Analysis identifies key elements influencing punitive damages in intellectual property cases, suggesting clearer guidelines for judicial assessments.
To prevent the over-extension of punitive damages in private law, as has occurred in some common law jurisdictions, China requires the presence of "serious circumstances" as a prerequisite for applying punitive damages in intellectual property infringement cases. However, this requirement still lacks a clear theoretical framework and concrete identification elements. This study illustrates China's approach by analyzing judicial decisions, and reveals: (1) sixteen elements used by judges to assess the seriousness of intellectual property infringement, which can be consolidated into three key categories: subjective malevolence, degree of conduct, and resulting damage; (2) differences in judicial emphasis across types of intellectual property, with copyright cases focusing on subjective malevolence and industrial property cases emphasizing scale and duration of infringement; (3)cases involving significant social harm are more likely to result in higher punitive damages multipliers; and(4) judges take into account not only the severity of infringement but also the goals and functions of punitive damages.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaijie You (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: