyright law or the Anti-Unfair Competition Law should be applied to those “reskinned” games that copy game rules and gameplay.

Recently, a case heard by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court provided a clear answer.

Background: The plaintiff, Shanghai L Network Technology Co., Ltd., is the operator of the game “Jianmou.” They claimed that this game could be protected as an audiovisual work under copyright law. The plaintiffs discovered that the game “Shengshu Huange” developed and operated by the defendants, extensively copied the core gameplay, interface settings, main storyline, characters, skills, equipment system architecture, etc., of Jianmou, constituting substantial similarity. Therefore, the plaintiff filed lawsuit with the court, claiming compensation of more than RMB 30 million for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

Judgment: The court of first instance found that the game “Jianmou” constituted an audiovisual work, and the accused game was substantially similar to it, and that copyright had been infringed. It ordered the defendants to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the adverse effects, and jointly compensate RMB 5 million plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed.

The court of second instance held that card games lack the “continuous dynamic images” required for audiovisual works and cannot be protected as audiovisual works; the images of the accused game differed from those of the game owned by the plaintiff, and only the game rules and gameplay had been copied. However, the game at issue enjoyed a high degree of fame, and its unique game rules and gameplay had relatively high commercial value and protectable competitive interests. The developer of the accused "reskinned" game subjectively had the intent to exploit the research and development achievements of others and avoid its own R&D costs, and objectively could divert users and seize market share, harming the plaintiff's lawful competitive interests and violating the principle of good faith, thus constituting unfair competition.

The court of second instance therefore revised the judgment, ordering the defendants to immediately stop the unfair competition acts and jointly compensate RMB 10 million in economic losses plus more than RMB 180,000 in reasonable expenses. (August 6, 2026 Shanghai High People’s Court)

Trade Secrets
 

Six Typical Cases of Trade Secrets Infringement Released by the State Administration for Market Regulation

Recently, the State Administration for Market Regulation published six typical cases of infringement of trade secrets, as follows:

1. The Yangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving Xuejing Electronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Jiulanwen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Xu, and Guan.

Significance:

This is a typical model of trade secret infringement characterized by “individual disclosure + corporate profit-seeking.” The enforcement authority pursued full-chain accountability against the infringing company and individuals, and facilitated a settlement agreement between the parties after ten rounds of negotiations, covering compensation amounts and the ownership of patent rights.

2. The Liyang City Market Supervision Bureau of Jiangsu Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of heavy machinery by Xie and Chen.

Significance:

This is a typical multi-entity composite trade secret infringement case. The enforcement authority clarified the liability boundaries of the multi-link leakage chain of “solicitation by external operators — disclosure by outsourcing personnel — transfer by departing employees,” accurately distinguished core secret points from non-core information, and imposed penalties on different entities separately according to the circumstances of infringement, providing an enforcement reference for handling similar cases.

3. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets involving a large artificial intelligence model by Sun.

Significance:

This is China’s first trade secret case involving a vertical AI large model. It clearly recognized that natural-language integrated solutions and non-standard operating rules can each independently constitute a trade secret, filling the enforcement gap for trade secrets in China’s AI industry and setting compliance red lines for the flow of algorithm talent, AI R&D by industry peers, and the management of confidential data by sci-tech innovation enterprises.

4. The Hangzhou City Market Supervision Bureau of Zhejiang Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Xie and Hangzhou Xinchuan New Materials Co., Ltd.

Significance:

The technical secrets involved were highly specialized and difficult to identify. Under the guidance of the market regulation authorities, the right holder used multiple methods such as administrative-civil linkage, and successfully defended its rights by combining evidence obtained through administrative enforcement with the reversal of the burden of proof in civil litigation, providing a model for rights protection in similar cases involving complex characterization.

5. The Zibo High-tech Zone Market Supervision Bureau of Shandong Province investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets by Ji.

Significance:

This is a typical case in which confidential technology was stolen and then improperly used to file a patent application, resulting in the loss of the trade secret. The patent publication caused the technology to enter the public domain, resulting in a fundamental and irreversible loss of the core constitutive element of a trade secret—secrecy. The enforcement authority broke away from the traditional enforcement approach of “emphasizing infringement punishment while neglecting ownership restoration,” established the case-handling approach of “placing equal emphasis on infringement accountability and ownership restoration,” proactively coordinated with the CNIPA to issue relevant certification materials, and clarified and corrected the ownership of the patent at issue through administrative confirmation procedures, thereby maximizing the recovery of the enterprise’s losses.

6. The Liangjiang New Area Market Supervision Bureau of Chongqing Municipality investigated and handled the case of infringement of trade secrets in the field of digital cultural creativity by Yu.

Significance:

The investigation and handling of this case achieved three breakthroughs. First, unpublished short-drama scripts were recognized as protectable business information. Ideas, scripts, and planning proposals meeting the requirements of secrecy, value, and confidentiality may be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, covering the full lifecycle from creation and preparation to release and filling a gap in intellectual property protection for the digital cultural and creative industry. Second, the boundary between trade secrets and copyright was clarified: copyright protects original expression in fixed works and remains valid after publication, while trade secrets protect undisclosed business information and preserve competitive advantage through confidentiality. Third, the industrial innovation ecosystem was protected. Law enforcement authorities cracked down on trade secret leaks and infringement, deterred unfair competition, and guided market entities to observe bottom lines, act in good faith, and prioritize innovation, thereby safeguarding the innovative development of the cultural and creative industry. (August 20, 2026, State Administration for Market Regulation)

Cases
 

Typical Cases of Technical Support for Intellectual Property Procuratorial Case Handling Announced

Recently, the Supreme People's Procuratorate selected and compiled 5 typical cases of technical support for intellectual property procuratorial case handling. These cases use technological means to support the performance of legal supervision duties and have inspirational and demonstrative significance for intellectual property procuratorial case handling in the new era.

