Inthehigh-profilepatentinfringementdisputesbetweentheChinesecompanyInnoscienceandInfineon(aspartoftheglobalpatentwarbetweenthetwocompanies),theSupremePeople'sCourt(SPC)maintainedapreliminaryinjunctionissuedbythelowercourtagainstInfineonconcurrentlywiththefirst-instancejudgment,andinitsrulingSPCprovidedhithertotheclearestguidanceonhowarequestforsuchapreliminaryinjunctionshouldbeevaluated.Thiscasereinforcesaproceduralparadigmalreadyreflectedinanumberofpreviouscourtcases:thepatentownercantrytoapplyforapreliminaryinjunctionwhenitbelievesthatthecourtisreadytomakeafavorablefirst-instancejudgmentandthepatentindisputehasbeenupheldbythepatentofficeintheinvalidationactionfiledbytheaccusedinfringer.Meanwhile,SPC’smarketshareanalysisinitsrulinghasdrawncriticismsfromobserversforanumberofreasons.ProceduralparadigmbuiltfrompreviouscasesThelowercourtgranted,andSPCmaintained,Innoscience’srequestforapreliminaryinjunctionafter(1)thelowercourthadfoundinfringementinitsfirst-instancejudgment,and(2)thepatentoffice(andBeijingIPCourt)hadupheldthevalidityofthepatentsindisputeininvalidationactionsfiledbyInfineon.Thisproceduralparadigmisbuiltupon3previouscases:theXinheCheng(新和成)case(fortradesecretinfringement),Qualcommv.Apple(forpatentinfringement)andtheXianglansu(香兰素orvanilline)case(alsofortradesecretinfringement).TheQualcommv.Applecasewasslightlydifferentonlyinthatwhenthefirst-instancecourtissuedthepreliminaryinjunction,ithasnotissueditsjudgmentbuthadcompletedthehearingsoninfringementanalysisandthuswasquiteconfidenttomakeaninfringementfinding.TheabovehistoryimpliesthattheChinesejudiciaryhasrecognizedthis"post-judgment,pre-finality"paradigmasoneunderwhichthecourtshouldfeelrelativelycomfortabletograntapreliminaryinjunctioniftherelevantfactorsarebelievedtohavebeenmet.Suchapreliminaryinjunctiongrantedinthemiddleofasuitmaynotbeasdesirableasapre-suitpreliminaryinjunctionbutmaystillbeveryvaluableforthepatentownerifitisissuedonacriticaljuncture.ThiswaslikelythecaseforInnoscienceasitobtainedthisinjunctionorderwhenithadjustreceivedanunfavorablerulinginGermanandmixedrulingsfromtheUSITC.PrimaryfactorstobeconsideredPreliminaryinjunctionsarebehavioralpreservationmeasuresunderthePRCCivilProceduresLaw.SPCinitsjudicialinterpretation“ProvisionsonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheReviewofBehavioralPreservationCasesinIntellectualPropertyDisputes”providesguidanceonthespecificfactorsthecourtsshouldexaminetodecidewhethertograntapreliminaryinjunctioninthecontextofIPdisputes.SPCappliedtheguidancetothespecificfactsofthiscase,thusprovidingmoreclaritytothevariousstipulationsinthejudicialinterpretation.The5majorfactorsevaluatedbySPCare:1.Factualandlegalbasis(likelihoodofsuccess)UnderSPC’sanalysis,thelowercourt’sfindingofinfringementinitsjudgmentandthepatentoffice’supholdingofthepatentindisputeprovideaverystrongfactualandlegalbasisforapreliminaryinjunction.Fromthiscase,andfromanothermuchnewercaseinwhichSPCrejectedthepatentowner’srequestforapreliminaryinjunction(seehttps://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/KRgNDDsCaXGYDNO9JpuhhA),itisclearthatSPCstillevaluatesthepatentowner’slikelihoodofeventualsuccessunderthis“factualandlegalbasis”cover(theabove-mentionedjudicialinterpretationonbehavioralpreservationmeasureswhenitwasadoptedusedthe“factualandlegalbasis”languageinplaceofthe“likelihoodofsuccess”languagepreviouslyusedinthecontextofpreliminaryinjunctions).2.IrreparableharmSPCfoundthisfactorsatisfiedonthegroundthattheaccusedproductsdirectlycompetewiththepatentedproducts,causingmarketshareloss,priceerosion,andlossof"first-moveradvantage"tothepatentee.ItisnoteworthyherethatInfineonhassubmittedevidencethatInnoscience’srelevantmarketshareshaveactuallyincreased,butSPCwasnotpersuaded.SPC’sreasoninghereisworthreadingverbatim(emphasisadded):“Second,forInfineon’sargumentsthatInnoscience’smarketsharedidnotdecreaseandproductiterationdidnotaffectmarketshares,Infineon’sevidenceisinsufficienttoprovethatthemarketsharesofInnoscience’spatentedproductsdidnotdecrease.And,theimpactonmarketsharesfromtheaccusedproductsisnotlimitedtoreductionofmarketshares,butcouldalsobeintheformofreductionofthegrowthofmarketshares.Sincetheaccusedproductsareindirectcompetitionwiththepatentedproducts,salesoftheaccusedproductsmusthavenegativeimpactonthemarketsharesofthepatentedproducts.Thefastiterationcycleof2~3yearsoftherelevantproductsfurtherunderscoresthisnegativeimpact.”SPC’sanalysisherehasdrawncriticisms.Onecriticismisthatitessentiallymakestheburdenimpracticallyhighfortheaccusedinfringertoprovethatitssalesoftheaccusedproductsdidnotnegativelyaffectthepatentowner’smarketshare,asSPC’sanalysisimpliesthattheaccusedinfringernotonlyneedstoprovethatthemarketsharesofthepatentedproductsdonotfallorevenhaveactuallyincreased,butfurtherneedstoprovethattheshareswouldnotgoevenhigherintheabsenceoftheaccusedproducts,whichisahypotheticalscenarioalmostimpossibletoprove.Anothercriticismisthatthebasictheorybehindthemarketshareanddirectcompetitionanalysishasblurredtheboundarybetweenpreliminaryinjunctionsandpermanentinjunctions(inChina,thistheoryhasbeenthefoundationforpermanentinjunctions).SomeobservershavefurthernotedapparentinconsistencyinSPC’smarketshareanalysisbetweenthiscaseandtheDreamev.Roborockcasein2024.Inthatcase,therewasalsoevidencethatthepatentowner’smarketshareshadactuallyincreased,andSPCspecificallyrecognizedthispointandheldthat"therewasnoevidenceofasignificantreductioninmarketshares"asoneofthereasonstonullifythelowercourt’spreliminaryinjunctionorder(ofcourse,onecanarguethattheDreamecaseisdifferentfromthiscaseinamajoraspectasSPCalsopointedout:thepatentownerinthatcasehadalongdelayinapplyingforapreliminaryinjunction,whichSPCheldasstrongevidencetherewasnourgencyorirreparableharmtothepatentowner).Giventheabove,andgiventhetimingoftheissuanceofthispreliminaryinjunction,someobservers(particularlyforeigners)havequestionedwhetherSPChadextralegalconsiderationsinitsdecisionmaking.ThisChinesepreliminaryinjunctionwasissuedapproximatelyonemonthaftertheUSITC'srulingsintheUSdisputesbetweenthetwocompaniesandatatimewhenInnosciencehadlostinGermany.Againstthisbackdrop,someinternationalcommentatorshavequestionedwhethertheSPC'srulingwasaimedatprovidingstrategicleveragetoaChinesecompanyfacinglitigationpressuresabroad.3.BalanceofhardshipsOnthispoint,SPCheldthatthebalancetipsinfavorofthepatentee.Itstatedthatonceafirst-instancejudgmenthasfoundinfringement,theallegedinfringer,asagood-faithbusinessoperator,hasadutyofprudencetoceasetheinfringingactsoutofrespectforthejudgmentandthepatent.Thispositionisalsonewtomanypractitioners,asagainittoagoodextentblurstheboundarybetweenpreliminaryinjunctionsandpermanentinjunctions.4.PublicinterestsSPCheldthattheaccusedproductsarenotpublicwelfaregoods(e.g.,unrelatedtohealthorsafety),andsubstitutesexist.Therewasnodisputeonthispoint.5.SecurityInnosciencehasprovidedacashbondofRMB10million,whichtheSPCfoundsufficient.Thelowercourt’srulingalsoincludesanorderthatifevidenceshowsthatthelossInfineonsuffersfromthepreliminaryinjunctionisexceedingthisamount,Innoscienceshallprovideadditionalsecurity.

Recently,ManagingIntellectualProperty(MIP),anintellectualpropertymedia,announcedthe2026IPSTARSChinaranking.LexFieldhasbeenlistedasarecommendedlawfirminthefieldsof"patentlitigation","trademarkconfirmation"and"trademarklitigation".Meanwhile,JanLiu,HongyiJiangandDavidHuangwereawardedthetitlesof"TrademarkStar"and"PatentStar"respectively.ListedFieldsPatentDisputesTrademarkDisputesTrademarkProsecutionListedIndividualsSeniorPartnerJanLiu–TrademarkStarSeniorPartnerHongyiJiang–PatentStarPartnerDavidHuang-PatentStar

Recently,theinternationalauthoritativeIntellectualpropertymedia"IntellectualAssetManagement"(IAM)releasedthecompletelistofthe"IAMGlobalPatent1000"for2026.LexFieldhasbeenlistedinmultiplefieldswithitsprofoundprofessionalaccumulationandoutstandinglegalservicecapabilities.ListedFieldsPatentLitigation-GoldAwardTransaction-RecommendedListedIndividualsHongyiJiang-Goldawardinthefieldof"PatentLitigation"DavidHuang-Silverawardinthefieldof"PatentLitigation"and"PatentProsecution",andRecommededinthefieldof"Transaction"HongbinZhang-Bronzeawardinthefieldof"PatentLitigation"QishanZhao-Recommenedforthe"NextGeneration"MasonXi-Recommenedforthe"NextGeneration"

Recently,theinternationallyrenownedlegalratingagencyBenchmarkLitigationreleasedthe2026BenchmarkLitigationChinaDisputeResolutionRecommendedLawFirmsandLawyersList.LexFieldandpartnerHongyiJiang,QishanZhao,haveonceagainmadeitontothelistwiththeiroutstandingprofessionalcapabilities.ListedRegionsandFieldsIntellectualPropertyinBeijingarea-Tier2ListedIndividualsSeniorPartnerHongyiJiang-LitigationStarPartnerQishanZhao-LitigationStar

LexFieldactedonbehalfofaworld-renownedforkliftmanufacturerinthefirst-instancetrialofanadministrativelawsuitregardingtheinvalidationofatrademark.TheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtruled,inaccordancewithArticle44.1oftheTrademarkLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,thatthedisputedtrademarkwasregisteredthroughimpropermeansandshouldbeinvalidated.Thisfirst-instancejudgmenthasnowtakeneffect.Thedifficultyinthiscaseliesin:Whentheinvalidationactionwasfiled,thedisputedtrademarkhadbeenregisteredforoverfiveyears.Thedisputedtrademarksomehowdiffersfromtheclient’spriortrademarkintermsofitsliteralcomposition.Althoughtheclientisaleadingcompanyintheindustry,itspriortrademarkhasnorecordsofwell-knowntrademarkrecognition.Underthecurrentpolicyenvironment,it’sverydifficulttoobtainwell-knowntrademarkrecognitionthroughadministrativelitigationforthefirsttime.Theapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkdidnotengageinanysignificantactsofcopyingorregisteringotherentities’pre-existingtrademarksonalargescale.Therefore,intheinvalidationproceeding,theCNIPAupheldtheregistrationofthedisputedtrademark.ThecourtmadeabreakthroughapplicationofArticle44.1oftheTrademarkLaw.Eventhoughmorethanfiveyearshadpassedsincetheinvalidationactionwasfiled,thecourttookintofullconsiderationthemaliciousintentoftheapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkinitsactualuse,aswellasthemaliciousapplicationsmadebyaffiliatedcompaniesoftheapplicant.Asaresult,thedisputedtrademarkwasinvalidated.LexFieldteamdidn’tmerelyfocusonthedisputedtrademarkapplicant’sowntrademarkapplicationpractices.Instead,weconductedthoroughon-siteandonlineinvestigationsintotheapplicant.Wegatheredandsubmittedevidencefromvariousaspectstoprovetheapplicant’smaliciousbehaviorinitsactualoperations.Thisincludedimitatingtheclient’sproduct’sdesign,colorscheme,packaging,trademarkplacement,fontstyle.Theapplicantalsousedtheclient’strademarkaskeywordstoattracttrafficononlineplatforms,andhighlightedthehighsimilaritybetweenitsownproductsandthoseoftheclientinitspromotionalemails.Atthesametime,althoughtheapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkdidnotengageinanyobvioustrademarksquattingactivities,LexFieldteamconductedathoroughinvestigationofallentitiesrelatedtotheapplicant.Itwasfoundthattheseentitieswerealsointhesameindustryandhadengagedintrademarksquatting.LexFieldteamcompiledthisinformationintowrittensubmissionsandcharts,clearlydemonstratingtherelationshipsbetweenthevariousentitiesandtheirmaliciousactions.Thisprovidedasolidfoundationforwinningthecase.Thiscasereflectstheaggressivestancetakeninrecentyearstocombatmalicioustrademarkregistrations.Thecourtdoesnotmerelyrelyonrigidcriteriasuchasthenumberandcategoryoftrademarkapplications,orthesimilarityofthetrademarksthemselves,todetermine“impropermeans.”Instead,italsotakesintoaccountanyimproperpracticesrelatedtotheactualuseofthetrademarks.Thisapproachismoreflexibleandcomprehensive,therebyservingthegoalofcombatingmaliciousregistrations.Forrightholders,thistrendisundoubtedlybeneficial.Inaddition,rightholdersmustalsoincreasetheireffortsininvestigatingsuchcases,thoroughlyidentifyinganymaliciousactivitiesbytheopposingpartiesandconductingthoroughanalyses.

OnMay2,2026,Mozlenreleasedthe2026MOZLEN500TOP100ChineseForeign‑RelatedTrademarkAgencyRankingduringthe148thAnnualMeetingoftheInternationalTrademarkAssociation(INTA).LexFieldwassuccessfullyselectedfortherankingbyvirtueofitsprofoundprofessionalaccumulationandoutstandinglegalservicecapabilities,demonstratingitsremarkableexpertiseinthefieldofforeign‑relatedtrademarkprotection.CompiledbyMozlen(www.mozlen.com)—aleadingtrademarkAIsearch,analysisandmanagementplatformandtheglobalchampionoftheinauguralINTAOpenInnovationChallenge(Start‑up)—theMOZLEN500DirectoryisarankingofprofessionalChineseforeign‑relatedtrademarkagenciesdevelopedbasedontrademarkbigdataandcomprehensiveinfluencemetrics.ItintroducesoutstandingChineseforeign‑relatedtrademarkagenciestoglobalenterprisesandshowcasestheiroverallcomprehensiveservicecapabilitiesandstandards.