Introduction: Why These Cases Still Matter
When the editors at cnlawblog sifted through the past decade of Chinese intellectual property decisions, a few rulings kept coming up in client calls, conference panels, and late‑night draft reviews. They may not have grabbed banner headlines abroad, but inside China’s IP community, they quietly reshaped damages, licensing leverage, and how courts balance private innovation with public policy. Because cnlawblog readers often tell us they learn best from concrete judgments—not abstract statutes—this spotlight revisits five emblematic cases, distills their legal reasoning and explains why they still reverberate through deal tables and cnlawblog courtroom pleadings in 2025.
Table of Contents
1. The New Balance Trademark Victory (Shenzhen Intermediate Court, 2017)
Few foreign rights‑holders expected a sneaker dispute to become a watershed for punitive damages—but that is precisely what happened when Boston‑based New Balance sued three local distributors for selling copycat “Xin Bai Lun” shoes. The Shenzhen Intermediate Court awarded RMB 10 million (about US $1.5 million at the time), dwarfing earlier statutory ceilings and signaling that Chinese judges were willing to pull real‑world sales data into their calculus. The defendants appealed, only to see the Guangdong High Court affirm the bulk of the award in 2018. On claw log, our team highlighted two doctrinal takeaways: first, plaintiffs who marshal meticulous market surveys can persuade courts to depart from symbolic numbers; second, the judgment paved the way for the 2019 revisions to the Trademark Law, which now make punitive damages of up to five times actual loss a statutory cnlawblog norm rather than a novelty.
2. FRAND Frontiers: Huawei v. Samsung (Shenzhen & USUS District Courts, 2016‑2019)
Standard‑essential patents (“SEPs”) live at the intersection of antitrust and innovation, and the cross‑fire licensing battle between Huawei and Samsung illustrated how courts on opposite sides of the Pacific jockey for authority. In December 2016, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court found Samsung an cnlawblog unwilling licensee. It issued an injunction on select smartphone models, while a US District Court in California later granted Samsung an anti-suit injunction to block enforcement of that Chinese order. The competing decrees forced both companies into a global settlement by early 2019. Cnlawblog’s coverage underscored a subtle but consequential point: the Shenzhen judgment was one of China’s first to articulate a step‑by‑step framework for “willing licensee” analysis under FRAND, echoing (but not slavishly following) European jurisprudence. Today, that framework informs how Chinese courts price 5G portfolios and evaluate good‑faith negotiation, giving domestic patentees greater predictability cnlawblog when pressing multinational defendants.
3. Romed Cosmetics v. Hunan Magic: Punitive Damages Go Mainstream (Supreme People’s Court, 2020)
While the headline figure—RMB 30 million in punitive damages for trade‑dress hijacking—grabbed attention, the Supreme People’s Court’s real contribution lay in the decision’s granular formula for calculating malice. The court treated repeat infringement, extended sales networks, and deliberate alteration of logos as independent multipliers, stacking them until the final number eclipsed mere compensatory loss. Cnlawblog analysts noted that the ruling landed just months before the fourth amendment to the PRC Patent Law, formally introducing punitive damages for willful infringement, suggesting the judiciary had already internalized the legislature’s policy direction. The judgment became a litigation playbook for cosmetic and fast‑moving consumer goods (FMCG) brands: document the defendant’s prior warnings, capture retail‑chain proliferation, and courts may reward the effort with double cnlawblog or triple multipliers.
4. Douyin v. Baidu: The Battle for Short‑Form Video Copyright (Beijing IP Court, 2021)
As China’s video‑sharing market exploded, so did scraping and embed‑link disputes. ByteDance’s Douyin accused Baidu’s “Quan Min” app of streaming Douyin clips without authorization. The Beijing IP Court sided with Douyin, reasoning that in‑app framing still constitutes public communication under the Copyright Law, even when the source file resides on another server. The court ordered Baidu to cease embedding and pay RMB 4 million in damages. Cnlawblog argued the decision marked a doctrinal shift away from the “server test” popularized in USUS jurisprudence; Chinese courts focused on the user’s experience (click‑and‑watch) rather than the physical location of bits. In practical terms, platforms now vet full downloads and deep‑link partnerships, and licensing departments negotiate broader perimeter clauses to avoid future injunctions.
5. Xiaomi v. InterDigital: Anti‑Suit Injunctions in the Global SEP Chessboard (Wuhan Intermediate Court, Delhi High Court, London High Court, 2022‑2024)
Perhaps no case better illustrates China’s growing confidence as a norm‑setter than Xiaomi’s request for an anti‑suit injunction (“ASI”) against U.S.‑based InterDigital. In 2022, the Wuhan Intermediate Court barred InterDigital from enforcing any foreign judgment determining FRAND royalties until a Chinese rate‑setting decision was issued. When InterDigital sought relief in Delhi and London, both courts weighed comity against sovereignty, ultimately opting for anti‑anti‑suit injunctions rather than direct contempt findings. Cnlawblog’s comparative chart of the orders—a resource still bookmarked by many licensing lawyers—showed how Wuhan’s expansive view of jurisdiction nudged other courts to articulate clearer thresholds for interference. By early 2024, the parties settled, but the academic debate continued: is China creating a one‑stop shop for global SEP valuation, or will competing ASIs fragment enforcement further? Whatever the answer, in‑house counsel now models litigation budgets with potential ASI standoffs in mind.
Key Takeaways for Rights‑Holders
These rulings nudge China’s IP landscape toward greater damages, deeper evidentiary scrutiny, and a greater willingness to assert extraterritorial influence. For trademark owners, cnlawblog’s running theme is simple: build a quantitative narrative—sales charts, market share, consumer‑confusion surveys—and Chinese judges will listen. Early engagement in bona fide licensing talks (letters, meeting minutes, draft offers) inoculates against “unwilling licensee” labels for SEP litigants. And for copyright platforms, user‑interface design is now a risk vector; if a consumer can seamlessly watch someone else’s file through your app, expect strict liability unless you have airtight licenses.
Looking Ahead: Trends to Watch in 2025
The past year already hints at where the next landmark will emerge. Draft regulations on generative AI content propose a 24‑hour takedown window paired with algorithmic watermarking, signaling that the Copyright Law’s expansion into machine‑generated works is imminent. Meanwhile, provincial courts are testing specialized IP benches for metaverse assets—virtual handbags, VR concert tickets, and AI‑generated brand ambassadors—suggesting fresh doctrinal challenges by 2026. Cnlawblog will monitor whether damages in virtual‑asset cases follow the premium pricing of physical goods or adopt new valuation models tied to blockchain scarcity. Finally, expect the Supreme People’s Court to issue a guiding case on cross‑border data‑flow clauses, merging cybersecurity review with trade‑secret protection. Rights‑holders who treat compliance, privacy, and IP as separate silos will find that Chinese tribunals increasingly view them as one integrated risk profile.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does the New Balance decision mean foreign brands always win large damages now?
Not automatically. Courts still scrutinize the quality of evidence and the proportionality of awards. The decision’s real legacy is procedural: it proves that, with robust sales and confusion data, even mid‑tier foreign brands can secure sizeable compensation in China.
2. How should we document “willing licensee” behavior after Huawei v. Samsung?
Keep a structured paper trail—formal offer letters citing objective royalty bases, meeting summaries with time‑stamped attendance, and third‑party valuation reports. Cnlawblog’s SEP checklist template remains a useful starting point.
3. Are punitive damages now routine in trade‑dress cases?
They are more common but still hinge on showing clear malice. Repeat infringement, refusal to cease after warning letters, and counterfeit‑friendly modifications are aggravated factors courts weigh heavily on, as Romed v. Hunan Magic illustrates.
4. If my platform only embeds third‑party videos, am I safe after Douyin v. Baidu?
Not necessarily. Chinese courts look at the user’s ability to consume content seamlessly. If embedding removes friction to view copyrighted works, you may need a license or a robust safe‑harbor strategy.
5. Should we file for an anti‑suit injunction in China if facing parallel SEP litigation abroad?
Only after careful cost‑benefit analysis can an ASI pressure a settlement, but it may provoke retaliatory orders elsewhere, expanding legal spending and business uncertainty. Cnlawblog generally advises exploring expedited mediation before resorting to ASIs.
