China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

SPC Amends Jurisdiction Rules for IP Cases

Mon, 30 May 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 20 Apr. 2022, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the “Several Provisions on the Jurisdiction of Civil and Administrative First-Instance Cases of Intellectual Property” (《关于第一审知识产权民事、行政案件管辖的若干规定》, hereinafter referred to as the “Provisions”), which took effect on 1 May 2022.

The main purpose of the Provisions is to concentrate the jurisdiction over intellectual property (IP) cases in courts with sufficient professional competency.

The Provisions divides the jurisdiction over IP cases into three categories:

(1) For highly-technical, significant, difficult, and complicated IP cases:

These cases are under the jurisdiction of the IP courts nationwide, the intermediate people’s courts in provincial capitals, as well as the intermediate people’s courts designated by the SPC.

Cases of this type may involve invention patents, utility model patents, new plant varieties, layout designs of integrated circuits, technology secrets, computer software ownership, infringement disputes, and monopoly disputes.

(2) For IP cases with a certain degree of specialization:

These cases are under the jurisdiction of IP courts and immediate people’s courts nationwide, as well as the primary people’s courts designated by the SPC.

Cases of this type include disputes over the ownership or infringement of design patents and conflicts over the recognition of well-known trademarks.

(3) For ordinary IP cases:

These cases are under the jurisdiction of intermediate people’s courts nationwide or the primary people’s courts designated by the SPC.

Cases of this type may include disputes arising from copyright contracts, copyright ownership, copyright infringement, trade secret contracts, and so on.

 

 

Cover Photo by Lavinia Occeña on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

You might also like

Guangdong High Court Highlights Landmark Mainland-Hong Kong Bankruptcy Ruling

Among 10 typical cases released by the Guangdong High People's Court to advance legal alignment in the Greater Bay Area, a landmark ruling (Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation) stands out for securing Hong Kong judicial recognition for a bankruptcy administrator appointed by a mainland court outside designated pilot regions.

China Publishes First Typical Cases in Sports Arbitration

China Commission of Arbitration for Sports (CCAS) has released its first set of six typical cases, establishing a precedent, among others, that sports agency contract disputes fall under specialized sports arbitration rather than general commercial arbitration.

China Designates Beijing Court for ICSID Arbitral Awards

China has officially designated the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People's Court to handle the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards, filling a long-standing procedural gap and advancing its restrictive immunity framework.

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)