Case 1: Joint Response by Jiangsu Overseas IPR Dispute Response and Guidance Platform and Municipal Platforms to the Large-scale Trademark Cancellation Incident in a Foreign Country
Basic Facts
On September 7, 2022, the patent and trademark office of a foreign country issued an Order to Show Cause for the first time, targeting over 13,000 trademark applications. The office alleged irregularities including forged attorney signatures, submission of false evidence of use, and abuse of accounts.
On November 27, 2023, the number of involved trademarks was expanded to 53,000, with additional reviews targeting violations in post-registration maintenance and renewal procedures. On February 24, 2025, the office announced the initiation of cancellation proceedings against 42,000 trademarks, requiring relevant parties to respond within a time limit. Formal cancellation procedures were officially launched on July 28. On August 6, the office issued a final sanction order, deciding to cancel 52,000 registered trademarks involved in the case.
This trademark cancellation incident involved 463 enterprises in Jiangsu Province, covering all 13 prefecture-level cities of the province, with 578 trademarks implicated. Most of these trademarks had been registered and operated in the foreign country for years, and the enterprises mainly conducted overseas business via cross-border e-commerce platforms. Once cancelled, the trademarks would directly lead to product delisting, invalidation of brand registration records, and substantial economic losses for enterprises.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon monitoring the relevant information on March 1, 2025, the Jiangsu Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Dispute Response and Guidance Platform (hereinafter referred to as the Jiangsu Platform) immediately activated the emergency response mechanism. In accordance with the Administrative Measures for Hierarchical and Classified Guidance Services on Overseas IPR Disputes in Jiangsu Province, the case was classified as a major case. Led by the Jiangsu Platform, resources were centrally allocated; early warning notices and a list of involved trademarks were released via the Jiangsu Comprehensive IPR Service Platform, reminding enterprises to conduct self-inspection and take proactive responses.
On March 7, the Jiangsu Platform organized an online special training session covering preparation of appeal materials, risk avoidance, and procedures for trademark re-registration, attracting nearly 1,000 person-times from 225 provincial enterprises. Subsequently, a special working group was set up to pinpoint 463 Jiangsu enterprises and 578 involved trademarks, and distribute matched enterprise and trademark information to all prefecture-level cities. Local platforms in Suzhou, Yangzhou, Xuzhou and other regions with a large number of involved enterprises held offline special case guidance meetings.
Provincial platforms took the initiative to conduct enterprise visits and demand surveys, providing one-on-one guidance via phone calls and on-site inspections. Ultimately, Guidance Opinions on Overseas IPR Dispute Response were issued for 66 enterprises in need, offering specific advice on appeal document preparation and re-registration strategies. Risk warning letters were distributed to another 225 enterprises to remind them of response deadlines and potential risks.
With professional guidance, some involved enterprises submitted appeal materials, while others opted for trademark re-registration. As of December 31, 2025, among 20 enterprises that applied for re-registration, 13 trademarks had been approved for registration. This avoided risks such as e-commerce platform delisting and account suspension, recovering a total economic loss of RMB 10.658 million and saving response costs of RMB 1.604 million.
Typical Significance
This represents an unprecedented large-scale trademark compliance rectification campaign in the history of the foreign patent and trademark office, exerting direct impact on Jiangsu’s cross-border e-commerce and manufacturing industries, and posing severe threats to enterprise survival and industrial stability.
Faced with sudden and large-scale overseas IPR risks, the Jiangsu Platform conducted real-time monitoring and early warning at the earliest opportunity, accurately identifying hundreds of affected enterprises across the province. By collaborating with platforms of all 13 prefecture-level cities, a unified provincial work synergy was formed, achieving precise targeting and full coverage communication of enterprises and trademarks. The public service model was upgraded from traditional ex post remedy to equal emphasis on pre-event early warning and in-event intervention. It effectively addressed time constraints, guided enterprises to make prudent choices based on available evidence and trademark value, and maximized value recovery at minimal cost.
Case 2: Joint Guidance by Biomedical Industry Overseas IPR Dispute Platform and Jinan Platform for Pharmaceutical Enterprise to Defend Against Overseas Patent Infringement Litigation
Basic Facts
Chinese Pharmaceutical Enterprise A engages in the R&D, production, import and distribution of generic drugs. It submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with a Paragraph IV Certification to the food and drug regulatory authority of a foreign country (hereinafter referred to as FDA), claiming that the original drug patents were invalid or that its generic drug did not fall within the scope of patent protection. The enterprise intended to break patent barriers in advance and seize market share.
In 2025, Foreign Pharmaceutical Company B filed a lawsuit with the local court, accusing Enterprise A of violating the national patent law, aiming to block the launch of Enterprise A’s generic drug before the expiration of relevant patents. Company B requested the court to rule that Enterprise A’s ANDA product constituted patent infringement, order FDA to postpone the approval of the involved ANDA, and issue temporary and/or permanent injunctions to prohibit Enterprise A from conducting commercial activities related to the ANDA product, as well as claiming compensation for damages. Subsequently, Company B filed a second lawsuit, which was consolidated for trial by the court.
Response and Guidance Process
After detecting the case in 2025, the Biomedical Industry Overseas IPR Dispute Response and Guidance Platform immediately transferred the case to the Jinan Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform where Enterprise A is located. The Jinan Platform issued a notice letter to inform Enterprise A of the litigation. Enterprise A subsequently filed an application for overseas IPR dispute guidance.
The Jinan Platform invited overseas experts to form a professional team, and jointly conducted case analysis with the Biomedical Industry Platform based on the country’s drug patent linkage system, involved patent status and judicial practice. The two platforms jointly put forward a strategy of parallel patent challenge and settlement negotiation, providing systematic suggestions on dispute resolution, patent layout, litigation early warning and ANDA compliance.
Enterprise A adopted the guidance and coordinated with its legal team to respond to the lawsuit and conduct settlement negotiations. Eventually, the two parties reached a settlement agreement and the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit. The commercial promotion of the ANDA product was not materially affected. The enterprise avoided high litigation costs and market delays caused by prolonged judicial proceedings, recovering an estimated economic loss of about RMB 6 million and mitigating potential losses of about RMB 10 million.
Typical Significance
This case involves a foreign-related patent infringement dispute over ANDA, touching on the intersection of drug regulation and patent law, governed by the framework of the country’s Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act. The Act established a patent linkage system that links generic drug approval with patent disputes, allowing original drug and generic pharmaceutical enterprises to initiate litigation at the early regulatory stage, with Paragraph IV Certification as the core mechanism.
Generic drug applicants may challenge the validity, enforceability or infringement risk of original drug patents via Paragraph IV Certification. If the original drug enterprise files a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after receiving the Paragraph IV notice, FDA will automatically suspend ANDA approval for up to 30 months. If the dispute is not resolved within the suspension period, the generic drug may be approved for launch and granted a 180-day market exclusivity period.
The successful resolution of this case serves as a vivid practice of the cross-regional and cross-industry collaborative overseas IPR protection mechanism, as well as a typical example of coordinated disposal by industrial and local platforms. Relying on the cross-provincial collaborative protection system built by overseas IPR guidance platforms, a full-chain coordination mechanism featuring case transfer, resource sharing, joint expert review and collaborative strategy formulation was implemented. Professional guidance including interpretation of the country’s Orange Book rules, patent infringement defense and settlement negotiation design was precisely provided for the enterprise, breaking resource and information barriers for enterprises responding to cross-border litigation alone. The case was properly resolved via settlement, removing key obstacles for the enterprise’s drug registration and approval in the foreign market.
Case 3: Joint Support by Jiangsu and Suzhou Overseas IPR Platforms for New Energy Enterprise to Respond to Foreign Trade Investigation
Basic Facts
Jiangsu Company G is a leading player in the new energy industry with high brand visibility in the global consumer new energy market. Its product and service network covers more than 30 countries and regions worldwide.
In September 2024, Foreign Company L filed a petition with the country’s International Trade Commission (ITC), requesting the issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and a Cease and Desist Order. In October 2024, the ITC launched a trade investigation, naming Company G and multiple other enterprises as respondents.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon detecting the case in September 2024, the Jiangsu Platform immediately notified the Suzhou Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform to connect with the enterprise’s demands. Industry experts were invited to hold an on-site case seminar with the enterprise, discussing the claims of involved patents, trade investigation procedures and legitimate defense grounds.
In-depth discussions were held on the interpretation of patent claim texts, whether the preamble of claims contains restrictive effects, and whether certain functional limitations in claims are subject to Paragraph 6 of Section 112, Title 35 of the United States Code. Targeted response strategies were formulated for disputed legal issues. The Jiangsu and Suzhou Platforms jointly issued formal guidance opinions, and Company G adopted the strategies to actively respond to the investigation.
In June 2025, the ITC issued a partial final determination: the investigation against Respondent Company G was terminated based on settlement. The core products of Company G maintained normal sales, avoiding market loss and customer disruption caused by sales bans. The enterprise secured annual export revenue of hundreds of millions of RMB in the foreign market and stabilized its global business layout.
Typical Significance
In this case, the Jiangsu Platform activated the provincial-municipal-county three-level linkage mechanism to connect with the enterprise at the earliest stage, adhering to the principle of early detection, early intervention and early response. It collaborated with the Suzhou Platform to hold on-site expert guidance meetings, integrate high-quality resources to customize one-stop solutions and shorten decision-making cycles.
The platform guided the enterprise to build a three-dimensional litigation response system consisting of an internal special team, external professional institutions and government guidance support, and set up a working group integrating legal affairs, R&D and IPR professionals, exploring a new model of Sino-foreign law firm collaboration for dispute resolution. The settlement arrangement ensured normal product sales while avoiding subsequent litigation harassment, achieving a win-win of commercial interests and long-term development. It blocked the spread of industrial risks, provided a low-cost and high-efficiency model for responding to Section 337 investigations for the whole industry, and indirectly mitigated potential collective overseas market losses for peer enterprises.
Case 4: Guidance by Nanjing Overseas IPR Platform for Domestic First-in-Class New Drug to Obtain Dual Approval in China and Abroad
Basic Facts
Nanjing Company A is a pioneer and leader in a specific domestic pharmaceutical segment. It has independently developed a series of technologies for poorly soluble drug solubilization, sustained and controlled release. The company owns nearly 60 valid patents and patent applications, including over 20 granted invention patents. It ranks among the top domestic players in a high-value and clinically demanded pharmaceutical track, with solid competitiveness for global market competition.
In 2023, Foreign Company B filed a patent infringement lawsuit with a foreign court, alleging that Company A’s New Drug Application (NDA) submitted in the foreign market infringed its patent rights.
Response and Guidance Process
After detecting the case in 2023, the Nanjing Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform immediately contacted the IPR management personnel of Company A to inform it of the litigation and associated risks. A special expert guidance team in the relevant field was established to provide professional support.
The guidance team conducted multiple on-site visits and one-on-one special seminars to assess litigation risks, formulate response strategies focusing on establishing effective communication to increase the possibility of case withdrawal, adopting countermeasures to enhance negotiation leverage, and designing negotiation strategies to promote settlement, while issuing written overseas dispute guidance opinions.
In 2024, Company A submitted a statement of defense and filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the foreign court. Subsequently, Company B proposed settlement again via the court. After multiple rounds of negotiations on settlement terms, the two parties reached a consensus in 2025 and formally signed a settlement agreement, with Company B withdrawing the lawsuit. In the same month of the court’s dismissal order, Company A obtained NDA approval from the foreign food and drug regulatory authority (FDA).
Typical Significance
The timely monitoring and notification by the Nanjing Platform provided early risk warning for Company A, maximizing preparation time for dispute response and laying a solid foundation for adequate litigation preparation. With sufficient lead time, Company A’s legal team conducted repeated negotiation simulations in advance, predicting various scenarios and formulating contingency plans.
The enterprise’s comprehensive response efforts facilitated the final settlement and cleared obstacles for the new drug’s launch. The drug ultimately obtained dual regulatory approval in China and the foreign country, recovering economic losses and saving litigation costs of over RMB 10 million. It marks a milestone breakthrough for domestic innovative drugs in entering high-standard international regulatory markets.
Case 5: Rational Application of International Rules by Nanjing Overseas IPR Platform to Assist SME in Successful Overseas Trademark Registration
Basic Facts
Nanjing Company C is a micro-enterprise focusing on import and export and wholesale of condiments, food additives and kitchen supplies, with years of experience in channel operation and supply chain integration of specialty condiments and food additives.
In October 2021, Company C filed a trademark application with the National Institute of Industrial Property of a foreign country (INPI). Foreign Company D filed an opposition based on its registered EU trademark. In August 2022, INPI rejected Company D’s opposition on the grounds of no likelihood of confusion. Company D filed an administrative lawsuit against INPI’s decision in September 2022, which was dismissed by the court. Company D filed an appeal in July 2023.
In September 2023, under the guidance of the Nanjing Platform, Company C entrusted legal counsel to submit a statement of defense to the appellate court. In January 2025, the appellate court dismissed Company D’s appeal and upheld INPI’s decision, securing a favorable outcome for Company C.
Response and Guidance Process
In April 2022, Company C consulted the Xuzhuang High-tech Zone Branch of Nanjing Intellectual Property Protection Center regarding the trademark dispute with Company D. The branch appointed experts in foreign-related trademark affairs to provide follow-up guidance.
As the case was complex and time-sensitive after Company D filed an appeal in July 2023, Company C submitted a dispute guidance application to the Nanjing Platform in September 2023. The Nanjing Platform immediately set up an expert team specializing in the country’s trademark disputes to launch preliminary preparations in advance of the court’s procedural notice, including translation and summary of French judicial documents, background investigation of the appellant, and design of rights protection paths.
The guidance team conducted on-site investigations at Company C, guiding the drafting of defense arguments from the perspectives of commodity similarity and trademark approximation, and issued written overseas IPR dispute guidance opinions.
Typical Significance
The Nanjing Platform and its Xuzhuang Branch coordinated division of labor, arranging foreign-related trademark experts to provide full-process follow-up services, precisely matching the enterprise’s demands. Defense arguments were formulated based on commodity and trademark similarity, and favorable procedural rules under European court litigation were adopted to optimize legal document handling, saving response time and accelerating trademark right acquisition for the enterprise.
This case highlights the urgent demand for public legal aid among numerous cross-border trade micro-enterprises facing overseas IPR disputes. The successful experience of Company C effectively stimulated the enthusiasm for rights protection among domestic small and micro enterprises.
Case 6: Guidance by Nanjing Overseas IPR Platform for Enterprise to Defend Against Bulk Litigation TRO Cases
Basic Facts
Nanjing Company A is a cross-border e-commerce enterprise focusing on swimwear, engaged in apparel sales, import and export business via overseas e-commerce platforms.
On June 7, 2025, Foreign Company G listed Company A and multiple other Chinese cross-border e-commerce enterprises as defendants, applying to a foreign court for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to freeze corporate account funds and remove involved products from online shelves. Company A had USD 1.97 million in account funds frozen, plunging its cross-border e-commerce business into a severe crisis.
On June 19, 2025, under the guidance of the Nanjing Platform, Company A successfully filed for a court order to obtain evidence materials collected by Company G from cross-border e-commerce platforms. From June 21 to July 24, Company A adopted a proactive countermeasure strategy, prompting the court to reduce the frozen fund limit to USD 170,000, greatly alleviating the enterprise’s financial pressure. From August to November 2025, Company A conducted settlement negotiations with Company G based on the favorable procedural position. On December 30, the court closed the case with dismissal in accordance with the settlement agreement reached by both parties.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon receiving Company A’s application on June 10, 2025, the Nanjing Platform immediately set up a special working group to analyze the case and assist the enterprise in connecting with foreign legal teams with rich cross-border e-commerce litigation experience. An efficient collaborative working mechanism was established among all parties.
On June 18, the Nanjing Platform organized an online case guidance meeting attended by Company A, foreign legal counsel and industry practitioners specializing in cross-border e-commerce. Within the extremely short golden window period under the TRO system, cross-border service connection barriers were overcome to complete case assessment, strategy formulation and preliminary legal motions efficiently.
From June 21 to July 24, in accordance with the formulated strategies, Company A entrusted foreign lawyers to break the plaintiff’s information monopoly via proactive legal countermeasures and reduce the frozen fund amount, while controlling the pace of settlement negotiations to avoid cash flow depletion and market share loss due to procedural delays. The final settlement restored the shelving status of the enterprise’s core products on cross-border e-commerce platforms, maintaining market share and sales volume, and reducing economic losses of over RMB 15 million.
Typical Significance
The Nanjing Platform closely tracked key procedural nodes throughout the case, ensuring all response measures were timely, compliant and effective. The issued Overseas IPR Dispute Response Guidance Opinion detailed specific litigation procedures and targeted suggestions, guiding Company A to adopt a dual-track response strategy that laid a solid foundation for legal motions and subsequent settlement negotiations. The enterprise achieved a strategic turnaround from passive to active defense within two months.
Case 7: Response by Wuxi Overseas IPR Platform to Southeast Asian Trademark Squatting Against Garment Enterprise
Basic Facts
Wuxi Company A has long been engaged in the textile and garment industry and initiated overseas trademark layout since the late 20th century. It has filed and registered over 3,600 trademarks globally covering the UK, the US, Southeast Asia and other regions, with core trademarks enjoying high visibility and market influence in major global consumer markets.
In May 2023, Company A detected that Foreign Company B applied to register a trademark identical to Company A’s core mark in a Southeast Asian country, covering exactly the same product categories and entering the preliminary publication stage of the local intellectual property office (DGIP), with less than one month remaining before the opposition deadline. Although Company A held an earlier trademark designated for Indonesia via the Madrid System, the approved commodity scope only covered a small part of its core product categories and failed to fully cover the designated goods of the squatting trademark.
In June 2023, under the guidance of the Wuxi Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform, Company A filed supplementary trademark applications in advance and entrusted an overseas law firm to submit an opposition application on the final deadline date. The squatting trademark application was rejected in early July 2023. Company A’s supplementary trademark applications were approved for registration in April 2024.
In 2025, the Wuxi Platform launched regular overseas trademark monitoring for Company A upon its application, detecting a second suspected trademark squatting act in Vietnam in August and conducting follow-up disposal in accordance with the enterprise’s demands.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon receiving the enterprise’s application in June 2023, the Wuxi Platform quickly formed an expert team to conduct case research and review local legal procedures. Based on the country’s trademark judicial practice and DGIP examination standards, the earlier Madrid trademark held by Company A had incomplete commodity coverage and could not fully support the opposition. In accordance with local opposition rules, an opponent must satisfy dual qualifications as an interested party and hold valid prior rights covering identical/similar goods; incomplete right coverage would lead to dismissal due to lack of standing or insufficient legal basis.
To address this core obstacle, the expert team formulated a strategy of filing supplementary trademark applications to consolidate standing for opposition first, then initiating opposition proceedings against Company B on the grounds of trademark approximation, commodity similarity and malicious squatting. The strategy successfully led to the rejection of Company B’s trademark application on the grounds of malicious squatting, while Company A’s supplementary trademarks were approved, further optimizing its overseas trademark layout.
Typical Significance
The Wuxi Platform guided the enterprise to seize the rights protection window period by adopting a parallel strategy of supplementary trademark application and opposition filing, gaining the initiative in rights protection while reducing legal and time costs for the enterprise.
This case highlights the importance of regular overseas trademark monitoring. Company A attached great importance to global trademark layout and established a normalized overseas trademark monitoring mechanism, securing precious preparation time and laying a solid foundation for successful rights protection.
Case 8: Risk Identification by Changzhou Overseas IPR Platform to Uncover Transnational Fraud and Help Enterprise Avoid Overseas Trademark Illegal Risks
Basic Facts
Founded in the 1980s, Changzhou Company A is a time-honored specialized micro-enterprise with over 30 years of industry experience. It specializes in pharmaceutical packaging, instructions and self-adhesive labels, with an annual output of tens of millions of products.
On June 3, 2025, Company A received an order from Foreign Company B for printing cigar labels, involving an annual processing volume of 48 tons and 100 million labels with specific patterns and foreign text. However, Company B failed to provide ownership certificates or authorization documents for the label patterns. Company A submitted a guidance application to the Changzhou Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon receiving the application, the Changzhou Platform immediately activated the response mechanism. Database retrieval and professional research found that the specific patterns on the labels were highly similar to the national emblem of Bangladesh, and the label design was almost identical to Bangladesh’s tobacco tax stamps, implying significant legal risks.
Further investigation revealed that Bangladesh Customs seized a batch of counterfeit tobacco tax stamps in 2021, with exactly the same design as the labels in this case. It was confirmed that Company B was the manufacturer of the counterfeit tax stamps seized by Bangladesh Customs in 2021, and the sample labels provided by the client were completely consistent with the seized counterfeit products.
Although Company B later submitted power of attorney and trademark certificates, the Changzhou Platform identified major flaws including incomplete authorization clauses, ambiguous right-liability definition, and unverifiable validity of trademark certificates on official systems, indicating extremely high illegal risks. The Changzhou Platform firmly advised Company A to reject the order, which was adopted by the enterprise, avoiding potential economic losses of RMB 3 million.
Typical Significance
Foreign-related OEM processing is a high-risk area for trademark violations. Some clients lure processing enterprises with high-value orders while concealing intellectual property ownership information, inducing them to participate in illegal industrial chains. Most OEM enterprises lack professional identification capabilities and authoritative retrieval resources, making it difficult to guard against hidden legal traps.
Beyond basic risk reminder, the Changzhou Platform leveraged the information resources and professional expertise of the overseas guidance platform to conduct in-depth clue mining, confirming the connection between the client and the 2021 counterfeit tax stamp case and defining the illegal nature of the printing business. It uncovered the suspected transnational counterfeit criminal conduct of the client, which involved far more serious legal consequences than ordinary trademark infringement. The platform helped the enterprise identify major illegal risks at the business negotiation stage and provided solid legal support for business decision-making.
Case 9: Guidance by Suzhou Overseas IPR Platform for Technology Enterprise to Respond to Standard-Essential Patent Licensing Negotiations
Basic Facts
In 2025, Suzhou Technology Company A received an invitation for Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) licensing negotiations from a foreign Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The NPE is a global SEP patent portfolio management institution controlling over 5,000 patents covering almost all SEPs in the relevant global technical field.
As a start-up enterprise going global, Company A’s core target markets are the US and Europe, with considerable market share for its products, which fall within the scope of terminal products targeted by the NPE’s licensing program.
Response and Guidance Process
Upon receiving the NPE’s invitation, Company A immediately contacted the Suzhou Overseas IPR Dispute Guidance Platform for consultation on SEP licensing fees. The Suzhou Platform quickly assembled an expert team to provide on-site guidance at the enterprise.
Referring to judicial precedents, the expert team helped the enterprise understand the coverage of the patent pool, patent validity, the FRAND principle, and legal risks of passive inaction, as well as the consequences of different response strategies. By analyzing the NPE’s historical litigation records and peer enterprise practices, two-way guidance was provided including practical negotiation skills and risk warnings for passive response. Targeted and implementable strategies were formulated for negotiation pace control and patent-market focus optimization to comprehensively enhance the enterprise’s response capability.
Fully considering the enterprise’s predicament of facing multiple parallel patent litigations, the platform supported its reasonable choice of delayed decision-making and strategic reserve, balancing resource allocation between patent licensing and ongoing litigation, reserving buffer space for subsequent response and avoiding passive status caused by overstretched resources.
Typical Significance
This case reflects a common challenge faced by Chinese start-up enterprises going global and constitutes a core pain point for overseas entrepreneurship. Restricted by capital, human resources and industry accumulation, start-ups often lack understanding of overseas patent pool licensing and NPE rights protection models. Improper response may lead to huge compensation claims and injunctions, directly hindering international market expansion.
In this case, the Suzhou Platform adopted a combined model of on-site research and remote expert consultation to deliver professional guidance, helping the enterprise formulate targeted response strategies and avoid resource misallocation. It provides valuable reference for other overseas start-up enterprises facing similar SEP licensing disputes.
