On November 18, 2025, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released five Typical Cases on Combating Malicious Intellectual Property Litigation (最高人民法院发布治理知识产权恶意诉讼典型案例). While not precedential as in common law systems, typical cases are used to guide lower courts and promote consistent legal application across China. The previously-issued “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Serving and Safeguarding Technological Innovation through High-Quality Adjudication” pointed out that “illegal acts that hinder innovation, such as false litigation, malicious litigation, and abuse of litigation rights, should be regulated according to law…” These Typical Cases explain this further.
As explained by the SPC:
I. Malicious Litigation Case Involving “Dashcam” Patent – （2023）最高法知民终869号
Basic Case Facts
ShunXX Company and XiongXX Company were both OEM manufacturers for BoXX Company (not a party to this case). During the OEM production of dashcams for BoXX Company, XiongXX Company completed the design and technical solutions for the six patents in question. XiongXX Company then filed patent applications for these six patents in the name of Xu, the joint actual controller of XiongXX Company and BaXX Company, or Chen, the supervisor of BaXX Company, and obtained authorization. Subsequently, the six patents were transferred to BaXX Company. After BoXX Company switched to ShunXX Company as its OEM manufacturer for dashcams, BaXX Company filed 18 patent infringement lawsuits against ShunXX Company in three separate instances based on the six patents in question, but failed to win any of them.
During the litigation, BoXX Company sent a purchase order to ShunXX Company, which ShunXX Company rejected. In some parts of the litigation, BaXX Company applied for property preservation measures (injunctions), and the court, at its request, froze ShunXX Company’s assets.
Of the six patents involved, two were declared invalid because the products were manufactured by BaXX Company and sold by BoXX Company before the patent application was filed; two were declared invalid because they used prior registered trademarks of BoXX Company, which conflicted with prior rights; the remaining two were upheld after invalidation proceedings. In the patent infringement lawsuit filed by BaXX Company based on the two patents that were upheld, it was determined that BoXX Company and ShunXX Company had the right to use the two patents because XiongXX Company, knowing that BoXX Company would entrust ShunXX Company with the production and processing, delivered the design drawings to BoXX Company and reached an agreement with BoXX Company to benefit from other projects of BoXX Company.
ShunXX Company filed a lawsuit with the court, claiming that the actions of BaXX Company, XiongXX Company, and Xu XX constituted malicious litigation, and requested that they be ordered to jointly compensate for economic losses of 1 million RMB and reasonable expenses of 120,000 RMB for safeguarding their rights.
Judgment
The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province initially ruled that Company BaXX should compensate Company ShunXX for economic losses of 300,000 RMB. Both Company ShunXX and Company BaXX appealed. Company ShunXX appealed, requesting a revised judgment ordering Company BaXX and others to compensate for economic losses of 1 million RMB. After review, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court issued a second-instance judgment, holding that the technical and design solutions involved in the six patents in question were all designs made by Company XiongXX for Company BoXX. Company BaXX was aware that four of the patents should be declared invalid, and was aware that Company BoXX and Company ShunXX had the right to use the design solutions corresponding to the other two patents. However, after Company BoXX selected Company ShunXX as its OEM manufacturer, Company BaXX filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Company ShunXX, intending to use the judicial process to attack its competitor. This demonstrated clear subjective malice and constituted an abuse of rights. Company BoXX had sent a purchase order to Company ShunXX, at which time Company BaXX had already filed a lawsuit against Company ShunXX. Company ShunXX’s refusal of Company BoXX’s order was clearly causally related to Company BaXX’s lawsuit. Since the price and quantity of products recorded in the order were relatively clear, the expected profit loss suffered by Company ShunXX could be calculated based on this. Including the interest on funds occupied by ShunXX Company due to property preservation, and the legal fees and travel expenses incurred in related litigation, the aforementioned losses exceeded the 1 million RMB claimed by ShunXX Company in the second instance. Therefore, the court supported its claim for compensation. Ultimately, the second instance judgment changed the original judgment to order BaXX Company and others to compensate ShunXX Company for economic losses of 1 million RMB.
Typical significance
The term “loss,” literally understood, encompasses both “damage” and “loss.” For defendants in malicious lawsuits, it’s crucial to consider both their losses—such as reasonable expenses like legal fees—and their losses—such as interest on funds tied up for asset preservation or business opportunities forfeited to avoid legal risks. In simpler terms, it means recognizing both “expenditures they shouldn’t have had” and “incomes they should have received but didn’t.”
