Chinese courts strengthen role in anti-monopoly, IP protection

China's top court said Chinese courts have continuously strengthened their handling of disputes related to monopolies and unfair competition in a bid to further regulate the behaviors of market entities and help create a fair and orderly market environment.

Data released by the Supreme People's Court on Monday showed that in 2024, courts nationwide identified 31 cases constituting monopolies, a 2.1-fold increase from the previous year.

"We've paid closer attention to tackling lawsuits of monopolies in key sectors, including those involving people's livelihood, internet platforms, healthcare and telecommunication, so as to maintain fair competition and encourage innovation in a sound environment," said He Zhonglin, deputy chief judge of the top court's Intellectual Property Court.

He took monopoly cases in the field of livelihood as an example, revealing that the disputes mainly covered education, medicine, food, travel services, and water, gas and building materials supply.

While ensuring the quality of handling monopoly cases, he said that the top court has also focused more on standardizing the adjudication rules.

Last year, for instance, the top court issued a 51-article judicial interpretation on dealing with civil cases of monopolies, with a number of influential lawsuits released, "which has played a big role in improving the efficiency of the case handling and maintaining the fair competition in the market," He added.

Over the past year, courts across the country have also enhanced judicial protection for copyrights, promoting cultural prosperity and development. The top court actively advanced the implementation of judicial suggestions related to the film industry, resulting in a 43.32 percent year-on-year decrease in the number of new film copyright disputes accepted by courts nationwide in the first instance.

This has demonstrated the courts' commitment to protecting IP rights and fostering the healthy development of the film industry, the top court said.