A China IP preliminary injunction can require a respondent to stop specified conduct before the dispute reaches a final outcome. The relevant Chinese procedure is behavior preservation, or xingwei baoquan. For an overseas rights holder, the practical question is whether a supported, precisely defined request can address harm that cannot wait. An infringement allegation alone does not guarantee urgent relief.
This guide focuses on preparing a request to stop suspected IP infringement, especially before litigation. It does not cover every form of behavior preservation or replace advice on the particular court, right and procedural route. Official sources were checked on October 20, 2026.
Define the conduct you need stopped
Start with the commercial event: which identified party is about to do what, where and when? A request aimed at a particular display, disclosure or sale is easier to assess than a demand to stop a competitor's entire business. Separate confirmed facts from assumptions about affiliates, distributors or exhibitors.
The current Civil Procedure Law provides for orders requiring or prohibiting conduct. Article 104 addresses urgent applications before litigation or arbitration where failing to act would cause difficult-to-remedy harm, and requires security. This is interim relief, not a final infringement judgment.
Evidence preservation serves a different purpose: securing proof. It does not itself prohibit the challenged conduct. Our China IP dispute evidence preparation guide explains that separate workstream. Identify whether you need to preserve proof, stop conduct, or ask counsel to assess both.
Explain why the matter cannot wait
The Supreme People's Court's IP behavior-preservation provisions, effective January 1, 2019, identify imminent unlawful trade-secret disclosure and time-sensitive trade-fair infringement among urgency scenarios. An upcoming exhibition alone does not prove that your requested order qualifies.
A September 2026 judicial commentary, published on the SPC IP Court's website, explains why urgency and difficult-to-remedy harm need separate analysis. It discusses the factual and legal basis, right stability, harm, balance between the parties and public interest. The commentary is analysis, not a newly enacted rule or an automatic test copied from U.S. practice.
Prepare a dated sequence showing discovery, verification, the threatened event and your response. Explain concretely why waiting would matter and why money or later enforcement may not adequately repair the harm. Disclose earlier knowledge and any delay. Calling a matter urgent does not resolve a timeline that suggests otherwise.
For example, a company may find a disputed product advertised for a short exhibition. The useful preparation is the exhibitor's identity, the product-right comparison, the event dates and the particular harm expected during that window. This is a hypothetical planning example, not a client case or a conclusion that the display infringes.
Assemble a focused application file
Use this as a working checklist for counsel, rather than a universal list of court-mandated documents:
Confirm the applicant, the China-protected right, current ownership and any license authority relied on. Flag pending challenges or ownership disputes.
Identify the respondent and the relevant conduct, with dated product, listing, exhibition or communication evidence. Explain how the evidence relates to the asserted right.
State the proposed order's scope and duration. Show exactly what it would prohibit and what legitimate activity would remain possible.
Explain urgency and the expected harm, with a chronology and supporting records. Address the likely effect on the respondent and the public, rather than presenting only your commercial preference.
Assign responsibility for court documents, translations, authorization, security and approvals. Have counsel confirm jurisdiction and the chosen litigation or arbitration route before filing.
The SPC provisions require special supporting material when the application relies on a utility-model or design patent: the specified search report, patent-right evaluation report or validity-maintaining decision. A patent certificate alone should not be treated as a complete preparation file. Ask counsel to identify the applicable document and any additional technical comparison needed.
Keep an organized index linking each assertion to its evidence. Preserve originals and context rather than editing screenshots into a persuasive narrative. For a cross-border team, one person should maintain the current instruction sheet so that an overnight decision is not based on an obsolete product description or proposed order.
Arrange security and assess the downside
Under the SPC provisions, security relates to losses the respondent may suffer from implementation; additional security can be required. Plan who can approve it and how it can be arranged, without assuming a standard amount or a fixed percentage of your claim. Keep security distinct from court fees, professional fees, translation and other expenses.
Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law requires compensation for loss caused by a wrongful preservation application. Urgency should therefore trigger careful verification, not wider allegations or an unsupported request. Counsel should assess adverse evidence, possible defenses and the consequences of an overbroad order before you commit.
Plan beyond the initial decision
Article 104 requires a ruling within 48 hours after the court accepts the pre-action application. Article 103 applies that clock to urgent applications during proceedings. These are ruling deadlines, not promises of approval, preparation time or a complete result within 48 hours of your first inquiry.
For pre-action preservation, Article 104 requires the applicant to commence litigation or apply for arbitration within 30 days after the court takes preservation measures; otherwise the court must lift preservation. Assign that follow-up immediately. Ask counsel to track the actual order, its scope, implementation, duration and any challenge, rather than treating a favorable interim ruling as the end of the dispute.
Questions overseas rights holders often ask
Does a Chinese registration guarantee an injunction?
No. A right document is part of the assessment, not a substitute for evidence about the conduct, urgency, harm and appropriate scope. Different rights can require different preparation, particularly where a patent dispute involves technical comparisons.
Will the court always act without hearing the respondent?
No. The SPC provisions generally require questioning both sides before granting relief, with exceptions including urgency or a risk to implementation. Do not plan on an automatic without-notice order; discuss procedure and any communication strategy with counsel.
What should we send in an initial inquiry?
Start with public right numbers, the parties' names, the suspected conduct, any imminent event date, your China-specific objective, budget and decision timetable. Arrange conflict checks, confidentiality and a secure channel before sending trade secrets, complete unpublished technical materials or sensitive case files.
See our China IP enforcement and disputes services and contact China IP Pro to discuss an appropriate scope. This article provides general information, not a case-specific legal opinion or a guarantee of an injunction, final judgment or recovery.