CHANG TSI
Insights
In early 2025, China’s Supreme Court issued the Notice on Upholding Strict and Impartial Judiciary and Regulating the Adjudication and Enforcement of Enterprise-Related Cases, explicitly prohibiting the expansion of jurisdiction over enterprise-related cases or the artificial creation of cross-regional jurisdiction. Against this policy backdrop, cross-regional enforcement of IP criminal cases faces new challenges and difficulties.
Tighter Jurisdictional Restrictions
The Supreme Court’s Notice emphasizes statutory jurisdiction as the principle, with transfer and designation of jurisdiction as exceptions. It explicitly prohibits artificially creating cross-regional jurisdiction for profit-driven purposes. This has tightened the previously more lenient standards for cross-regional jurisdiction, increasing the difficulty of enforcing IP criminal cases across regions.
Difficulties in Administrative-Criminal Procedural Coordination
After prosecutors decide not to initiate criminal proceedings against suspects, cases must be transferred to administrative authorities for penalties. However, when violations occur in different regions, cross-regional coordination between administrative and criminal procedures becomes challenging. Issues such as geographical constraints, evidence transfer, and penalty enforcement complicate coordination.
Complexities in Evidence Transfer and Authentication
IP cases often involve extensive electronic evidence and specialized assessments. Cross-regional enforcement faces technical and legal risks in evidence preservation, transfer, and authentication, especially when evidence must be moved across provinces, requiring cumbersome procedures.
Barriers of Local Protectionism
Although the new regulations aim to prevent local protectionism, some regions still exhibit tendencies to protect local enterprises during enforcement, making it difficult to gain cooperation from local authorities in cross-regional operations.
Establish Cross-Regional Collaboration Mechanisms
To address coordination challenges between administrative and criminal procedures, the following measures can be implemented:
a. Develop standardized procedures for case transfer, evidence conversion, and penalty enforcement in cross-regional cases.
b. Designate specialized coordinators and liaison offices to facilitate inter-regional communication and collaboration.
c. Harmonize evidence authentication standards to reduce redundant evidence collection across regions.
Leverage Technology to Enhance Enforcement Efficiency
Utilize information technology to overcome geographical limitations:
a. Online collaboration platforms: Establish cross-regional IP enforcement platforms for digital case transfer, evidence sharing, and document delivery.
b. Electronic evidence preservation: Promote technologies like blockchain for securing electronic evidence, simplifying authentication across regions.
Improve Jurisdictional Coordination Mechanisms
a. Strictly adhere to the Regulations on Cross-Provincial Jurisdiction Over Enterprise-Related Criminal Cases: Cases involving multiple provinces shall be governed by the public security authority where the primary offense occurred. If the primary offense location is unclear, jurisdiction falls to the authority where the enterprise is registered.
b. Joint enforcement mechanisms: Form cross-regional task forces for IP crimes to coordinate unified actions.
With the continued implementation of the Supreme Court’s new regulations, cross-regional enforcement of IP criminal cases will become more standardized and systematic. Future efforts should focus on refining IP criminal laws, strengthening inter-departmental collaboration, and enhancing IP adjudication capabilities. This will ensure robust IP protection while maintaining standardized enforcement practices.
It is important to note that regulating cross-regional jurisdiction does not weaken IP protection. Instead, it aims to combat infringement more accurately and impartially, avoiding profit-driven enforcement and local protectionism, thereby providing stronger legal safeguards for IP rights.
As a professional organization with over 20 years of experience in IP rights protection, we have initiated multiple cross-regional IP criminal cases on behalf of rights holders this year and provided specialized support to enforcement authorities. We remain committed to offering precise legal services and effective enforcement strategies, helping clients safeguard their innovations in a complex legal environment.