In cases of malicious litigation, the low cost to the plaintiff and the high extent of the defendant’s losses create a severe imbalance, leaving the defendant feeling both deeply resentful and powerless. Since the motive of malicious litigants may be to obstruct the development of others, even if the court rules against them and orders them to pay a certain amount of compensation, as long as this amount is insufficient to cover the defendant’s losses, it can be said that the malicious litigant has, to some extent, achieved their goal.
The most significant aspect of this case lies in defining the scope of liability for damages in malicious litigation, namely, the “principle of full compensation.” This principle is based on the theoretical premise that “disputes over damages arising from malicious intellectual property litigation fall under the category of general torts.” Its application is based on specific standards, namely, “examining whether there is a legal causal relationship between the plaintiff’s claimed damages and the tortious act.”
The second-instance judgment in the case stated: “After a malicious lawsuit is filed, if the defendant, fearing the expansion of the infringement, actively abandons business opportunities and refuses customer contracts or orders in order to avoid legal risks, the reasonable expected loss of profits suffered as a result has a legal causal relationship with the malicious lawsuit, and the defendant has the right to demand compensation from the plaintiff.”
We must make every effort to ensure that the scope of compensation for the plaintiff and the scope of losses for the defendant overlap, preventing malicious plaintiffs from “losing the case but winning the financial gain,” and even more so preventing the defendants from “winning the lawsuit but losing their company.” This case is of typical significance in the judicial process of combating malicious litigation.
II. Malicious Litigation Case Involving the Utility Model Patent of “Target Flow Meter” – （2022）最高法知民终1861号
Basic Case Facts
In March 2006, the utility model patent right of a certain instrument company for a “built-in digital display target flow meter” was terminated due to failure to pay the annual fee. Dissatisfied with the termination of the patent right by the State Intellectual Property Office (now the China National Intellectual Property Administration), the instrument company filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in 2017, and then applied to withdraw the lawsuit in 2018, which was granted.
In May 2006, the company filed a lawsuit against a certain technology company and a certain machinery company, alleging that the products they manufactured and sold in 2005 infringed upon its patent rights. The court ultimately ruled that the technology company’s actions constituted patent infringement and ordered it to pay the instrument company 125,000 RMB in damages.
Subsequently, an instrument and meter company filed lawsuits against a technology company in 2015, 2019, and 2020, alleging that the technology company continued to produce and sell products infringing on its patent between May 2006 and 2010, seeking damages of 3.5 million RMB, 4.5 million RMB, and 4.5 million RMB respectively. The second and third lawsuits were withdrawn after being filed, while the fourth was dismissed due to non-payment of the appeal fee. In the fourth lawsuit, the instrument and meter company applied for property preservation, freezing 4.5 million RMB of the technology company’s assets.
The technology company filed a lawsuit against the instrumentation company, alleging that the instrumentation company maliciously filed its third and fourth intellectual property lawsuits despite knowing that its patent rights had been terminated. Therefore, the company requested the court to order the instrumentation company to issue a public apology and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred in protecting its rights.
Judgment
The Intermediate People’s Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province, ruled in the first instance that the instrument and meter company should compensate the technology company for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) of 60,000 RMB. The instrument and meter company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in the second instance, held that the instrument and meter company knew that its lawsuit lacked a legal basis, but still filed a third and fourth lawsuit, causing damage to the opposing party. This demonstrated the company’s intent to cause the damage and should be considered malicious litigation. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical significance
The case’s significance lies in two “firsts”: it is the first case in which the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court has determined that an intellectual property lawsuit was filed maliciously; and it prominently involves the “primary” issue that needs to be considered when determining malicious litigation, namely, the issue of the basis of rights.
When a party seeks to protect their rights, they must base their actions on rights and facts. These are two different concepts: rights must be held first, and only then can one discuss whether the other party has committed any infringement.
Regarding the basis of rights, patent holders should ask themselves three levels of questions before filing a lawsuit, which can be described as “passing three hurdles”:
First, there is the question of whether there is a legal basis for the right. In this case, an instrument and meter company filed an administrative lawsuit against the administrative decision that terminated the patent right before its expiration, but later withdrew the lawsuit. The second-instance judgment held that, as the company voluntarily waived its right to initiate the restoration procedure, the termination of the patent right was already established, and the company should have been aware of the legal consequences.
Second, is the foundation of the right “stable”? Sometimes, a patent right is not stable and cannot withstand the “test” of invalidation proceedings. The plaintiff is “fully aware” of this but “pretends to be confused,” which may raise questions for the judge: “Is he really here to protect his rights?” In another case heard by the Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Tribunal, the patentee concealed a patent evaluation report that was unfavorable to him. The court, taking into account other circumstances, determined that the lawsuit was malicious.
Thirdly, the strength of the legal basis is crucial. If the “thin foundation” of the patent’s value is far insufficient to support the “high floor” of the claim, the judge may question the plaintiff’s intentions: “What exactly are they trying to achieve?” In this case, an instrument company received 125,000 RMB in compensation in its first lawsuit, but in its third and fourth lawsuits, it demanded as much as 4.5 million RMB in damages each time. Furthermore, in the fourth lawsuit, it applied for property preservation, freezing 4.5 million RMB of the technology company’s assets. The second-instance judgment held that it was highly likely the plaintiff knowingly lacked a legal basis and attempted to gain undue benefits through litigation.
“To protect one’s rights, one must first have the right to do so; and to protect the extent of one’s rights, one must first have the right to do so.” In cases of malicious litigation, the ease with which a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit and the difficulty with which a defendant responds are inherently unequal. If a plaintiff cannot even establish a solid, stable, and substantial foundation for their rights, they can disrupt the defendant’s affairs and muddy the waters of business operations. This is clearly unfair to the defendant and absolutely intolerable to the business order. Therefore, in cases of malicious litigation, examining the plaintiff’s legal basis is not only the “logic first step” in the trial process but also the “first step towards justice” in achieving fairness.
III. Malicious Litigation Case Involving a Utility Model Patent for “Guide Rail” – （2022）最高法知民终2586号
Basic Case Facts
A new materials company in Guangdong Province provided a manufacturer in Zhongshan City with drawings containing the complete technical solution of a utility model patent for “a guide rail,” requesting the manufacturer to produce samples according to the drawings and to purchase those samples. Subsequently, the Guangdong new materials company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Zhongshan City manufacturer and its investor, Mr. Li. During the litigation, the Guangdong new materials company also sent infringement warning letters to the Zhongshan City manufacturer’s customers, stating that the manufacturer was suspected of infringing its patent rights and advising customers not to purchase infringing products. The court held that the alleged patent infringement was carried out with the patentee’s permission and did not constitute unauthorized infringement, thus dismissing the Guangdong new materials company’s claims. The Guangdong new materials company appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on appeal.
After the case was closed, the product factory in Zhongshan City and Mr. Li believed that the malicious evidence collection by the new material company in Guangdong constituted malicious litigation and commercial defamation, and filed a lawsuit demanding that the company compensate for reasonable expenses incurred in the litigation and pay damages for mental distress.
Judgment
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, in its first instance judgment, ordered the new materials company in Guangdong Province to compensate the manufacturing plant in Zhongshan City and Mr. Li for economic losses of 30,000 RMB and 85,000 RMB respectively. All parties appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in its second instance judgment, held that the actions of the new materials company in Guangdong Province clearly exceeded the reasonable limits of legitimate rights protection, possessed the illegal purpose of interfering with, influencing, and suppressing competitors through litigation, and demonstrated significant malice. Furthermore, the actions caused the manufacturing plant in Zhongshan City and Mr. Li to incur legal fees, thus constituting malicious litigation. The second instance judgment dismissed the appeals and upheld the original judgment.
Typical significance
Prudence is a requirement that should be followed by both the courts in handling cases and the parties in exercising their rights. The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out that, for the courts, “when applying the principle of good faith to determine whether the parties’ behavior constitutes an abuse of the right to sue, the conditions for application should be carefully and strictly grasped”; for the parties, “they should exercise their rights in good faith and with prudence, and should not harm the interests of others or the public interest.”
The second instance court, taking into account the following factors, determined that the Guangdong new materials company acted maliciously: “inducing a certain product manufacturer in Zhongshan City to manufacture and sell related products and then using those products as evidence of infringement without any evidence to show that the infringement facts in the case were obviously difficult to establish”; claiming high compensation and applying for property preservation; and issuing infringement warning letters to the customers of the product manufacturer in Zhongshan City “knowing that its evidence collection behavior had major defects and that there was a significant risk of losing the case before the infringement lawsuit was concluded.”
It is evident that in this case, the Guangdong-based new materials company did not exercise its rights prudently; and in determining whether the lawsuit was filed with malice, the court consistently considered “under what circumstances” and “what actions” were taken, demonstrating a prudent grasp of the conditions for applying malicious litigation.
It should be said that this case not only advocates for the parties to exercise their rights “prudently,” but also provides an example for the courts to “prudently” determine malicious litigation: when evaluating a party’s specific behavior, it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances in which they were at the time, so that “good is recognized with a basis, and evil is determined with a basis.”
This case stemmed from the patentee’s inducement to collect evidence. The key point of the judgment is clear: “If a patentee, without other evidence to prove that others have infringed or are about to infringe, actively provides technical solutions to induce others to commit infringing acts and files an infringement lawsuit based on this, thereby interfering with or affecting the normal business operations of others, it can be determined that the patentee has maliciously filed an intellectual property lawsuit.”
When parties collect evidence, they should “obtain it through the right channels and use it for the right purposes.” The patent involved in this case is titled “A Guide Rail,” and it is hoped that this case will serve as a warning to relevant market entities and guide their litigation practices “back on track.”
IV. Malicious Litigation Case Involving a Utility Model Patent for “Finished Cans” – （2023）最高法知民终2044号
Basic Case Facts
Jin Company filed an infringement lawsuit against Ling Company , alleging infringement of its patent right for a device entitled “A Mixing Device,” during Company Ling’s IPO process, and demanding compensation of 23 million RMB for economic losses. Ling Company suspended its IPO process due to its obligation to disclose litigation information during the IPO review process.
Prior to filing the lawsuit, Jin company applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration for a patent evaluation report on the patent in question. However, the preliminary conclusion of the evaluation report was that the patent did not meet the conditions for granting patent rights. Jin company did not voluntarily submit the report to the court.
Ling Company filed a countersuit against Jin Company for maliciously influencing its listing process through intellectual property litigation and made corresponding claims for damages.
Judgment
The Intermediate People’s Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, ruled in the first instance that Jin company should compensate Ling company for reasonable expenses of 400,000 RMB and publish a public statement on the China Capital Market Service Platform to eliminate the negative impact. Jin company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in the second instance, held that the unstable legal basis, the dishonest act of concealing the patent evaluation report, the relatively easy infringement determination, the obviously excessive amount of compensation claimed, and the timing of the lawsuit, which could not be considered a coincidence, were sufficient to show that Jin company’s patent infringement lawsuit was not for legitimate rights protection, but rather intended to delay Ling company’s listing process and damage Ling rights. Therefore, it should be deemed a malicious lawsuit, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original judgment.
Typical significance
The significance of this case lies in the following aspects:
One method is to use the approach of “judging motives by timing and objectives by target” to identify malicious intent.
The second-instance judgment in this case stated: “In determining whether an intellectual property lawsuit filed by the plaintiff constitutes malicious litigation, the people’s court may, on the basis of examining whether the litigation lacks a legal basis and factual basis, comprehensively consider factors such as the plaintiff’s claims, the timing of the lawsuit, litigation risks, litigation strategies, and the degree of imbalance of interests between the parties.” It is evident that a systematic approach is required when determining malicious litigation, comprehensively considering pre-litigation and in-litigation factors, as well as in-litigation and out-of-litigation factors.
In practice, malicious litigation takes many forms. This case is a typical example of malicious litigation initiated to obstruct the other party’s listing. In this type of malicious litigation, the court pays particular attention to two factors: the timing of the lawsuit and the subject matter of the lawsuit. The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out: “After Ling Company submitted its listing application and during the review process, Jin Company filed this lawsuit and demanded an excessively high amount of compensation, which made Ling Company bear the obligation to disclose litigation information during the listing review, and Ling Company’s listing process was suspended as a result.”
Second, determine the “punishment measures” based on the “specific ideas” of malicious individuals.
In practice, the specific intentions of malicious litigants vary greatly, and courts can address these specific intentions to achieve “precise punishment.” If “judging motives by timing and purpose by target” is a method to determine whether a plaintiff intends to obstruct the other party’s listing, then “eliminating the impact” is the way to curb the realization of such intentions.
In addition to compensating for reasonable expenses, the case also ordered Jin company to issue a public statement to eliminate the negative impact. “Intellectual property infringement disputes directly affect investors’ judgments on a company’s value and future development, especially for companies listed on the Science and Technology Innovation Board.” Malicious litigants aim to obstruct the other party’s listing by causing negative impacts, and the court ordered them to eliminate such impacts, thus thwarting their intentions as much as possible.
Third, it reveals the nature of malicious litigation as “filing a lawsuit is an infringement.”
Malicious litigation is a tortious act not because of any particular action taken during the litigation process, but because “filing a lawsuit is itself a tort.” The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out that “in the determination of liability for tortious litigation, the act of filing a lawsuit is itself a tortious act. If the defendant’s initiation of invalidation proceedings is a forced choice in response to the lawsuit, then the related expenses incurred are directly causally related to the lawsuit,” and the plaintiff should provide compensation.
V. Malicious Litigation Case Involving the Invention Patent for the Preparation Method of “Monk Fruit Extract” – （2021）最高法知民终1353号
Basic Case Facts
On May 9, 2018, a company in Guilin issued an announcement regarding the acceptance of its public offering application by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). On July 13, 2018, a company in Hunan filed a lawsuit against the Guilin company, alleging that the company’s production, sales, and offers for sale of a series of products infringed upon its patent right entitled “A Preparation Method of Monk Fruit Extract Applicable to Industrial Production .” In August 2018, the CSRC received a complaint letter from the Hunan company, learning of the patent infringement lawsuit filed against the Guilin company and the Hunan company’s request to invalidate its patent rights. The CSRC suspended its review of the public offering application, which was later approved in November 2018. On May 20, 2019, after learning that the court had rejected its application for investigation and evidence collection, the Hunan company withdrew its lawsuit, which the court granted.
The company in Guilin filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting confirmation that the aforementioned lawsuit filed by the company in Hunan was a malicious lawsuit.
Judgment
The Changsha Intermediate People’s Court of Hunan Province dismissed the lawsuit filed by the company in Guilin in the first instance. The Guilin company appealed. The Supreme People’s Court, in the second instance, held that it was difficult to determine whether the Hunan company’s lawsuit lacked a clear legal basis or factual grounds; it was difficult to determine whether the Hunan company’s lawsuit was filed with obvious malice; the Hunan company’s report to the China Securities Regulatory Commission was not fabricated or baseless, and did not violate any legal provisions, so its actions could not be considered obviously improper; the Hunan company’s application to withdraw the lawsuit was a disposition of its right to sue, and could not be considered improper. In summary, it was insufficient to determine that the lawsuit was malicious, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original judgment.
Typical significance
The second-instance judgment in this case repeatedly used phrases such as “difficult to determine,” “difficult to deny,” and “difficult to say is inappropriate” in its reasoning, which reflects the principle of prudence and restraint in determining malicious litigation.
Initiating a tort lawsuit is originally intended to protect one’s rights, but in the hands of malicious litigants, it has been distorted into a means of infringement. Combating malicious litigation is meant to maintain order; if handled improperly, it can actually increase the uncertainty of civil and commercial activities throughout society.
The principles of prudence and restraint embody the art of balance in judicial proceedings; and this art of balance, in turn, reflects dialectical thinking. The second-instance judgment in this case demonstrates a clear dialectical approach in its reasoning in many places:
While the law cannot condone wrongdoing, it also cannot impose its will on people. The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out: “Any lawsuit carries the risk of losing due to insufficient evidence, inappropriate litigation strategy, or misunderstanding of the law. It is unreasonable to expect parties to guarantee a final victory in the lawsuit from the outset.”
The application of law can be “presumed,” but not “simply presumed.” The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out: “The unfavorable outcome of a rights protection lawsuit cannot be used to simply presume that the plaintiff acted maliciously.”
It is essential to respect both the norms of litigation and the individual differences of each party. The second-instance judgment in this case pointed out: “The litigation capabilities of the parties vary, and it is common for them to change the evidence they submit and their litigation behavior as the litigation process progresses.”
Taking these considerations into account, this case analyzed the criteria for determining malicious litigation from both “negative” and “positive” perspectives. It clarifies that filing a lawsuit just as the opposing party is preparing for an IPO does not automatically constitute malicious litigation, nor does withdrawing a lawsuit after filing it necessarily mean malicious litigation. While clarifying these potential misconceptions, the second-instance judgment explicitly states: “The following elements must be met to determine whether an intellectual property lawsuit constitutes malicious litigation: the lawsuit clearly lacks a legal basis or factual grounds; the plaintiff was aware of this; it causes harm to others; and there is a causal relationship between the lawsuit and the resulting harm.”
As the SPC website remains geoblocked, the original text is available via social media here (Chinese only).
