CHINA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Binxin Li, Sally Wang, Guangzhen Shang and Yue He, LeanWill Law Firm
SPC’s latest judgment on admissibility of supplementary experimental data in pharmaceutical patents
New trends in judicial trade secret protection Chinese courts have continued to strengthen enforce- ment against trade secret infringement, particularly in cases involving strategic and emerging industries. In 2025, a criminal trade secret case concluded by the Shanghai No 3 Intermediate People’s Court concern- ing the misappropriation of semiconductor technical secrets by a former employee was selected by both the SPC and the SPP as a representative case. In that case, the court accepted as the basis for its judg- ment the reasonable royalty value of the trade secrets, assessed by an asset appraisal firm at RMB317 mil- lion. All 14 defendants were found guilty of trade secret infringement and received corresponding crimi- nal penalties. The principal offender was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and fined RMB3 million. Molecular marker identification in new plant variety dispute clarified by the SPC In the Hengji Limagrain v Henan Jinyuan Seed case (2024 SPC Civil Final No 337) concluded by the SPC in April 2025, judicial standards for determining variety identity via molecular markers were clarified. The SPC ruled that expanded SSR locus testing is admissible only if two strict prerequisites are satisfied: (i) stand- ard testing indicates differential loci near the statutory identity threshold, and (ii) supplementary loci carry adequate genetic polymorphism and stability, with a scientifically validated strong gene-phenotype corre- lation and developed trait-linked functional markers. The SPC excluded the defendant’s unsubstantiated expanded locus test in this case for failing both pre- requisites. Standard testing showed just one differ- ential locus between YZ320 and the protected corn inbred line NP01154 (far from the supplementary test- ing threshold), and the defendant could not prove the scientific validity or trait linkage of the added loci. The SPC further held that the defendant’s unauthor- ised production and sale of hybrid corn seeds using the protected variety constituted wilful infringement, applying punitive damages and awarding a total of RMB53.547 million in compensation (including rea- sonable litigation expenses). This landmark ruling unified molecular marker rules for new plant variety disputes, strengthened protection for corn inbred line rights, and set China’s highest damages record for such cases.
On 31 December 2025, the SPC issued a second- instance judgment in the semaglutide compound patent invalidation case, signalling a more open and flexible judicial stance on the admissibility of sup- plementary experimental data in patent validity and infringement disputes – a key legal issue in the field of pharmaceutical patent protection. Historically, the CNIPA has applied a relatively strict judicial standard for the admissibility of supplemen- tary experimental data: supplementary experimental data used to prove the technical effects of a claimed compound is only admissible if the patent specifica- tion explicitly records the specific technical effects of the compound and the corresponding verification protocols at the time of filing. The SPC, however, ruled in the semaglutide com- pound patent invalidation case that such supplemen- tary experimental data is admissible for specific com- pounds covered by a generic formula in the patent specification, provided that the specification discloses the technical effects of the generic formula and the supporting verification protocols. This ruling applies regardless of whether the supplementary experimen- tal data was generated before the filing date (or prior- ity date) of the patent application. This judgment rectifies the overly rigid approach in the previous administrative examination practice, clarify- ing that requiring all inventiveness-related experimen- tal methods and test results to be included in the pat- ent specification at the filing date places an unduly burdensome requirement on pharmaceutical patent applicants. The SPC emphasised in the judgment that the admissibility of supplementary experimen- tal data for the assessment of patent inventiveness cannot be judged by the same sufficient disclosure standard applicable to the patent specification, and a more flexible judicial standard should be applied to accommodate the unique characteristics of pharma- ceutical R&D, where the technical effects of specific compounds may only be verified through subsequent experiments after the patent filing date.
56 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook