Recently, several intellectual property-related cases represented by JunHe have been selected as annual typical cases by the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and various other courts and procuratorates across China. Spanning the technical battleground of patents, the market rules of anti-unfair competition, the brand defences of trademarks and the creative territory of copyright, these selected cases reflect the strength of JunHe's intellectual property practice and our outstanding capabilities on multiple fronts.

Patent Infringement Involving a Cross-Border E-Commerce Giant

JunHe's patent team represented a leading technology and cross-border e-commerce company (Company A) in  patent infringement proceedings brought by a non-practising entity (NPE), as well as related administrative litigation concerning patent invalidation. Following the first-instance proceedings before the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court and the second-instance proceedings before the Supreme People's Court, JunHe recently secured a complete victory. This landmark judgment built a solid legal shield for Company A's stable business operations in the Chinese market but also clarified the standards for assessing inventiveness in the ICT sector. The result demonstrates JunHe's top-tier strengths and professional capabilities in high-technology intellectual property disputes. 

Company A has long been engaged in the global technology sector. Its core businesses cover smart hardware and cloud computing services, as well as key stages in the production of smart speakers, TV sticks, tablets and other products that it designs and sells in China. The company has actively expanded in the Chinese market and works closely with domestic enterprises to provide A cloud services. It has established a dual market presence built on ‘smart hardware production + cloud computing services’. The company that brought the litigation is a typical non-practising entity (NPE): it doesn’t manufacture products or apply the relevant technologies, but seeks monetary return by holding patents, filing lawsuits and demanding licence fees, thereby affecting the commercial operations of high-technology enterprises. Targeting Company A's core businesses in China, the NPE filed more than 50 patent infringement actions in various courts across different regions in relation to smart hardware products and cloud services. Its intention was to exert pressure through large-scale litigation: even a single successful case could disrupt the normal production schedule of Company A's products in China and impede the smooth operation of A cloud services, thereby forcing Company A to pay substantial patent royalties.

As Company A's counsel, JunHe's patent team mobilised key personnel. The lead partner first applied to the Supreme People's Court for centralised jurisdiction, to avoid fighting on multiple fronts. After repeated communications and the submission of opinions and evidence, the Supreme People's Court designated the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court to hear the cases on a centralised basis. Before the conclusion of the cases, it also specified that the NPE could not bring any new actions based on the patents. The team was involved in the entire trial process and relied on JunHe’s solid grounding in patent law, extensive dispute resolution experience and their thorough understanding of IoT and cloud computing technologies. The team formulated a multi-layered response covering infringement defences, patent invalidation, technical analysis and claim construction, with the aim of fully safeguarding Company A's lawful rights and interests. Working closely together and with meticulous attention to detail, the team members reviewed and analysed more than 50 infringement actions. They conducted an in-depth examination of the claim, specification and prosecution histories of the patents in the suit and matched these materials against the technical principles and design solutions of Company A's smart hardware products and the technical architecture of its cloud services. They distilled the core non-infringement defence points and built a rigorous and complete defence system. The team initiated patent invalidation proceedings in relation to the three core patents on which the NPE relied to assert its rights. From multiple perspectives, including prior art, technical solutions, inventiveness and the connection with the infringement proceedings, they provided detailed arguments that the patents in the suit were merely a patchwork of existing technologies and did not meet the requirements for grant. By tackling key points, the team identified the core vulnerabilities of the series of cases and laid a solid foundation for a complete victory.

At the trial, JunHe's dedicated team withstood the NPE's submissions and articulated the core position that Company A's products and cloud services did not fall within the scope of protection of the patents in the suit. Relying on rigorous logical analysis, thorough evidentiary preparation and professional advocacy, the team rebutted the NPE's unreasonable infringement allegations one by one. After multiple hearings at first instance before the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court and the second instance hearing before the Supreme People's Court, both courts ultimately accepted JunHe's defence arguments in full and dismissed all the NPE's claims. Company A achieved a comprehensive victory in the series of patent infringement proceedings; the production of its products and the operation of its cloud services were able to proceed normally, and the associated legal risks and commercial pressure were completely resolved.

