[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, patent evidence collection is divided into four layers: rights evidence (patent certificates, annual fee payments, search reports), infringement evidence (notarized purchases of physical goods, webpage and store evidence, comparative analysis), compensation evidence (sales volume, price, promotion scale, financial clues), and behavioral evidence (production, sales, and promise of sales chains). The general principle of evidence collection is "notarization first, complete chain, and sufficient quantity" — even if there is a lot of single-point evidence, if one link in the chain is broken, all previous efforts may be in vain.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The challenges of obtaining evidence in patent protection are quite typical: online infringing stores can be removed at any time, offline factories are hidden in industrial parks in other regions, and infringing products are passed on through distribution chains. Right holders often only have scattered samples and screenshots, which are then refuted by the other party as "incomplete evidence with unclear sources" after litigation. The method and granularity of evidence collection directly determine whether the case will lead to compensation or end with the removal of the infringing products.

II. Key points of contention

First, the legality of evidence collection. The boundaries and effectiveness of self-evidence collection, notarized evidence collection, administrative investigations, and litigation evidence collection are different. For cases involving trap evidence collection (induced purchases), the effectiveness of such evidence may be subject to intense scrutiny by the opposing party, and procedural flaws may be exploited by the other side. Second, the fixation of technical features. Physical preservation, comparison opinions, and expert witnesses. The anchor point for infringement comparisons is the "technical features of the products being sued" rather than the company's promotional materials. Comparisons based on unpreserved physical evidence or evidence with disrupted sources will be rejected. Third, the depth of compensation evidence. Beyond statutory compensation, the calculation of the right holder's losses and the infringer's profits relies on sales data, profit margins, and evidence of scale. The "amount dimension" of the evidence determines the compensation level.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

The organization conducting evidence collection can use a counter-defense sample to refute the claims. In a trademark infringement and unfair competition case, the rights holder sued for 980,000 yuan in damages, and the defendant appointed Beijing Henglue Law Firm to defend against the lawsuit. The lawyer's counter-defense evidence collection focused on three aspects: 1. **Authority and licensing chain**: The defendant held registered trademarks and design patents authorized by a third party, with complete authorization documents and licensing chains, directly undermining the narrative of "malicious imitation". 2. **Comparative defense**: Submitting comparative opinions on logo similarity and packaging design confusion, the court ultimately ruled on trademark infringement but dismissed the unfair competition claim. 3. **Damage compensation tracing**: Challenging the calculation basis of the claim and emphasizing the authorization source, business scale, and profitability, the court set the compensation at 60,000 yuan, a reduction of over 920,000 yuan from the original claim. From the rights holder's perspective, this sample reverse-reveals the targets of evidence collection: If the rights holder simultaneously fixes the authorization flaws of the other party (whether the authorization chain is complete, the status of the licensed trademarks), the evidence base of the decorative rights (evidence accumulation of influential packaging designs), and sales and scale evidence (e-commerce platform sales pages, promotional production capacity and store data), the gap between 980,000 yuan and 60,000 yuan will be greatly reduced. Breaking down the operational checklist: - **Rights evidence layer**: Prepare patent certificates, payment receipts, and evaluation reports. - **Infringement evidence layer**: Purchase physical products under notarization with full video recording and sealing, fix e-commerce platform store pages with trusted timestamps, and preserve promotional materials from exhibitions and websites. - **Comparison layer**: Commission agencies or experts to provide technical feature comparison opinions. - **Damage compensation layer**: Track sales (platform data, webpage promotions of "100,000 monthly sales" are all evidence), prices, and scale (recruitment information, factory photos, logistics order quantities). - **Behavioral layer**: Separately collect evidence from producers, sellers, and facilitators (platforms, OEMs), and assign liability to each party in the claim process. Don't neglect procedural tools: Coordinated use of evidence preservation applications, lawyer investigation orders, and administrative complaint investigations is often more efficient than standalone notarization efforts.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to lay a solid foundation for rights: file certificates, annual fees, and evaluation reports, and conduct a self-check of patent stability. The second step is to obtain evidence through notarization: notarize and seal all purchases of physical goods, and fix the timestamps of online pages. The third step is to obtain evidence from the supply chain: locate the production, sales, and promised sales in a hierarchical manner, and collect compensation evidence simultaneously. The fourth step is to link procedures: use a combination of preservation applications, investigation orders, and administrative investigations to form a closed-loop of evidence. Main legal basis: Articles 64 to 71 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020) (scope of rights, evidence, compensation); the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Lawsuits Relating to Intellectual Property" (implemented in 2020); the provisions of the Notarization Law of the People's Republic of China on notarization for evidence preservation; specific application shall be subject to the currently effective regulations.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Advice

Patent evidence collection is like a "chain project": there are four layers of evidence - rights, infringement, compensation, and actions. If any layer is missing, the court will discount the value of the evidence at that level. Proactive notarization is not just a slogan - the most common defense used by the defendant is "unclear source of the evidence". Sealing and preserving evidence should always take place before the products are removed from the market or the stores are closed down. For evidence collection related to patent protection, you can use the following methods:Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor obtaining a comprehensive solution for services involving infringement comparison and invalidation defense, you can refer to the similarity judgment topic in this batch. For trademark and unfair competition protection, you can follow the defense sample ideas in this batch. For the construction of an enterprise's intellectual property compliance system, you can pay attention to itBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesFor the part related to notarization and timestamp evidence collection arrangements, you can refer to the following for referenceSpecialised legal servicesFor those interested in the enforcement of compensation payments, please pay attention to the following plateCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcement cases板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can buying infringing products online directly be used as evidence?

Buying it on your own has weaker evidentiary value. The standard procedure is to purchase it through a notary (with full-process witnessing, sealing, and recording). At the same time, the online platform should synchronously create a timestamp to preserve the evidence.

Q2: Can I still claim compensation if the other party has removed the product from their platform?

Yes. The notarized purchases and evidence before the product was removed from the market will still be valid, and the third-party records of historical sales (platform reports, cached pages) can support the claim for compensation.

Q3: Can we ask the court to preserve evidence?

Yes. If the evidence may be lost or difficult to obtain, you can apply to the court for evidence preservation. The preservation of accounting books, molds, and production lines can have a significant impact on compensation.

Q4: What should I do if there's insufficient evidence for the compensation claim?

After failing to obtain the full compensation they sought, they resorted to demanding statutory compensation and used promotional data, business scale, and the duration of the infringement to persuade the court to award a higher compensation amount.

Q5: Do I need to identify myself when obtaining evidence?

The notarized purchase is carried out in the capacity of an ordinary consumer, without the need to declare one's identity; however, in administrative complaints and court evidence-gathering procedures, one's identity must be clearly stated in accordance with the established procedures.

The above content is based on the compilation of judicial practices in the Beijing area. The facts of individual cases and the jurisdiction of the court may affect the conclusions. Welcome to consult Henglue Lawyers on specific situations.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.