CHINA – BEIJING Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ye Zhao and Liwei Jiang, Jingtian & Gongcheng
• Civil scope and remedy may substantially exceed criminal outcomes: In 2023 SPC ZhiMinZhong No 868 , the parallel criminal proceeding had ordered disgorgement of CNY700,000 (measured as the seller’s profit from the sale of drawings). The SPC distinguished this from the civil claim, which targeted the buyer’s entire infringing production profits plus a punitive multiplier, and awarded CNY10.27 million – almost 15 times the criminal recovery. In 2023 SPC ZhiMinZhong No 2039 , the criminal investigation had examined only a subset of models and technical files. The SPC corrected the first instance’s error of limiting civil protec - tion to the scope of the criminal examination and instead protected all 37,340 misappropriated draw - ings and documents, yielding a 3× punitive award of CNY381.63 million. • The SPC’s articulation is explicit: the scope of tech - nical secrets defined for criminal forensic purposes “does not automatically equate” to the scope of trade secret protection available in civil proceed - ings. The civil court is entitled – and required – to assess the full extent of the rights holder’s confi - dential information without regard to the subset examined by police forensic experts. Viewed systemically, Trend 9 resolves what has long been a structural vulnerability in Chinese trade secret enforcement: the hostage-taking effect of the criminal threshold. When criminal prosecution was the gateway to civil recovery, the “beyond reasonable doubt” stand - ard effectively determined the floor of civil protection. That coupling has now been severed. Civil courts apply civil standards, conduct independent fact-finding, and are not bound – in either direction – by criminal out - comes. Rights holders may pursue, and obtain, full civil remedies irrespective of the criminal process. Conclusion The 2025 decisions represent the SPC IP Tribunal’s final comprehensive statement on trade secret adjudi - cation before the jurisdictional reform takes full effect. Taken together, they establish a cohesive framework built on three interlocking mechanisms: maximum economic sanctions to destroy the profit motive for misappropriation; full-chain liability to dismantle the organisational infrastructure of theft; and a materially
lowered evidentiary burden to remove the structural disadvantage that claimants have historically suffered. China’s civil trade secret protection has moved deci - sively from a passive model – dependent on criminal proceedings for evidence and on statutory minima for damages – to an active protective regime in which puni - tive damages are fully deployed, evidential burdens are reallocated, and the independence of civil courts from criminal process is asserted without reservation. For rights holders, the combination of substantively lower evidentiary thresholds, 100% technical con - tribution recognition where the secret defines the commercial opportunity, and multi-party joint liability means that thorough preparation and precise claim construction will, more reliably than at any prior time, produce proportionate judicial redress. For potential infringers, the shield of corporate per - sonality has been materially weakened; the liability perimeter now extends to investors, purchasers, and contractors; and the refusal to produce court-ordered evidence is itself treated as evidence of the most seri - ous culpability, directly triggering maximum punitive multipliers. Conventional damage-limitation strate - gies – destroying records, using shell vehicles, limit - ing formal involvement – have each been specifically identified and rejected by the SPC. The cost of mis - appropriation, including the cost of an unsuccessful cover-up, has never been higher. These decisions, issued at the close of an era for the SPC IP Tribunal’s trade secret jurisdiction, will serve as a long-lasting benchmark for courts at every level across China. Their influence will be amplified precisely because the Tribunal will no longer be generating large volumes of new trade secret precedent. The 11 cases analysed here – and the dozens of unpublished judgments that follow the same doctrinal trajectory – constitute the Tribunal’s definitive adjudicatory legacy in this area of law. For practitioners advising either side, the message is the same: the era of low-stakes, conservatively adjudi - cated trade secret litigation in China is over. The SPC has recalibrated the entire incentive structure, and the new equilibrium favours rights holders who invest in rig - orous evidence preparation and precise legal strategy.
58 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook