A screenshot may show a copied product photograph or an unauthorised offer, but it can leave basic questions unanswered: which account displayed the material, when was it accessible, and what happened before the captured exchange? Overseas rights holders should prepare electronic evidence so that another person can examine its source and context, rather than relying only on a persuasive image.
This guide concerns the authenticity of electronic records in mainland Chinese civil IP litigation. Authenticity is one part of the assessment. A reliable record does not, by itself, establish copyright ownership, identify the responsible legal entity or prove every element of infringement.
Identify the record and the fact it supports
Article 14 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation, revised in 2019, recognises a range of electronic data, including online publications, electronic communications, transaction and login records, images, audio and digital documents. Start by identifying the particular record and the disputed fact it is intended to prove.
For a product listing, distinguish the displayed image, seller account, product identifier and transaction details. For an email, distinguish the message, its attachments and the earlier correspondence quoted within it. For a design file, distinguish its current content from the history used to support a claim about when it was created. One capture should not silently stand in for all these propositions.
Prepare a short evidence map: the proposed finding, the relevant file or account, the person who controls it and the means of obtaining a reliable copy. Record limitations while the source remains available. If an investigator saw only a public page, do not describe the capture as an export of the seller's internal records.
Preserve usable originals and explain each export
Article 15 requires an original when electronic data is submitted. It also treats certain outputs as originals: a copy made by the data's creator that is consistent with the original, or a printout or other recognisable output directly derived from the electronic data. The rule should not be reduced to an assertion that only the physical device is acceptable or that every screenshot is worthless.
Preserve the native file or available export, together with a readable working copy. Record who obtained it, the access used, the extraction method and any conversion. Keep email attachments linked to their messages and retain available headers. If an application exports only selected fields, identify that limit rather than implying that the export reproduces the entire account.
Use lawful access. An employee's ability to view a company system does not resolve every question about permission to copy or disclose its contents. Ask counsel to settle the collection scope before extracting unrelated personal or confidential information. Where material cannot lawfully be obtained directly, assess the appropriate court procedure.
Document reliability, not just the visible result
Article 93 identifies matters relevant to authenticity, including the reliability and operation of the systems involved, safeguards against errors, the completeness and reliability of storage, transmission and extraction, ordinary business formation and the suitability of the people handling the data. The court may use appraisal or inspection where necessary.
Translate these factors into a practical collection note. Identify the service or software, account, file format and collection date. Describe material steps and known problems, including missing messages, overwritten versions or an interrupted export. If a time zone matters, retain the displayed timestamp and explain any conversion separately. Avoid presenting a reconstructed chronology as the system's original output.
- Keep the complete relevant conversation, including replies that qualify an earlier statement.
- Retain a source copy and make annotations only on a separate working version.
- Record filenames, sizes and any integrity hashes used during collection and transfer.
- Explain differences between the preserved data and the exhibit supplied for reading.
A matching hash can help show that the captured file has not changed between two checks. It does not establish who created the original content, whether the account was genuine or whether the record was accurate before capture. Explain that distinction when using technical integrity tools.
Use corroboration for the questions the file cannot answer
Article 94 permits the court to confirm authenticity in specified circumstances, subject to sufficient contrary evidence, including data provided or confirmed by a neutral third-party platform and data formed in ordinary business. Its separate rule for notarised electronic content also allows contrary evidence capable of overturning that conclusion. Neither route guarantees a finding of infringement.
Consider what supporting material is actually available: a platform confirmation, an order record, a corresponding invoice or testimony from someone who handled the communication. Match identifiers across the records. A familiar display name alone may be insufficient to connect a message to the defendant; account attribution needs its own evidential support.
Prepare a source-based response to a challenge
Ask the opponent to identify the alleged problem precisely: alteration, missing context, mistaken account attribution or an unreliable extraction. Preserve the disputed version and prepare a reasoned comparison with the source. If specialist assessment is needed, define the technical question instead of asking an expert to decide the legal dispute.
For a collection plan, contact Pan Jianxing with the type of record, who controls it and the next procedural deadline. Begin with a non-confidential description. A useful electronic evidence file lets counsel move from each proposed finding back to an identifiable source, while stating what remains uncertain.
Official sources & legal review
Legal position checked 2026-10-12. Official Chinese texts govern; the English analysis is a summary.
General information about mainland China. The applicable law, rights, evidence and procedure require review for a specific matter.
Pan Jianxing
China-qualified lawyer · Partner, 北京市长安律师事务所
Beijing & Shenzhen
Discuss a China IP matter →