Case Handled by Attorneys Yan Fei and Zhou Haili Selected as One of the Top 10 Typical Cases of IP Protection in 2025 by Hainan Free Trade Port IP Court

On January 12, the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court released its list of the Top 10 Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in 2025. As Hainan Free Trade Port officially enters the new phase of island-wide customs closure operations, these cases not only serve as a vivid microcosm of the IP judicial protection practices of the Free Trade Port IP Court over the past year but also represent a solemn response to aligning with high-standard international trade rules and safeguarding the development of new quality productive forces.

The case (Case No. 6) handled by Yan Fei, Senior Partner of Rayto Law Firm, and Attorney Zhou Haili—Hua Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou某 Trading Co., Ltd. et al. (Dispute over Infringement of Design Patent)—was selected as one of the Top 10 Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in 2025 by the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court!

The ten typical cases released this time were strictly screened and cover patents, trademarks, copyrights, new plant varieties, unfair competition, monopolies, etc., encompassing civil, criminal, administrative, and enforcement cases. They involve emerging industries and key areas such as the digital economy, seed industry innovation, cultural tourism, and livelihood security. Behind each typical case lies the judiciary’s respect for and protection of innovation.

List of Cases:

Case 1: Network users and platforms that illegally stream entire live concerts without authorization shall both be found to constitute infringement—Y Co., Ltd. v. K Co., Ltd. et al. (Dispute over Infringement of Broadcasting Right and Information Network Dissemination Right)

Case 2: Three-dimensional trademarks registered through the Madrid System may be eligible for extended protection of trademark rights in China—E. Rémy Martin & Co. v. Shandong某 Liquor Co., Ltd., Zhang某, et al. (Dispute over Trademark Infringement)

Case 3: Calculating the amount of punitive damages through refined discretion methods to protect innovation in the seed industry—Guangdong某 Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan某 Seed Co., Ltd., Huang某 (Dispute over Infringement of New Plant Variety Rights)

Case 4: Reasonably determining review rules and accurately identifying acts of trade secret infringement—Yixing Chuang某 Chemical Co., Ltd. v. Hainan Xin某 Chemical Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Infringement of Technical Secrets)

Case 5: Determination of network service providers directly obtaining economic benefits from works provided by network users—Zhang某 v. Sanya某 Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Infringement of Information Network Dissemination Right of Works)

Case 6: Applying the "independent infringement determination" method to determine infringement of partial design patents, interpreting the law and reasoning to resolve conflicts and disputes—Hua Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou某 Trading Co., Ltd. et al. (Dispute over Infringement of Design Patent)

Case 7: The act of holding a tobacco retail license but selling smuggled cigarettes beyond the scope and across regions should not be easily认定为 the crime of illegal business operation—Zhu某 (Crime of Concealing or Disguising Criminal Proceeds)

Case 8: Punishing false publicity according to law to maintain fair competition in the market—Ke某 Wenchang Co., Ltd. v. Wenchang Municipal Market Supervision Administration (Administrative Penalty Dispute)

Case 9: Accurately applying the Anti-Monopoly Law and punishing exclusive dealing acts in the field of people's livelihoods according to law—Hainan某 Gas Co., Ltd. v. Provincial Market Supervision Administration (Administrative Penalty Dispute)

Case 10: Utilizing cross-enforcement mechanisms to effectively solve behavioral enforcement difficulties—Enforcement Case of Cross-Implementation between the Applicant, Hainan某 Fishery Company, and the Person Subject to Enforcement, Huang某cong (Dispute over Copyright Ownership and Infringement)

Case 6 Handled by Attorneys Yan Fei and Zhou Haili

Basic Facts of the Case

Hua Co., Ltd. is the design patentee of the patent titled "Mobile Phone and Its Main Body," with patent number ZL202330804510.4. Following consumer complaints, Hua discovered that the defendant, Guangzhou某 Trading Co., Ltd., had opened a store on the Douyin platform to sell mobile phones bearing the brand "MEIZI/Meizi Purple." The products were marked with the manufacturer as the defendant Haikou某 General Store, while the owner of the "Meizi Purple" trademark and the 3C certification rights holder for the products was the defendant Shenzhen某 Technology Co., Ltd. Upon comparison, Hua argued that the design features of the accused infringing products completely fell within the scope of protection of its design patent. The three defendants, without authorization, had manufactured, offered for sale, and sold the accused infringing products, infringing on its design patent. Hua thus filed a lawsuit with the Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court, seeking an order for the three defendants to cease the infringement and to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred in enforcing its rights, totaling RMB 2 million.

Judgment Outcome

After Hua filed the lawsuit, it applied to the court for property preservation to prevent the defendants from transferring assets and to ensure the enforcement of any subsequent judgment. The Free Trade Port IP Court promptly adopted preservation measures and preserved the defendants' properties within the scope of RMB 2 million. During the proceedings, the collegiate bench organized the parties to compare the ten accused infringing products for infringement and fully heard the opinions and arguments of both sides. Through comparison, the collegiate bench found that eight of the accused infringing products, together with the patented design No. 6, all adopted a triangular wind vane camera module design, with one large camera paired with two small cameras within the module. The other two accused infringing products, together with the patented design No. 3, all adopted a triangular wind vane camera module plus a trapezoidal corner marker design, with one large camera paired with two small cameras within the module. The collegiate bench applied the infringement determination principle of "overall observation, comprehensive judgment," and also referred to the "independent infringement determination" method for partial design patent infringement, determining that the accused infringing products fell within the scope of protection of the patent-in-suit. Subsequently, the presiding judge explained the relevant legal provisions and the possible legal consequences to the parties, actively guided both parties to mediate on the amount of compensation, gradually narrowed the differences, and ultimately reached an agreement on a compensation amount of over RMB 1.2 million, resolving this case and a series of disputes between the parties arising from other mobile phone design patents in one fell swoop.

Typical Significance

Hua Co., Ltd. is a leading enterprise in the domestic mobile phone industry. Its patented products are highly distinctive and innovative in appearance and are favored by consumers. The handling of this case reflects the important role of partial designs introduced by the amended Patent Law in 2020 in protecting innovation. The court combined "overall observation, comprehensive judgment" with "independent infringement determination," making a useful practical exploration of infringement determination for partial designs. Through "promoting mediation by preservation" and "interpreting the law and reasoning," it efficiently resolved a series of disputes between the parties in one package, achieving a win-win outcome.