Documents Held by the Opponent: Make a Focused Production Request in China IP Litigation

By Pan Jianxing · Published 13 October 2026

A rights holder may know that the opposing business keeps invoices or production records relevant to an IP dispute, yet be unable to obtain them directly. The next step is to identify the documents and explain why the court should require their submission. A broad demand for everything connected with the business is less useful than a request tied to a specific disputed fact.

This guide addresses documents controlled by an opposing party in mainland Chinese civil IP litigation. Records held by an unrelated platform or authority may require a different collection procedure. An application for production also differs from urgent preservation where evidence may disappear.

Identify the procedural route and the precise gap

Article 24 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil IP Litigation, Fa Shi [2020] No. 12, provides for a written application by the party bearing the burden of proof. Where the reasons are established, the court must order the opposing party to submit evidence under its control. The provision covers evidence beyond documentary records.

For documentary evidence, Articles 45–48 of the Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation, revised in 2019, provide a more detailed framework. Begin by stating the fact that remains unproved and why the requested document matters to it. This helps distinguish a necessary request from an attempt to explore the opponent's affairs without a defined evidential purpose.

For example, a hypothetical dispute over the quantity of a particular product may call for identified sales invoices for a defined period. It does not automatically justify access to the company's entire customer database. Match the requested categories to the pleaded issue and the information already available.

Make the request recognisable to its recipient

Article 45 requires the application to identify the document's name or content, the fact to be proved and its importance, the basis for believing the opponent controls the document, and the reasons it should be submitted. A useful schedule gives each category its own explanation instead of repeating a general allegation for every item.

Identify available dates, product codes, transaction numbers, counterparties or departments. If the exact document title is unknown, describe its content accurately and explain the identification limits. Do not invent an internal record name to make a request appear more precise than the evidence permits.

• State the document or narrowly defined category sought.
• Specify the relevant time period and transaction or product identifiers.
• Link it to the particular fact requiring proof.
• Explain the evidence of the opponent's possession or control.
• Identify the legal and practical reasons for submission.

Support control with existing material where possible: a contractual recordkeeping obligation, a reference in correspondence, a document previously supplied, or the business process described by a knowledgeable witness. The fact that a company could theoretically possess a document is different from evidence that it controls the requested record.

Address the court's review before filing

Under Article 46, the court hears the opponent's views and may require evidence or debate. It will not grant a request where the document is unclear, unnecessary, immaterial to the outcome, outside the opponent's control or outside Article 47's conditions. A sufficiently grounded application results in an order; rejection is communicated to the applicant.

Article 47 includes documents previously relied upon in the litigation, documents prepared for the other party's benefit, documents the other party is legally entitled to inspect or obtain, account books and original accounting vouchers, and other documents the court considers should be supplied. Explain the applicable category without treating it as an unlimited right to inspect every business record.

Work within the court's evidentiary timetable. Ask counsel to confirm the relevant filing deadline and any directions concerning the request and response. If the court needs a narrower description, revise the schedule transparently and retain the earlier version. Do not assume that a pending request excuses unrelated evidentiary deadlines.

Plan confidential handling before access

A confidentiality objection should be examined rather than ignored or treated as an automatic veto. Article 47 addresses protected material that must not undergo public examination after submission. Article 26 of the IP evidence provisions requires protective arrangements before participants access commercial secrets or other confidential business information, and permits necessary limits on the people given access.

Identify likely sensitive fields and propose workable handling through counsel. A redacted working copy may assist discussion, but it should not conceal the information the court needs to assess the issue. Explain any proposed redactions and preserve the complete source for the court-approved procedure. Overseas recipients should not assume that material may be forwarded throughout a corporate group.

Describe non-compliance and the requested inference carefully

Article 48 permits the court to accept an assertion about a document's content where the controlling party refuses submission without justification. Article 25 of the IP evidence provisions addresses unjustified refusal, false evidence, destruction and other conduct making evidence unusable after the court lawfully requires submission. The resulting inference concerns the facts that the evidence was intended to prove.

Keep the application, order, response, submitted materials and explanation of any remaining gaps together. Identify the specific missing fact and the inference requested. Non-compliance does not automatically establish every element of the claim or the entire damages figure. Continue developing independent evidence and address any genuine explanation offered for the missing record.

To assess a focused production request, contact Pan Jianxing with a non-confidential description of the disputed fact, likely documents and next deadline. The practical objective is a request that the court can evaluate and the recipient can understand, supported by reasons that can be checked.

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