Case1 The case of infringement of trade secrets by Xia, Li, and two others.

Significance:

Intelligent electronic evidence review software was used to accurately reconstruct the criminal process; prosecutorial technical personnel were assigned to substantively review electronic data and loss assessment reports; and the technical investigator mechanism was relied upon to determine the non-public nature of the technology. This deep integration enhanced evidentiary precision, enabled accurate findings of criminal facts and amounts, and strengthened judicial protection of core technologies.

Case2 The case of counterfeit registered trademarks and infringement of trade secrets by Hong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Zhang, and five others.

Significance:

In response to specialized barriers in chemical engineering, a technical investigator was engaged through hierarchical reporting to assist in case handling. The appraisal opinion was substantively reviewed, the overall non-public nature of combined information and its differences from patents were demonstrated, and the simplified abstract was found to be substantially identical to the original text. This overcame difficulties in ascertaining technical facts, provided key support for accurate conviction and sentencing, and ensured the case’s technical rigor.

Case3 The case of copyright infringement and illegal business operations by Zhong.

Significance:

Through code decompilation comparison, software packing analysis, and simulation experiments, the entire process of circumventing technical measures was accurately reconstructed. Substantive review established that protective measures such as VMProtect constituted technological measures under copyright law, clarifying the nature of the novel infringement. Technical fact-finding supported the additional charge of copyright infringement, achieving full-chain enforcement and comprehensive protection.

Case4  The case of copyright infringement by Zhao.

Significance:

Collaborative efforts resolved online infringement challenges: data recovery and correlation analysis identified the behind-the-scenes operator, overcoming difficulties in identifying the responsible entity; substantive review of video traceability evidence precisely defined “deep linking” as an act of information network dissemination; and random sampling and image authentication comprehensively verified the number of massive infringing works. A technical investigator was applied for to appear in court and explain the technical principles, effectively responding to defenses and ensuring accurate conviction and sentencing.

Case5  The case of supervision over the judgment result of a dispute over infringement of an invention patent between A and a certain construction engineering company

Significance:

Ex officio commissioning of an appraisal and on-site inspection confirmed the silk-screen printing process; an appraiser was applied for to appear in court and explain technical facts, consolidating the basis for supervision. The allocation of the burden of proof was precisely reviewed, the court’s errors in failing to collect evidence upon application and in improperly allocating the burden were identified, facilitating settlement in the retrial and effectively protecting the patentee’s lawful rights and interests. (September 2, 2026, Supreme People’s Procuratorate)
 

The Supreme People’s Court Releases Typical Cases of Anti-Unfair Competition of People’s Courts in 2026

During the 2026 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week, the Supreme People’s Court selected and released 9 typical cases focusing on important legal issues such as the determination of passing off and confusion, infringement of technical secrets, commercial disparagement, false advertising, online unfair competition acts, and the application of the general clauses of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The content covers both traditional consumer fields and emerging and key fields such as artificial intelligence, new energy, and the platform economy.

Case1 Registering and using a trade name similar to another’s registered trademark to mislead the public constitutes unfair competition

Case2 Remuneration obtained from undertaking engineering projects by using another’s technical secrets may be regarded as infringement profits

Case3 Malicious “transcoding and reconstruction” constitutes unfair competition that obstructs or disrupts the normal operation of another's network products

Case4 The title of a well-known film or television drama with distinctiveness constitutes a “commercial sign with a certain influence”

Case5 Providing a “physical plug-in” for order grabbing that disrupts platform competition order constitutes unfair competition

Case6 Using AI to fabricate review articles about another’s products for free-riding traffic constitutes unfair competition

Case7 Tampering with a peer’s livestream e-commerce video to mislead the public constitutes false advertising

Case8 Maliciously editing another’s product review video to disparage a competitor constitutes commercial disparagement

Case9 A false comparative advertisement capable of identifying and comparing the source of goods constitutes commercial disparagement

(September 9, 2026 News Bureau of the Supreme People’s Court)

The Supreme Court Opinions
 

The Supreme People’s Court Issues a Document Clarifying Adjudication Rules for Cases Such as
“AI Face-Swapping and Voice Simulation”

Recently, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Opinions on Lawfully Hearing Cases Involving Artificial Intelligence Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the Opinions).

This is the first judicial adjudication rules document involving artificial intelligence issued by the highest judicial organ of the State.

The Opinions consist of 5 parts and 24 articles, focusing on issues of social concern such as AI face-swapping and voice simulation and AI hallucination infringement, online doxxing, big data price discrimination against existing customers, autonomous driving, and model training, clarifies relevant substantive adjudication and litigation procedure rules.

In terms of protecting personality rights and interests, the Opinions provide: using AI to process a natural person’s name, portrait, etc. without consent, and generating a virtual digital image identifiable as that natural person and using or publicly disclosing it, constitutes infringement of personality rights and interests such as the right to name and the right to portrait; using a natural person’s voice as training corpus without consent, and imitating their timbre, intonation, and pronunciation style to generate an identifiable synthetic human voice, constitutes infringement of voice rights and interests; manipulating a virtual image or synthetic voice to carry out improper acts or make false statements and lower others’ social evaluation constitutes infringement of the right to reputation.

Where AI technology is used to produce or use a deceased person’s virtual digital image without authorization, causing infringement of the deceased person’s name, portrait, reputation, etc., the close relatives of the deceased may request the actor to bear civil liability in accordance with the Civil Code, and the people’s court shall support this according to law. (September 7, 2026 China Daily)