Fact Witnesses in China IP Litigation: Prepare Personal Knowledge and Attendance

By Pan Jianxing · Published 14 October 2026

A product manager may remember approving an image, a designer may explain the creation process, and a warehouse employee may have seen particular goods leave a facility. Each person can potentially supply useful evidence in a Chinese IP dispute. Their roles, however, do not make them witnesses to everything the company alleges.

For overseas rights holders, witness preparation should identify personal knowledge, preserve supporting records and arrange the required participation. It should not produce a shared story for employees to repeat. This guide concerns fact witnesses in mainland Chinese civil IP litigation, rather than technical appraisal or an expert's assessment.

Choose the witness by the fact to be proved

Article 72 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation, revised in 2019, directs witnesses to give an objective account of facts they personally perceived, without speculation, inference or commentary. Start with the disputed event and identify who actually observed or participated in it.

A manager who later reviewed a file can describe that review but should not present it as attendance at the original meeting. A designer can explain their own work and records without deciding whether the defendant's product legally infringes copyright. Separate personal observation, information received from others and conclusions proposed by counsel.

Prepare an initial knowledge map for each potential witness: relevant role and dates, events personally experienced, records handled and areas of uncertainty. Ask open questions. Record an inability to remember rather than filling a gap from the preferred litigation chronology. Seniority alone is not a reason to select someone who lacks direct knowledge.

Preserve the records that help explain the account

Keep relevant drafts, messages, instructions, delivery records or meeting notes in their original form. Identify how the witness created, received or used each item. If an old document refreshes a memory, distinguish the recollection from information learned by reading the document now. Counsel should be able to trace the account to both its human and documentary sources.

Do not ask a witness to recreate a contemporaneous record and date it as though it existed at the time. A new explanation can be dated accurately and identified as prepared for the litigation. Retain earlier versions where the account changes and explain the reason for a correction.

Discuss potential difficulties before filing: employment or commercial relationships with a party, incomplete records, inconsistencies and facts that do not support the claim. These matters help counsel assess evidential weight and corroboration. Concealing them leaves the witness unprepared for legitimate questions and may damage the reliability of the presentation.

Apply within the evidence timetable

Article 69 requires a party seeking witness testimony to apply before the evidence period expires. The application identifies the witness's name, occupation, residence and contact details, the main testimony, its relationship to the fact to be proved and the necessity of attendance. Use the court's directions for the actual deadline and submission format.

Under Article 70, the court issues a notice when it grants the application and may reject testimony unrelated to the facts or unnecessary to prove them. Confirm practical details with counsel: the issues covered, the date and place, identification requirements and language arrangements. Contact information should be provided through the proper procedural channel, not published in a general case summary.

• Match each proposed witness to a specific factual issue.
• Check availability and language needs before the application deadline.
• Identify the records the witness can explain from personal involvement.
• Confirm the court's directions rather than promising a particular format.

Plan attendance rather than assuming a statement is enough

Article 68 generally requires witnesses to appear and answer questions. It also recognises specified alternatives, including court-permitted testimony by other means where both parties agree. A written account from a witness who fails to attend without justification cannot simply replace the required testimony.

Article 27 of the Provisions on Evidence in Civil IP Litigation, Fa Shi [2020] No. 12, likewise requires attendance and provides for examination of testimony where both parties agree and the court permits non-attendance. Articles 76–77 of the general evidence provisions address applications and requirements for permitted alternative methods. A private video call arranged by the legal team is not itself court authorisation.

Where a witness is overseas or has a genuine difficulty attending, raise the issue early with supporting reasons. Ask counsel to confirm the lawful procedure and any cross-border requirements. Arrange interpretation, identity checks and technical testing only within the approved process. Do not tell the witness that distance automatically guarantees remote participation.

Prepare for questions without scripting the answers

Article 72 also bars a witness from attending the hearing before testifying and from simply reading a prepared written account. Article 74 makes party and counsel questioning subject to the court's permission. Explain the procedure, the duty to answer truthfully and the importance of saying when a question is unclear or a detail is not remembered.

Review source documents and terminology without rehearsing an agreed answer to every disputed point. Avoid leading, threats, rewards tied to testimony or attempts to coordinate witnesses' recollections. If the account needs correction, use the court's procedure and explain the change honestly.

For a witness preparation plan, contact Pan Jianxing with the factual issues, witnesses' locations and next procedural deadline. Begin with a non-confidential outline. The aim is testimony whose personal basis and limits are clear, supported by records and given through a procedure the court has accepted.

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