SPC Releases Notice on Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of Primary People's Courts over First-Instance Intellectual Property Civil and Administrative Cases
Date: 28 September 2025
To align with the practical needs of intellectual property adjudication, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has adjusted the territorial jurisdiction of primary people’s courts, nationwide, that are authorized to hear first-instance IP civil and administrative cases, while keeping the monetary thresholds for the amount in dispute unchanged. The Notice took effect on 1 October 2025.
In terms of the amount in dispute, specifically, primary people’s courts in Beijing and Shanghai municipalities are vested with unlimited jurisdiction over such cases. Primary people’s courts in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Huizhou, Zhaoqing, and Jiangmen within Guangdong Province may hear cases involving amounts below RMB 10 million (Approximately US$ 1.4 million), while primary people’s courts in other cities within Guangdong Province are limited to cases below RMB 5 million (Approximately US$ 700,000).
Primary people’s courts in Tianjin and Chongqing municipality, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Henan, Hubei, and Hainan provinces are likewise limited to cases below RMB 5 million (Approximately US$ 700,000), whereas primary people’s courts in all other provinces and autonomous regions are restricted to cases below RMB 1 million (Approximately US$ 140,000).
Compared with the previous version, there is no change in the monetary thresholds, while minor adjustments have been made to the territorial jurisdiction. For example, IP cases occurring in Nankai District of Tianjin municipality, which were previously under the jurisdiction of the Heping Primary People’s Court, are now under the jurisdiction of the Nankai Primary People’s Court.
Source: SPC
https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/477601.html
最高法发布《基层人民法院管辖第一审知识产权民事、行政案件有关事项》的通知
日期：2025年9月28日
结合知识产权审判实际，最高法以民事诉讼标的额对全国具有知识产权民事、行政案件管辖权的基层人民法院及其管辖区域作了调整。在诉讼标的额方面，北京和上海具有相应管辖权的法院民事诉讼标的额不受限制；广东省广州市、深圳市、佛山市、东莞市、中山市、珠海市、惠州市、肇庆市、江门市的法院限制在1000万元以下，其他广东省区域内的法院的限制在500万元以下；天津、江苏、浙江、河南、湖北、海南以及重庆的法院限制在500万元以下；其余省、市、自治区的法院则限制在100万元以下（以上数额均不含本数）。该通知自2025年10月1日起开始施行。
与前版相比，基层法院管辖在诉讼标的额划分上没有调整，仅在管辖区域方面做了细微调整。比如天津市南开区原归和平区人民法院管辖，现划归南开区人民法院管辖。
资料来源：最高人民法院
新闻链接：https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/477601.html
MOF, NFRA, CNIPA, and NCAC Jointly Issue Notice on Further Regulating Issues Concerning Intellectual Property Asset Valuation
Date: 19 September 2025
When an asset valuation is undertaken in connection with the commercialization and utilization of IP, it shall be conducted in accordance with the Asset Valuation Law, the Law on Promoting the Transformation of Scientific and Technological Achievements, and other relevant laws and regulations. In some situations, such as the disposal of state-owned intellectual property, or the use of intellectual property as a capital contribution when establishing a company, a valuation is mandated by applicable laws or regulations. Otherwise, parties may voluntarily engage asset valuation institutions to conduct appraisals. For IP transfers or licenses involving national security, valuations shall be carried out pursuant to relevant special provisions.
Valuation institutions shall independently, objectively, and impartially assess the value of IP assets, and must not predetermine or agree upon specific valuation conclusions. They shall strengthen project risk control and enhance the quality assurance of their valuation reports to improve service standards. Where the institution lacks specific expertise or experience, it may engage professionals in patents, trademarks, copyrights, or related industries to assist in the valuation process.
The four authorities, MOF, NFRA, CNIPA, and NCAC, shall coordinate regulatory efforts, promptly collect and disclose statistics on IP asset valuation practices, and establish a data service platform to enhance oversight of large-scale or abnormal IP valuation reports. Financial institutions are encouraged to leverage professional valuation services to improve risk management in IP pledge financing and to promote exchange and cooperation among valuation institutions, IP service providers, copyright registration agencies, and commercial banks.
Valuation institutions and professionals must operate in compliance with the law; clients must provide truthful materials and must not interfere with valuation outcomes; users of valuation reports must use them strictly within their authorized scope; and financial institutions or guarantee companies must pay attention to the relationship between valuation amount and pledge rate to manage risks prudently. For fast-evolving technical IP, such as in technology sectors, loan or guarantee terms should be reasonably determined to control pledge-financing risks.
Source: Ministry of Finance
https://zcgls.mof.gov.cn/zhengcefabu/202509/t20250918_3972658.htm
财政部 金融监管总局 国家知识产权局 国家版权局四部门联合发布《关于进一步规范知识产权资产评估若干问题的通知》
日期：2025年9月19日
《通知》进一步规范了以下四项重点问题，具体包括：
资料来源：财政部
新闻链接：https://zcgls.mof.gov.cn/zhengcefabu/202509/t20250918_3972658.htm
Beijing Internet Court: Creators Claiming Copyright in AI-Generated Images Shall Provide Records of the Generation Process to Prove Originality and Intellectual Contribution
Date: 16 September 2025
In this case, the Plaintiff, Zhou, claimed that during his entrepreneurial collaboration with a Beijing-based technology company (the Defendant), he independently used an AI drawing software to create an image titled ‘Cat Crystal Pendant’, which he later shared in a WeChat group. On discovering that the Defendant was using the image for promotional purposes on multiple platforms without permission, he commenced proceedings in the Beijing Internet Court for infringement o his rights of authorship and network dissemination.
The Court held that the determination of originality in AI-generated content must adhere to the principle of ‘he who asserts must prove’. Therefore, the Plaintiff must prove that he made a creative contribution in the process of using AI tools. In this case, he failed to submit records of the generation process within the AI software and thus could not show the specific steps involved in creating the image. Although he provided a ‘describe’ command result related to the image, the Court found that this merely reflected a post-generation descriptive function within the AI software rather than a record of the original prompts or instructions used to generate the image.
Additionally, the Plaintiff’s ‘reproduction description’ submission could not objectively recreate the original generation process. The reproduction was determined to be a post hoc simulation, insufficient to support an inference that the Plaintiff had made creative choices or judgments during the original generation process. The simulated result also differed from the disputed image in style, form, and composition.
As such, the Court found that the available evidence was insufficient to establish the originality of the image, and therefore the image did not constitute a ‘work’ under the Copyright Law. The Court dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The decision has now taken effect.
Source: Beijing Internet Court
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fHUYfWTIwSA0Juvh9YwiFw
北京互联网法院：创作者若主张享有AI文生图的版权，应提供生成过程记录证明其独创性智力投入
日期：2025年9月16日
本案原告周某主张，其在与被告北京某科技公司合作创业期间，独立使用某AI绘画软件创作完成“猫咪晶钻吊坠”一图，并在微信群聊中公开发表。后原告发现被告未经许可，在多个平台使用该图片进行宣传。原告认为，被告未经许可使用涉案图片，侵犯了其对涉案图片享有的署名权和信息网络传播权，遂将被告诉至北京互联网法院。
北京互联网法院认为，涉AI生成物的独创性认定需坚持“谁主张，谁举证”原则，即原告需证明其对利用人工智能进行的创作付出了创造性劳动，体现出个性化表达。本案原告未提交涉案图片在AI软件中的创作过程记录，无法展现原告使用该工具生成涉案图片的具体过程；同时，尽管原告提交了涉案图片在“describe（描述）”指令项下的具体结果，但该结果仅为其利用AI软件中的描述词生成功能对涉案图片进行的事后描述，而非原始提示词或生成指令的还原，不能说明原告在原始生成过程中输入的指令及提示词内容。
此外，原告提交的“复现描述”输入情况无法客观还原涉案图片的原始生成过程。从复现过程来看，相关过程仅为原告对照涉案图片进行的事后模拟，无法以上述事后模拟操作推定原告在涉案图片原始生成过程中作出相应的选择、安排与判断等创造性劳动，且事后模拟结果也与涉案图片在风格、样式、构图等方面存在一定出入。因此，在案证据不足以认定涉案图片具有独创性，涉案图片不构成著作权法意义上的作品。最终，北京互联网法院判决驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。原告不服提起上诉，二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。目前本案判决已生效。
资料来源：北京互联网法院
新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/fHUYfWTIwSA0Juvh9YwiFw
Qingpu Primary People’s Court, Shanghai: Malicious Free-Riding on ‘LEGO’ Trademark to Recruit Franchisees — RMB 35 Million (Approx. US$ 4.87 Million) in Treble Punitive Damages Awarded
Date: 4 September 2025
Lego Juris A/S is the owner of the trademarks ‘LEGO’ and ‘LEGO EDUCATION’, which enjoy high global recognition through long-term use. Between 2015 and 2022, Tenggu Company (the Defendant) promoted franchise opportunities under the banners of ‘Lego Education’ and ‘Lego Courses,’ developing over 200 stores nationwide. It prominently used the ‘LEGO’ and ‘Lego Education’ marks across its website, WeChat account, and store signage. Despite multiple cease-and-desist notices issued since 2016, the Defendant continued its infringing activities. Lego Juris A/S subsequently filed suit against the Defendant and its franchisees for trademark infringement.
The Court held that the Defendant and its franchisees had prominently and extensively used signs identical or highly similar to Lego’s registered trademarks on their websites and store signage, which was likely to cause consumer confusion and constituted trademark infringement. Moreover, despite repeated warnings, the Defendant had continued to use the ‘LEGO’ marks nationwide for seven years, charging high franchise fees of RMB 120,000 (approx. US$ 16,855) per store and profiting significantly. The Court found the infringement to be willful and egregious, warranting punitive damages.
Because the Defendant refused to provide financial records, bank statements, or franchise agreements, the Court determined its illegal profits based on collected franchise fees—calculated as 200 stores × RMB 120,000 per store = RMB 24 million (Approx. US$ 3.37 million). Considering the Defendant’s blatant willfulness, prolonged infringement, refusal to produce evidence, and severe consequences, the Court applied triple punitive damages, fully granting Lego Juris A/S’s claim of RMB 35 million (Approx. US$ 4.87 million) in compensation.
Source: Qingpu Primary People’s Court, Shanghai
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/WFpoBgnnpElWi6OurLWrWg
上海青浦法院：恶意攀附“乐高”商标招纳加盟商，适用3倍惩罚性赔偿最终判赔3500万元
日期：2025年9月4日
乐高博士有限公司是“乐高”“乐高教育”“LEGO”“LEGO EDUCATION”的商标权人，以上商标在全球范围内长期使用，具有极高知名度。2015年至2022年间，滕谷公司以“乐高教育”“乐高课程”为卖点，以加盟形式在全国发展了200余家门店，并在官网、官微和门店装潢中大量使用“LEGO”“乐高教育”商标标识。自2016年起滕谷公司多次收到关于禁止使用乐高商标的提示，但并未停止侵权行为。乐高博士有限公司认为滕谷公司及其加盟商构成商标侵权，遂提起诉讼。
法院认为，首先，滕谷公司及其加盟商在官网、门店招牌等显著位置大量、突出使用与乐高博士有限公司注册商标相同或高度近似的标识，极易导致消费者混淆误认，构成商标侵权。其次，滕谷公司在多次收到禁止使用乐高商标的提示后仍广泛且持续地使用“乐高”相关标识，侵权时间长达7年，加盟店遍布全国并按单店12万元的标准收取高额加盟费，获利巨大，其商标侵权行为的恶意突出，侵权行为的情节特别严重，应适用惩罚性赔偿。
关于惩罚性赔偿数额的计算，由于滕谷公司拒绝提交财务账册、银行流水、加盟合同等证据，法院认定其侵权获利主要体现为收取的加盟费，按200家加盟店，每家收取加盟费12万元计算，确定赔偿基数为2400万元。综合考虑滕谷公司主观恶意显著、侵权情节特别严重、拒不提交证据、侵权后果严重等因素，法院决定适用3倍惩罚性赔偿，全额支持了乐高博士有限公司诉讼请求主张的3500万元赔偿金额。滕谷公司不服一审判决并提起上诉，二审法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判，案件现已生效。
来源：上海青浦法院