A U.S. company can use records created outside China in a Chinese intellectual property dispute, but the file must connect those records to a China right, an identified act and a specific remedy. Not every foreign record needs the same formality, and a screenshot or notarization does not by itself prove infringement. Before a demand letter, platform notice or lawsuit changes the evidence, preserve the source files, record how they were obtained and ask China counsel which items need translation, authentication or court preservation. Official sources were checked on September 30, 2026.

Build the case around facts to prove, not a folder of files

Start with five questions: Who owns or may enforce the relevant right in China? What act occurred in China or through a China-facing channel? Who performed it? What evidence connects the act to the protected sign, work, patent claim or confidential information? What outcome is sought—cessation, removal, preservation, damages or settlement?

Use a simple evidence index. For each item, record the source, date, collector or custodian, original format, location of the original and the fact it is meant to prove. Separate observed facts from allegations about a factory, seller, exporter or damages. The Supreme People's Court (SPC) IP evidence rules begin with truthful, complete evidence and generally place the initial burden on the party asserting a fact. A large upload is no substitute for a clear link between each record and a disputed fact.

This article concerns civil IP disputes. A platform complaint or administrative case can require a different package. See our China IP enforcement routes guide for forum selection and our e-commerce takedown evidence guide for a platform-specific notice.

Treat U.S.-created documents by type

Do not assume either that every U.S. document must be notarized or that overseas origin never matters. Article 8 of the SPC IP evidence rules identifies categories of evidence formed outside China for which an opponent's objection based only on missing notarization or authentication is not supported. They include public publications and patent documents obtainable through official or public channels, and material whose authenticity is shown by other evidence. That rule does not make the content automatically accurate, relevant or sufficient.

The SPC general civil evidence rules separately address formalities for certain overseas public documents and documents concerning identity relationships, and require a Chinese translation for foreign-language documents or explanations submitted to a court. Ask China counsel to classify the actual U.S. corporate record, assignment, license, declaration, power of attorney or technical document before arranging any formality. Keep the full original and a reliable record of where it came from; translate the parts needed for the asserted facts. Do not spend on a blanket process based only on the document's country of origin.

Preserve digital evidence with its source and context

The general civil evidence rules, Articles 14–15 and 93–94, expressly include web pages, platform records, emails, transaction records, photographs and other electronic files. They address originals and the factors courts use to judge authenticity, including how data was created, stored, transferred and extracted. A reliable file therefore keeps the underlying message, page or transaction record where available, along with its URL or account identifier, capture date, collector, method and any later changes. A cropped image with no source trail may leave essential questions unanswered.

For an accused product, save the listing or advertisement before contact, but also consider a lawful purchase file: order, payment, delivery, packaging, invoice or receipt, and the item received. Article 7 of the SPC IP evidence rules permits certain items and receipts obtained through an ordinary-buyer purchase to be used as infringement evidence. It does not turn every purchase into proof of the seller's full supply chain or the legal infringement comparison. Preserve the physical item and the transaction trail without altering either.

Notarization, a third-party platform record or a file hash may help address authenticity, depending on the method and facts. None replaces the separate need to identify the right, the accused conduct and the connection between them. The court evaluates the evidence in context.

Ask whether court evidence preservation is needed before notice

Some information can disappear after a warning: a web page changes, stock moves, a product is disassembled or records remain only with the target. Article 11 of the SPC IP evidence rules tells courts to consider preliminary proof, whether the applicant could collect the material independently, the risk and effect of loss, and the impact of preservation on the holder. Article 12 limits the measure to effectively fixing evidence while reducing unnecessary disruption. A preservation request is a court decision, not an automatic discovery request.

Before counsel considers an application, describe the exact evidence, who holds it, where it is likely located, why self-collection is not feasible, what may be lost and which disputed fact it would establish. Keep a dated record of the urgency. If the case involves confidential technical material, agree on secure handling before exchanging it. Do not send a full unpublished invention or trade secret through a general website inquiry.

Plan for records held by the other side—and confidentiality

Article 24 of the SPC IP evidence rules allows a party carrying the burden of proof to apply in writing for an order requiring the opposing party to submit evidence it controls; the court decides whether the grounds are established. Article 25 allows adverse consequences for unjustified nonproduction or falsification. These provisions do not excuse the claimant from collecting what it can, identifying the relevant record and explaining the point it would prove.

Commercially sensitive material needs its own plan. Article 26 provides for confidentiality agreements, undertakings or court orders before litigation participants access trade secrets or other confidential business information, with possible limits on who may see it. That is a reason to discuss secure transfer and access with counsel early, especially for source code, manufacturing information and unannounced products.

A practical first instruction to China counsel

Before sending sensitive files, prepare a short, nonconfidential case brief:

  • The China right, owner and current status, plus any known assignment or license issue.

  • The accused product, URL, account or business entity and the observed conduct, with a dated public capture if available.

  • What originals, transaction records or physical samples are already preserved and who holds them.

  • What may disappear, who controls it and whether a demand letter or platform notice has already been sent.

  • The desired business outcome, budget range and decision deadline; identify a person authorized to instruct counsel.

After a conflict check and confidentiality arrangements, counsel can review the complete documents, plan formalities and translation, and choose the appropriate China procedure. Our China IP enforcement and disputes service explains the available coordination scope. U.S. law firms and IP agencies can use the China foreign-associate service for client instructions.

Common questions

Does every U.S. document need notarization to be used in a China IP case?

No blanket rule follows from overseas origin alone. The SPC IP evidence rules limit objections based only on missing formalities for specified categories, while the general evidence rules retain requirements for certain document types. The particular document and purpose must be reviewed; authenticity, relevance and translation remain separate issues.

Is a screenshot enough to prove online infringement?

It may help show what appeared online, but may not establish who controlled the account, what product was delivered, the protected scope, the scale of sales or the amount of loss. Preserve source and transaction records, then decide whether a purchase, platform record, notarization or court measure is justified.

Can a court preserve evidence before the target receives a warning?

Counsel can assess a court application when the legal conditions and facts support it. The court weighs preliminary proof, access, loss risk and the measure's impact. Do not assume that every allegation qualifies or that a court will collect an unspecified category of records.

This article is general information, not legal advice for a specific dispute. Evidence sufficiency, formalities, forum, timing, costs and relief depend on the facts and current procedure. No enforcement or compensation outcome is guaranteed.