China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

Beijing Court Issues Guidelines on Evidence Rules in IPR Civil Litigation

Wed, 26 May 2021
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 22 Apr. 2021, Beijing High People's Court held a press conference on trial work of intellectual property rights (IPR) cases in Beijing courts, and issued the “Guidelines of Beijing High People's Court on Evidence Rules Evidence in Civil Litigation of Intellectual Property Rights (北京市高级人民法院知识产权民事诉讼证据规则指引).

The Guidelines contains six parts, which provide guidance on the presentation of evidence for disputes over infringement of patent rights, copyrights, trademarks, and unfair competition, apart from the General Provisions and Supplementary Provisions. The Guidelines aims to ensure the accurate application of the “Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation of Intellectual Property Rights (关于知识产权民事诉讼证据的若干规定) issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC).

The Guidelines set out provisions in line with the latest development of forensic technologies. According to the Guidelines, information carriers based on new technologies that reflect the facts of a case, such as evidence kept by a third party and evidence formed by blockchain technology, could be provided by the parties as evidence. For such evidence, the court shall, in the light of the formation process, expression form and the content of evidence as well as the characteristics of new technologies, comprehensively determine the authenticity and reliability of the information it carries and its relevance to the case, so as to decide the evidentiary weight thereof. Furthermore, for notary preservation or blockchain deposition preservation, the electronic data in the information network environment should be examined in terms of the production process of notary documents, the generation process of blockchain deposition records, the formation process of the web page and its release time, the qualification and credit status of the website managing the web page, the technical means adopted for notarization, and the technical environment of blockchain deposition.

 

 

Cover Photo by vnwayne fan (https://unsplash.com/@vnwayne) on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal, Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments

Recent Australian case law clarifies that the “double interest” mechanism in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) monetary judgments functions as a compensatory post-judgment interest framework rather than an unenforceable penalty. This consolidates Australia’s position as a highly attractive and creditor-friendly forum for enforcing Chinese judgments. See Zhengzhou Lvdu Real Estate Group Co v Shu [2024] NSWSC 58 (6 February 2024), Fu v Pang [2025] VSC 597 (16 September 2025)

IOMed Settles First Case, Resolving China-Singapore Maritime Dispute

The newly established International Organization for Mediation (IOMed) has successfully resolved its inaugural case—a maritime charter dispute between Chinese and Singaporean parties—marking a major milestone for the world’s first government-backed global mediation body.

China Overhauls Arbitration Law for Global Alignment

Having entered into force on March 1, 2026, China’s first comprehensive revision of its 1995 Arbitration Law has introduced ad hoc arbitration, strengthened interim relief, and aligned the legal framework more closely with international standards.