China IP, Beijing, Beijing (2026)

01/09/2026

Going global? Navigating IP risks and legal compliance?

Join us at 2026 for the Thematic Workshop on IP Strategy and Legal Compliance for Enterprises Going Global, hosted by China IP / Intellectual Property Observers — a proud media partner of the conference.

Featuring Liang Xiumin (MegaRobo), Alexey Kratiuk (IP Law Firm Gorodissky & Partners), Xia Wenguang (CN-KnowHow IP Group), and more — this session delivers actionable strategies for overseas IP protection.

Check out the full agenda below ：
https://lnkd.in/gg5JaiFn

21/08/2026

Transsion Scores First Patent Invalidation Win in China Against InterDigital

Chinese smartphone maker Shenzhen Transsion Holdings has secured its first patent invalidation victory in China against U.S. technology company InterDigital, a ruling that comes as the two companies remain locked in multi-front patent litigation across Brazil, India and Europe.

A Rare Home-Court Win

China National Intellectual Property Administration ruled on July 30 that InterDigital's 4G patent ZL201410042484.6 lacked inventive step and declared it invalid in its entirety, according to an official announcement. The patent, which covers dynamic resource allocation and scheduling technology for LTE wireless communications with a priority date dating to 2007, was challenged by Transsion, which sells smartphones under the Itel, Infinix and Tecno brands.

The patent review panel accepted evidence submitted by Transsion—3GPP document Evidence 3—as the closest prior art and based its invalidation decision on that evidence combined with common general knowledge in the field.

Transsion has filed invalidation challenges against at least four InterDigital patents before the Chinese patent office. The July 30 ruling represents the first decision to be issued, with the remaining three still under review. Those three patents were previously challenged separately by Huawei, Lenovo and Oppo, and the patent office in each case issued a partial invalidation ruling.

Global Counteroffensive Intensifies

The Chinese victory for Transsion comes as InterDigital has pressed ahead with enforcement actions elsewhere. In April, a Brazilian court granted InterDigital a preliminary injunction barring Transsion from selling 5G devices in that market. In July, the Delhi High Court ordered Transsion to deposit a pro tem security equal to one-fifth of its last licensing counteroffer. InterDigital has also filed suits in the Unified Patent Court covering several European countries, all of which remain pending.

The financial and legal risks stemming from these global disputes have been formally acknowledged by Transsion in its updated Hong Kong listing prospectus filed on June 18, 2026, where the company disclosed that it has made provisions for contingent liabilities related to pending SEP litigation with InterDigital, Ericsson and LG Electronics. The company faces eight legal proceedings in total, seven involving SEPs, filed between 2025 and 2026 across Europe and several Asian jurisdictions. As of early August, Transsion had settled with Ericsson, while cases against InterDigital and LG Electronics remain active.

Full article:
https://lnkd.in/gVTtQJJP

19/08/2026

Russia Introduces New Domain Name Restrictions on 1 September 2026

Stanislav Rumyantsev
Ph.D., CIPP/E
Senior lawyer, Legal Department
Gorodissky & Partners

Beginning 1 September 2026, new domain name registration rules enter into force. Domain name owners will be required to complete a verification procedure via Russia’s official government services portal (Gosuslugi) for registering, renewing, purchasing, selling, and deleting domain names. Foreign companies and individuals may face significant difficulties accessing Gosuslugi and, consequently, risk losing their domain names. This alert outlines the new requirements and suggests immediate response options.

What Domain Names Are Affected?
The new rules apply to all domain names in the following top-level domain zones:

n .ru (Russian national domain);
n .рф (Russian Cyrillic domain); and
n .su (legacy domain for the Soviet Union).

What Are the New Requirements?
According to revised Article 14.2 of the Federal Law “On Information, Information Technologies, and Protection of Information” No.149-FZ dated July 27, 2006, the Government is authorized to adopt Domain Name Registration Regulations prescribing mandatory owner verification via the state Unified System for Identification and Authentication (ESIA), accessible through Gosuslugi. Under this framework, domain registrars must obtain verified personal details of an individual owner (full name, identity document details, date of birth, etc.) or corporate information of a legal entity owner (company name, registered address, taxpayer identification number, etc.) directly from Gosuslugi, subject to the owner’s consent granted via their Gosuslugi account.

The draft Domain Name Registration Regulations have been published but are not yet formally adopted. According to the draft Regulations, verification will be mandatory for the following operations: registering a new domain name; updating owner business details; renewing existing domain registrations; delegating (modifying DNS servers); transferring ownership; changing domain name registrars; and annulling (deleting) a domain name. Registrars will be required to reject any of these operations if identity verification fails.

Who Can Create a Gosuslugi Account?
While the draft Regulations do not explicitly prohibit foreign entities from owning domains, non-Russian companies and individuals without a physical or legal presence in Russia face severe operational barriers to creating a Gosuslugi account. Foreign legal entities can only establish an account if they maintain an officially registered branch or representative office in Russia. Foreign individuals require a Russian individual insurance account number (SNILS). They must confirm their identity either in person at a government services office or through a Russian bank’s mobile app (if they have a local bank account).

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/gFdWUZBT

13/08/2026

wins Chinese patent validity fight against as top court rejects appeals

China's Supreme People's Court has upheld the validity of two Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. patents covering 3G and 4G telecommunications standards, rejecting appeals by HMD Global Oy, the Finnish company that makes Nokia-branded phones, according to judicial rulings published by the court.

The top court issued the two second-instance administrative judgments on July 23 and published them on July 31, docketed as (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 544 and No. 1176, the rulings showed. Both decisions affirmed earlier determinations by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court that the patents were valid.

The patents in dispute are titled "Method and Device for Sending Control Signaling" (Chinese Patent No. ZL201110269715.3) and "Bandwidth Allocation Method, Device, User Equipment and Base Station" (Chinese Patent No. ZL201380002080.8). The CNIPA had issued decisions in July and October 2023 respectively, keeping both patents fully in force.

The legal battle stems from three patent infringement lawsuits Huawei filed against HMD in 2022 at the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, with docket numbers (2022) Yue 03 Min Chu No. 7127, 7125 and 7129, which are understood to allege infringement of Huawei's patents covering technologies from 3G to 5G. The Shenzhen court held hearings in October and November 2023, as well as May and October 2024.

HMD also challenged a third Huawei patent covering Polar Code encoding technology (Chinese Patent No. ZL201810211560.X), a core 5G patent, which received a partial invalidation ruling from the CNIPA in September 2023.

HMD, which licenses the Nokia brand and trademark from Nokia Corporation but does not hold Nokia's patent portfolio, has additionally been engaged in litigation with Huawei before the Unified Patent Court in Europe.

The Supreme Court's ruling affirms the stability of Huawei's patent assets in its home jurisdiction and represents a setback for HMD's defensive strategy of challenging the validity of asserted patents in response to infringement claims. Huawei remains one of the world's largest filers of standard-essential patents in the telecommunications sector.

Click to know more:
https://lnkd.in/g_ydyTDi

06/08/2026

Valery Narezhny from the legal department at Gorodissky & Partners shares key insights on Tax Incentives for Innovation Development in Russia.

The number of Chinese-founded companies in Russia has grown tenfold since 2021—reaching nearly 15,000—with giants like Huawei, Alibaba, and Great Wall Motors leading the way. What makes this trend even more compelling? While most Western firms have lost access to double taxation treaty benefits following Russia's August 2023 suspension orders, the Russia-China DTA remains fully intact, granting Chinese companies a preferential 10% tax rate on royalties, interest, and dividends. Combined with Russia's robust incentive framework—including R&D deductions, VAT exemptions on IP transfers, and reduced profit rates for special economic zone residents—this creates a uniquely favorable environment for Chinese innovators looking to scale in the Russian market.

Click to read the original full article:
https://lnkd.in/gqN6NMJk

29/07/2026

China's SAMR Fines Trip.com Group RMB 5.18 Billion for Abusing Market Dominance

The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has imposed administrative penalties totaling RMB 5.179 billion (approximately USD 770 million) on Trip.com Group Ltd. for abusing its dominant market position in China's online hotel booking platform services market.
The decision, announced on July 25, 2026, marks China's first antitrust enforcement action in the online travel sector and the first case targeting novel monopolistic conduct enabled by digital technologies.

Penalty Details

The penalty consists of three components: an order to refund RMB 122.78 million in order reserve funds forcibly deducted from hotel operators; confiscation of illegal gains amounting to RMB 1.658 billion; and a fine of RMB 3.521 billion, equivalent to 7.5% of the company's 2025 sales revenue in China (RMB 46.958 billion). This is the first platform-economy case in China to combine all three forms of relief, and the first to include confiscation of illegal gains. The 7.5% fine ratio is the highest ever imposed in a Chinese platform-economy antitrust case, compared to 4% for Alibaba and 3% for Meituan.
Investigation and Findings

The SAMR launched its formal investigation in January 2026 following numerous complaints from industry associations and hotel operators alleging that Trip.com forced merchants to accept unfair contractual terms and used technical tools to manipulate hotel pricing. The investigation found that since 2020, Trip.com had abused its dominant position in China's online hotel booking platform services market (with an estimated 56% market share of gross merchandise value as of 2024) through two principal abusive practices.

Two Abusive Practices

Exclusive Dealing

Trip.com offered "special-label" status to high-quality hotels, granting them maximum traffic allocation and promotional support, on condition that they enter into exclusive cooperation agreements and list their rooms solely on the Ctrip platform. Hotels found operating on rival platforms faced punitive measures such as traffic restriction, downgrading in search rankings, and delisting from the program. A homestay operator in Yunnan reported an immediate 90% drop in Trip.com orders after listing on another platform, with their search ranking falling from the front page to beyond page 100. The exclusive cooperation arrangement was not written into contracts but communicated orally by business managers, making it more difficult to detect.

Lowest-Price Mandates

Trip.com required "gold-label" hotels to price at least RMB 20 or 5% lower than on rival platforms, and unlabeled hotels to price no higher than on other platforms.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/g8c-XT52

22/07/2026

Ludmila Lisovskaya，Patent Attorney and Head of Patent Department at and partners shares her insights on Patent Term Extension in Russia and the Eurasian Patent System: Legal Challenges and Judicial Trends

Introduction

Patent term extension constitutes an important legal mechanism designed to compensate patent holders for the time required to obtain regulatory approval before certain products may be placed on the market. In sectors such as pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals, where marketing authorisation procedures may consume several years, patent term extension seeks to compensate patent holders for the effective patent term lost during regulatory review.

At the same time, the grant of an extension directly affects market competition by postponing the entry of generic products and prolonging the exclusive rights of patent owners. Consequently, disputes concerning the legality of patent term extensions have become an increasingly important aspect of patent litigation. Courts and patent offices are required to strike a balance between protecting innovation incentives and preventing unjustified extensions of exclusive rights.

The Russian Federation and the Eurasian patent system provide comparable, yet procedurally distinct, mechanisms for extending patent protection. While both systems pursue similar policy objectives, they differ in their legal framework, administrative procedures, and available mechanisms for judicial review. Recent legislative amendments in Russia, together with the evolving practice of the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO) and national courts, have significantly influenced the standards applied when reviewing the validity of patent term extensions.

Existing scholarship has primarily focused on national patent systems, whereas the interaction between the Russian and Eurasian mechanisms governing patent term extension, particularly in the context of judicial review and dispute resolution, has received comparatively limited scholarly attention.

This article examines the legal framework governing patent term extension in Russia and under the Eurasian Patent Convention, analyses the principal legal grounds for challenging such extensions, and reviews recent judicial developments that shape the interpretation and application of these rules.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/eBcQyuuh

01/07/2026

China's top court rejects Mengniu retrial, upholds 5 mln yuan award in Yili packaging case

China's Supreme People's Court has rejected a retrial application from China Mengniu Dairy Company Ltd, upholding a lower court's ruling that the packaging of its "Selected Meadow" milk constituted unfair competition. The decision brings a definitive end to the IP dispute between two of the country's largest dairy companies and establishes a legal standard protecting the "overall visual effect" of product packaging.

In a June 2026 ruling identified as (2026) Zui Gao Fa Min Shen No. 1294, the top court ordered Mengniu to immediately cease infringement and pay Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co., Ltd. 5 million yuan in damages and legal costs, affirming a Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court decision.

The dispute centered on the packaging that Yili introduced for its "SATINE" pure milk in 2020, featuring a creamy white background with dark green accents and artistic grassland motifs. Yili argued that since launching the brand in 2006, and particularly after the packaging update, it had achieved national recognition through extensive advertising and promotion, including hiring renowned singer Zhang Jie as brand ambassador. Mengniu countered that its "Selected Meadow" brand had existed since 2014, and the accused product entered the market in December 2023, promoted by famous actor Xiao Zhan.

All three court levels adopted a holistic test for infringement. The Jiangsu high court noted in its 2025 judgment that the two packages were similar in the color, style, and placement of logos; font, shade, and positioning of text; and the overall artwork featuring dairy cows and pastures. The overall visual effect was found to be similar, likely causing consumer confusion. The court rejected Mengniu's defense that its packaging used common dairy industry elements—cows, pastures, greenery—and therefore lacked distinctiveness.

In its ruling, the Supreme People's Court provided final clarity on this issue. The court held that while such elements are common in dairy packaging, their combination could still serve to identify the source of goods, and their distinctiveness should not be denied merely because they were commonly used. The court also affirmed that Yili's packaging had acquired "certain influence" through extensive sales and promotion before Mengniu's accused product launch in December 2023.

Separately, Mengniu argued that some individual elements of its packaging were derived from its own prior design patents. The top court rejected this defense, stating that the law protects the "pattern, arrangement, and overall style" of a trade dress, and local elements' sources could not negate a finding of overall similarity.

Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/eCvD-Wni

Yili SATINE (top) and Mengniu Selected Meadow (bottom) packaging (Source: JD.com)

24/06/2026

China's Top Court Sets New Specialized Commercial Vehicle Industry Patent Damages Record in Zoomlion Environment v. Chengli

The patent infringement dispute between Changsha Zoomlion Environmental Industry Co., Ltd. ("Zoomlion Environment") and Hubei Chengli Special Automobile Co., Ltd. ("Chengli") has reached its final conclusion, with the Supreme People's Court of China delivering a landmark ruling that sets a new compensation record for the specialized commercial vehicle industry.

The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, in its final appellate judgment under docket number (2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1253, rejected Chengli's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. Chengli was ordered to pay Zoomlion Environment a total of RMB 24.19 million – comprising RMB 24,004,880 in economic damages and RMB 188,488.6 in reasonable legal expenses. The court also issued a permanent injunction, mandating that Chengli immediately cease the manufacture, sale, and offering for sale of the infringing products.

The RMB 24.19 million award represents a nearly threefold increase over the previous benchmark in the sector – the consolidated RMB 8.4 million judgment in the Sany Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Jiuhe Heavy Industry Machinery Co., Ltd. concrete pump truck case – signaling a robust judicial commitment to bolstering damages for intellectual property rights infringement.

The plaintiff, Changsha Zoomlion Environmental Industry Co., Ltd., was formerly the environmental sanitation division of Zoomlion Heavy Industry. Following an equity transfer completed between 2017 and 2018, it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Infore Environment Technology Group Co., Ltd., specializing in sanitation equipment and holding a substantial portfolio of invention patents related to street sweepers and cleaning suction nozzles. The defendant, Hubei Chengli Special Automobile Co., Ltd., established in September 2004, is headquartered in Suizhou, Hubei Province.

The litigation, which commenced in 2024, was accompanied by an aggressive invalidity strategy from Chengli. During the proceedings, Chengli challenged a total of six Zoomlion Environment patents before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), filing multiple invalidation requests to undermine Zoomlion Environment's legal standing.

The six contested patents are:

Cleaner suction nozzle and cleaner vehicle (ZL201410624124.7)

Suction nozzle assembly and sweeper vehicle (ZL201611239086.9)

Suction pipe dust suppression device for suction-sweeping sweeper vehicles and sweeper vehicle (ZL201210590516.7)

Clean suction nozzle and clean vehicle (ZL201410624335.0)

Cleaning suction nozzle and cleaning vehicle (ZL201410624859.X)

Urban road curb and curbstone cleaning vehicle (ZL200610031818.5)

Photo source: Zoomlion
Click to read the full article:
https://lnkd.in/g3P_XCUM

18/06/2026

ROFS Microsystem sues Wuhan MEMSonics over BAW filter patent

ROFS Microsystem (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. said on June 12 it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Wuhan MEMSonics New Technologies Co., Ltd. with a Shenzhen court, alleging that the rival's BAW filters infringe its invention patent.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court has accepted the case for docketing, ROFS said in a statement carried on its official WeChat account. The company said the litigation is aimed at safeguarding its lawful rights and warned relevant parties of potential risks associated with using infringing products.

Wuhan MEMSonics responded later on Friday, saying it had not received any court documents and that its products were developed through independent research and development. The company said its filters do not incorporate all the technical features recited in the asserted patent claims and therefore do not constitute infringement.

ROFS, established in September 2011, is one of China's earliest BAW filter developers and operates a dedicated 6-inch production line in the northern city of Tianjin under an IDM model. Wuhan MEMSonics, founded in 2019 by Professor Sun Chengliang of Wuhan University, focuses on high-end radio frequency filters. Both companies are leading players in China's domestic BAW filter sector, which has seen intensifying competition.

The patent at the centre of the dispute, ZL201010267632.6, covers a piezoelectric resonator structure. It was filed in August 2010 by ROFS founders Pang Wei and Zhang Hao and granted in October 2012.

The same patent was at the heart of a high-profile legal battle between ROFS and U.S. chipmaker Broadcom Inc. In 2017, ROFS sued Apple Inc. and its supplier Avago Technologies –now Broadcom – before a Tianjin court, alleging that filter chips used in multiple iPhone models infringed its patent. Avago then filed a counterclaim with the same court seeking ownership of the patent, while Apple challenged the patent's validity before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

The dispute ended on July 3, 2024, when ROFS announced a global settlement with Broadcom. Both sides withdrew all pending lawsuits and entered into a cross-licensing agreement covering certain Chinese patents.

According to records from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the patent was partially invalidated in October 2017, with claims 1 and 2 struck down while claims 3 through 15 were upheld. A preservation order was placed on the patent in March 2024 and lifted in March 2025.

In February 2026, ROFS filed another patent suit based on the same patent with the Shenzhen court, this time against Heyuan Aifo Guangtong Technology Co., Ltd.

Photo source: ROFS Microsystem

For more:
https://lnkd.in/gppkwzJu

China IP

01/09/2026

21/08/2026

19/08/2026

13/08/2026

06/08/2026

29/07/2026

22/07/2026

01/07/2026

24/06/2026

18/06/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Restaurant

Shortcuts

Share

Listing takedown request