More notably, in the administrative invalidation proceedings related to the infringement actions and following detailed and in-depth hearings concerning the three core patents involved, the Supreme People's Court issued second-instance judgments that ultimately revoked the decisions of the China National Intellectual Property Administration maintaining the validity of the three patents. This series of administrative judgments carries significant guidance value for the industry. It clearly delineates the legal boundaries in the field of IoT communications technology between ‘combination-based innovation’ and the mere aggregation or recombination of existing technical means. It also effectively curbs the abuse of rights and malicious litigation based on pseudo-innovative patents. The judgments draw clear legal standards for inventiveness, guide innovation within a regulated framework and promote further improvement of the intellectual property protection system for inventions in the IT sector.

The lead partner for this case was WANG, Zhaolin (Johnson) and the principal handling partners were WANG, Zhaolin (Johnson) and WEI, Yuming. Due to the case's complexity and its industry guidance, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court has included the above administrative judgments as typical cases in the Annual Report of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2025), providing an important reference for courts nationwide in hearing similar IP cases. This highlights the professional capabilities and industry influence of JunHe's patent team and reflects its position in high-end dispute resolution involving technology-related IP.

Unfair Competition Dispute Between a Liquor Company and a Technology Company

This was a typical unfair competition dispute between a baijiu company and a leading livestreaming platform, focusing on the regulation of livestreaming e-commerce and the protection of the commercial reputation of established brands. Taking into account the interests of multiple parties, the court clarified the boundaries of livestreaming promotion and the standards for identifying misleading information, thereby supporting the compliant development of the industry. Faced with an unfavourable outcome, the JunHe team adjusted its litigation strategy and focused on narrowing the alleged damages. Through evidentiary challenges, the team rebutted the probative force of the plaintiff's damages report claiming losses in the tens of millions of RMB and relied on objective facts to sever the causal link for infringement. The damages were ultimately reduced significantly to RMB 300,000, representing a reduction of more than 97%. This case provides practical guidance for damages defences in e-commerce business disparagement disputes and demonstrates the team's professional strengths in handling high-value and complex unfair competition cases.

The principal handling partners for the case were XU, Chumeng (Jessica) and ZHANG, Chuanlei. It was selected for the Annual Report on the Application of Law in Intellectual Property Cases by Chinese Courts (2025) (Summary) and the Typical Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property by Chongqing Courts issued by the Chongqing High People's Court.

Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case Involving a Norwegian Company

The client in this case was a well-known overseas enterprise in the building materials and aluminium industries and a Fortune Global 500 company. Its core brand enjoys high recognition and market influence in China. Its brand identifiers have formed a stable market perception and are widely recognised by the industry and consumers. In response to trademark infringement and unfair competition by three parties, including a Shanghai industrial company, JunHe's trademark team developed a comprehensive strategy linking administrative and civil procedures. The team launched administrative proceedings including oppositions, cancellations and invalidations, and successfully defeated all the other parties' bad-faith trademark applications and registrations. JunHe also achieved a complete victory in the parallel civil proceedings. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court upheld JunHe's client's claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, applied punitive damages at the maximum statutory multiplier of five times, and awarded damages of more than RMB 25 million. In the second-instance proceedings, the defendants agreed to immediately pay the client RMB 26 million in a lump sum. Both parties withdrew their appeals, and the first-instance judgment has since taken effect.

The core innovation and typical significance of this case are reflected in three ways. Firstly, the court based its analysis in the legislative purpose of the Trademark Law, preventing market confusion, and treated the perception habits and judgment standards of the public as the central basis for assessing confusion, thereby defining the boundaries of infringement. Secondly, in response to the defendants' series of bad-faith acts (which included bad-faith trademark squatting, the bad-faith acquisition of trademarks, filing three-year non-use cancellation applications against the plaintiff's trademarks despite knowing that the marks had long been extensively used by the true rights holder, and using the squatted trademarks through improper means to capture business opportunities),  the court applied the general clause of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate the conduct. This effectively prevented potential subsequent acts of infringement by the defendants, such as bad-faith imitation and trademark applications, and created a long-term rights protection barrier. Thirdly, the court used the defendants' profits from infringement as the calculation basis to determine the amount of damages, and the JunHe team successfully secured punitive damages at the maximum statutory multiplier of five times. This was also a rare high-damages case in trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The lead partner for the case was XU, Chumeng (Jessica) and the principal handling partners were XU, Chumeng (Jessica), ZHAO, Huafeng (Jackie) and ZHANG, Chuanlei. The judgment not only fully protected the client's brand value but also demonstrated the judiciary's strong stance against malicious infringement. It has an important guiding significance for promoting honest business operations among market participants, regulating the order of trademark use and fostering a fair and competitive business environment.

This was selected as a Typical Case Involving Punitive Damages in Intellectual Property Matters by Shanghai Courts, released by the Shanghai High People's Court in December 2025. It was also included in the 2024 Work Report of the Shanghai High People's Court and selected as one of the Top Ten Trademark Litigation Cases of 2025 that was released by the Beijing Trademark Association on April 22, 2026.

The Protection of Official Marks and Deceptiveness in the Crown Danish Cookies Trademark Case

This was a typical case concerning the application of the Trademark Law provisions for the protection of official marks and deceptive marks. The court precisely defined the standards for applying Article 10(1)(4) of the Trademark Law. By comparing the disputed crown device with the official marks of the Danish royal family, the court clarified the requirements and rules for recognising the protection of foreign official marks in China. Applying the provision on deceptive marks under Item 7, the court strictly regulates trademark registrations that are likely to mislead consumers as to the origin of goods. The case clarified the boundaries of judicial protection for foreign official marks and delineates the logic for applying the two categories of prohibited signs. It provides important adjudicative reference and practical guidance for cases involving the refusal of foreign-related signs and the prevention of misleading trademark registrations.

The handling partners for the case were SUN, Tao and ZHANG, Chuanlei. It was selected for the Top Ten Cases on Judicial Protection in Trademark Prosecution and Confirmation by Beijing Courts in 2025, issued by the Beijing High People's Court.

Copyright Infringement Case Concerning a Liquor Bottle in the shape of the CITIC Tower

This was a typical case concerning intellectual property protection for architectural works derived from traditional culture and clarifies the core requirements for an architectural work to receive copyright protection, i.e.., it must possess artistic aesthetic value and original expression separable from its practical functions and the reasonable transformation of the traditional elements may constitute a lawful work. The case delineates the boundary between innovative cultural inheritance and infringing imitation, encourages innovative re-creation of traditional culture, and prohibits the unauthorised copying of others' original transformative achievements. The judgment defines the boundaries of judicial protection for Chinese-style architectural design and warns industries (such as the liquor industry) of the legal risks of exploiting landmark buildings for commercial gain. It also provides an adjudicative reference for infringement cases involving structures and public artworks, thereby improving judicial copyright protection for architectural works.

The handling partners for the case were SUN, Tao and ZHANG, Chuanlei. On April 23, 2026, the case was selected as a Typical Case in Intellectual Property Trials Supporting Regional High-Quality Development from 2023 to 2025, released by the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court. It was also recognised as a 2025 Copyright Typical Case of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and a 2025 Benchmark Case by Lvxin News.

Behind these cases lie JunHe’s IP work through the technical maze of patent specifications and its tactical response to layers of trademark squatting. It shows JunHe’s efforts to chart a path through the regulatory gaps in emerging livestreaming e-commerce disputes, and its work to clarify the essentials in jurisdictional disputes involving cross-border transactions. Thousands of pages were reviewed, tens of thousands of search results were analysed, and multiple rounds of offence and defence were undertaken.  Every piece of evidence, statutory provision or precedent that becomes decisive in court is often the product of months of desk work and dozens of rounds of refinement. JunHe will continue its work in the field of intellectual property to protect the value of innovation with professional capabilities, and to provide our clients with sustained and reliable legal services.