Court Evidence Preservation in China IP Disputes: Make a Focused Application

By Pan Jianxing · Published 30 September 2026

A product listing can disappear overnight, while production records or platform data may remain outside a foreign brand's control. Saving screenshots helps, but it does not secure every piece of evidence. A court application should identify the particular material at risk and explain why preserving it is necessary for a specific China IP claim.

Evidence preservation is a procedure for securing material that may be lost or become difficult to obtain. It is different from an order stopping infringement or freezing assets for eventual payment. Choosing the right procedure starts with the fact that needs proof, rather than a general request to inspect the opponent's business.

Identify the missing fact and the evidence holder

Under Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Law, as amended in 2023, parties can seek evidence preservation during litigation where evidence may be lost or become difficult to obtain. In urgent circumstances, an interested party can apply before litigation or arbitration to a court at the evidence location, the respondent's domicile, or otherwise having jurisdiction over the case.

Prepare a short evidence schedule. For each item, identify its likely holder, location, relevant dates and the fact it would establish. For example, a defined production batch may connect a disputed mark to a manufacturer; records for particular orders may connect a seller to quantities supplied. These are investigation hypotheses until supported by evidence. An application should not describe an entire accounting system as relevant without explaining the connection.

Explain why ordinary collection is insufficient

Article 11 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Intellectual Property Civil Litigation, Fa Shi [2020] No. 12, directs courts to consider preliminary supporting evidence, whether the applicant can collect the evidence itself, the risk of loss or later difficulty, and the effect of the measures on the holder.

Collect what can already be obtained lawfully: registration records, the relevant listing, transaction documents and correspondence. Then explain the remaining obstacle. A documented account closure, an identified retention policy or credible information about a scheduled disposal may support a focused account of urgency. A generic statement that every defendant might destroy evidence supplies little information for assessing this application.

Keep the dates and origins of these warning signs. Separate first-hand records from reports that still require checking. Do not fabricate urgency, and do not treat an unsuccessful private request as automatically establishing that every proposed court measure is necessary.

Request a proportionate method

Article 12 requires preservation to remain within what effectively secures the evidence and to minimise damage and disruption to normal business. Article 15 allows preservation of evidence held by a non-party. That can matter where a platform or warehouse holds the relevant material, but it does not create a right to collect all of that third party's records.

• Physical goods: identify the model, batch, quantity and location, and explain whether recording or sampling can answer the disputed question.
• Electronic records: specify the account, date range and data fields, and address how an intelligible copy can retain source and integrity information.
• Technical material: explain the relevant drawing or production record and whether technical assistance is needed to identify it accurately.
• Confidential information: distinguish evidence needed for the claim from unrelated customer, employee or business information.

The final measure is for the court to decide. A request to copy selected records is different from seizing equipment needed for unrelated production. Explain why the proposed approach is sufficient and identify a less disruptive alternative where one exists.

Plan for security and the procedural timetable

Articles 25–28 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation, revised in 2019, address the application, security, methods and liability for an erroneous application. An application during litigation should be made before the evidence submission period expires. The application must describe the evidence, reasons and requested measures.

Where the requested measure restricts use or circulation of the material, or may cause the holder loss, Article 26 requires corresponding security. Article 28 addresses compensation for property loss caused by an erroneous application. Assess this exposure before requesting a broad seizure. Security should be arranged through the applicable court process, with its form and amount confirmed.

For a pre-action application, counsel should verify the competent court, urgency requirements and the deadline for commencing the underlying proceedings. Check any special rule for the particular IP right and record when the preservation measure was taken, as well as the order and service dates. Do not assume that obtaining preservation permits the substantive claim to remain unfiled indefinitely.

Preserve the court's record and assess what it proves

Article 16 of the IP evidence provisions requires a record and inventory of the preservation exercise. Keep the order, inventory and available records together with the later evidence file. Do not alter, dismantle or replace preserved material privately; Article 14 addresses adverse consequences where such conduct makes the evidence unusable.

Preservation does not establish infringement by itself. Review whether the secured material answers the intended question, whether further explanation or examination is needed, and what remains unproved. Article 26 provides protection for confidential business information encountered in the proceedings; requests to restrict access should be concrete and justified.

For a focused assessment, contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential description of the right, the missing evidence, its likely holder and the event creating urgency. Detailed sensitive material can follow after the conflict check and document-sharing arrangements.

Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →