How can people¡¯s court adjudication precisely serve the development of new quality productive forces? How can the judiciary provide solid protection for intellectual property rights in emerging fields?

Nowadays, emerging fields represented by artificial intelligence and biomedicine are flourishing, and technology-related intellectual property transactions are increasingly active. However, behind this wave of innovation, disputes over technology-related intellectual property contracts are gradually unfolding, and legal risks in these areas have become a prominent obstacle to technological development.

On April 17, the Shanghai Minhang District People¡¯s Court (hereinafter the ¡°Minhang Court¡±) and the Minhang District Law Society jointly held a press conference titled ¡°Judicial Adjudication Empowering the Development and Protection of Intellectual Property in Emerging Fields¡ªMinhang District Judicial Services Safeguarding the Building of the ¡®Five Centers¡¯.¡± At the event, the Minhang District Legal Service Manual for Enterprises (hereinafter the ¡°Service Manual¡±) and the Shanghai Minhang District People¡¯s Court: White Paper on the Adjudication of Technology-Related Intellectual Property Contract Cases (2022-2025) were released along with typical cases. These materials aim to help innovation entities enhance their awareness of risk prevention, ¡°conduct check-ups and prescribe remedies¡± for technological transactions, and discharge judicial duties to serve and safeguard regional technological innovation, and support Shanghai¡¯s development into an international center for science and technology innovation.

At the press conference, Chen Hui, Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Committee of the CPC Minhang District Committee, outlined the background and main content of the Service Manual. Ren Mingyan, Member of the Party Leadership Group of the Minhang Court, introduced the background of the White Paper. He Gang, Chief Judge of the Commercial Adjudication Division of the Minhang Court, presented the main content of the White Paper and related cases. The press conference was moderated by Xia Wanhong, Chief Judge of the Adjudication Supervision Division and spokesperson of the Minhang Court. Attendees included representatives from the Minhang District People¡¯s Procuratorate, Minhang Public Security Sub-Bureau, Minhang District Bureau of Justice, Minhang District Administration for Market Regulation, Minhang District Law Society, deputies to the municipal and district people¡¯s congresses, as well as representatives from subdistricts, townships, industrial zones, parks, enterprises, and media outlets.

Three Major ¡°Pain Points¡± Hindering Technology Protection and Transaction Security

Based on the trial data of all technology-related intellectual property contract cases accepted by the Minhang Court over the past four years, the White Paper clearly shows a yearly increase in such cases in Minhang District, reflecting the growing vibrancy of transaction activities involving technology achievements and technology services within the jurisdiction and a corresponding rise in civil disputes.

By case type, technology service contract disputes rank first, totaling 286 cases, accounting for 58% of all technology-related IP contract cases. Computer software development contract disputes total 111 cases, accounting for 22%. These two types together account for 80% of all technology-related IP contract cases, making them the principal types of disputes in this field and indicating that disputes are frequent for market entities during technology services and software development.

The White Paper indicates that, by dispute area, high-tech sectors account for a high proportion. Cases cover high-tech fields such as computer software, biomedicine, new energy, and materials. Some cases also intersect with cutting-edge technology fields including artificial intelligence, genetic technology, and aerospace communications. By case outcome, the proportion of cases resolved through mediation or withdrawal is relatively high. Most cases were mediated either by the court or by assigned mediation organizations, facilitating settlement between the parties, achieving resolution of the dispute, and demonstrating significant effectiveness in substantive dispute resolution. By adjudication result, plaintiffs have a relatively high success rate. In successful cases, the plaintiffs are mostly technology providers, who possess greater legal risk control capabilities during contracting and performance, while technology service recipients have a relatively weaker understanding of the legal risks associated with entering into and performing such contracts.

Based on adjudication practices, the White Paper accurately identifies three major pain points that frequently give rise to technology-related IP contract disputes, directly pointing to the ¡°hidden minefields¡± restricting technology protection and transaction security:

1. Non-standard contract formation. Irregular contracting practices such as ¡°performance before signing,¡± ¡°signing while performing,¡± and ¡°vague stipulation of core terms¡± lead to unclear definition of rights and obligations. 2. Unauthorized transfer of obligations. Technology providers often ¡°subcontract¡± their contractual obligations to others or split them among multiple entities, increasing contract performance risks. 3. Lack of documented evidence during performance. Some market entities focus heavily on project research and development but neglect to maintain performance documentation or develop awareness of evidence collection, making it more difficult to ascertain the facts of a case.

¡°Four Measures and Four Recommendations¡± to Build a Full-Chain Protection System

To address the above issues, the White Paper proposes four measures for the proper handling of technology-related IP contract disputes:

1. Introducing professional mediation organizations. The court has improved mediation quality and efficiency and promoted diversified dispute resolution by offering mediation organization options promptly after case filing, refining case triage, and adopting a ¡°presiding judge of the trial team + senior judge + mediator¡± model.

2. Strengthening the intensive adjudication mechanism for difficult cases. The court has adopted a ¡°written submissions first¡± approach, unified pleadings and arguments, explored reforms to trial methods, and established a ¡°issue-centric¡± trial model.

3. Establishing a technical consultation mechanism. Relying on the technical expert database of the Minhang District Science and Technology Commission, the court has established a regular mechanism for technical expert consultation in IP adjudication, thereby ensuring efficient determination of technical facts and improving the quality and efficiency of IP adjudication.

4. Expanding judicial extension services. The court has established judge workshops and a ¡°fixed time, fixed location, fixed personnel¡± service mechanism, carried out legal education activities, and continued programs bringing law to industrial parks and enterprises to help enterprises reduce the occurrence of technology-related IP contract disputes at the source.

Additionally, the White Paper proposes four recommendations for market entities to prevent and resolve disputes:

1. Raising risk awareness and improving contract formation practices. Priority should be given to written forms of contracting; core terms should be as accurate and clear as possible; any changes to the contract should be confirmed in writing promptly.

2. Cultivating good-faith awareness and standardizing contract performance. Market entities should avoid unauthorized transfer of contractual obligations and ensure due performance; strengthen communication and cooperation, and prioritize negotiated resolution when disputes arise.

3. Enhancing evidence awareness and improving project process management. Market entities should establish dynamic project management records, standardize evidence collection during contract performance, and enhance the legal validity of evidence.

4. Promoting diverse co-governance and fostering an innovation-friendly legal environment. Enterprise self-management and industry guidance should be strengthened, and publicity for intellectual property protection should be increased, so as to create a social atmosphere that respects and protects innovation.

Typical Cases Released to Provide Judicial Guidance

The ten typical cases released at the press conference cover various types of disputes, including computer software development contracts, technical service contracts, software copyright licensing contracts, and patent right transfer contracts. These cases focus on high-frequency disputes in judicial practice, such as contract pricing, acceptance delays, patent right transfers, and breach of contract determinations, and provide, from a judicial perspective, clear behavioral boundaries and compliance guidance for technology-oriented market entities.

For example, in a dispute over a technical service contract, the contract adopted a fixed-price model. During performance, the technical service provider claimed payment based on working hours, citing ¡°significant overruns of working hours.¡± The court explicitly held that the contract took the achievement of specific technical service results as the milestone for performance completed, rather than the provision of technical services within a specified period. The provider could not demand a change in the pricing method based on working hour overruns, but could only receive corresponding consideration based on the extent to which it had fulfilled its contractual obligations. The adjudication of this case establishes a clear rule for determining the pricing standard for technical service contracts.

In another example, a dispute over a computer software development contract, the defendant subcontracted the software development obligation multiple times to third parties, and ultimately failed to deliver qualified software on time. The court held that, under the principle of privity of contract, the nominal developer, as the contracting party, bears direct responsibility for the quality, progress, and final delivery of the developed software, and that ¡°subcontracting does not exempt liability.¡± This ruling reinforces the judicial orientation toward good-faith performance and encourages enterprises to uphold the spirit of contract in technical cooperation.

¡°One-stop¡± Guidance for the Entire Lifecycle of Enterprises

The Service Manual thoroughly implements the guiding principles from the important speech made by General Secretary Xi Jinping during his inspection of Shanghai and the directives he gave regarding the work of Minhang District. It takes the implementation of Minhang District¡¯s ¡°One South, One North¡± development strategy as a key measure to serve major national initiatives. Using Shanghai¡¯s goals of building the ¡°five centers¡± and strengthening its ¡°four major functions¡± as important anchors, and taking into account the legal issues faced by enterprises in their development, the manual provides authoritative, convenient, and systematic legal guidance. Specifically, the court section of the Service Manual focuses on justice and efficiency, providing a detailed introduction to the litigation service framework (the ¡°one general, five specific¡± structure), online case filing and preservation guidelines, and a resource map for diversified dispute resolution. For key areas such as commercial transactions, foreign-related commercial matters, intellectual property protection, criminal risk prevention, and enforcement, the manual offers specific risk alerts and practical guidance to help enterprises efficiently resolve disputes and reduce litigation costs.

The Service Manual released at the press conference is designed to provide enterprises with one-stop legal guidance covering their entire lifecycle and all business areas, aiming to achieve three goals: one, to provide enterprises with a clear and stable legal expectation; two, to build a coordinated and efficient intellectual property protection framework; and three, to create a convenient and targeted legal service ecosystem for enterprises. Through high-quality legal safeguards, it supports the development of new quality productive forces and contributes to the development of Shanghai¡¯s ¡°five centers¡± as well as Minhang District¡¯s goal of becoming a ¡°modernized main urban area and a main hub for new quality productive forces that is innovative, open, ecologically and culturally rich, and livable and secure.¡±

Comments from Deputies to the People¡¯s Congresses

Yan Yang, Deputy to the Shanghai Municipal People¡¯s Congress; Deputy Director of the Key Laboratory and Deputy Director of the New Technology Research Institute, Shanghai Aviation Electric Co., Ltd.

High-tech sectors, such as the aerospace industry, are characterized by technology intensity, high R&D investment, and high risk, which can easily lead to various disputes and impose higher demands on the professionalism of judicial adjudication. The newly released White Paper and typical cases focus on technology-related intellectual property contracts, identifying prominent issues such as non-compliant contract signing, technology providers transferring their obligations without authorization, and a lack of documentation during performance in relevant cases. These materials provide innovation entities with targeted risk prevention guidance, offering distinctive industry-specific insights and practical value, and are of great significance in regulating the order of technology transactions and safeguarding the transformation of scientific and technological achievements. We hope that the Minhang Court will continue to improve its innovative mechanisms and measures, injecting strong judicial momentum into the cultivation and development of new quality productive forces.

Li Hui, Deputy to the Minhang District People¡¯s Congress; Head of the Development Planning Department, AECC Commercial Aircraft Engine Co., Ltd.

The White Paper released by the Minhang Court conducts a systematic analysis of technology-related intellectual property contract cases, accurately identifying the potential legal risks faced by technology providers and recipients during contract formation and performance. It advances responses and recommendations that are both legally sound and practically valuable, addressing key aspects such as the formulation of core clauses, clarification of acceptance standards, and management of performance evidence. This helps deputies to people¡¯s congresses gain a deeper understanding of the adjudication of cases in relevant fields and promotes the supervision and advancement of regional intellectual property protection efforts. Additionally, it is of great significance for improving the legal framework for the transformation of technological achievements, enhancing the risk awareness of various innovation entities, and fostering a legal environment conducive to innovation.