Recently, a progress announcement regarding litigation filed by Haizheng Bio, a leading producer of polylactic acid, stated that the case involving infringement of trade secrets has concluded with a first-instance judgment: the company was awarded compensation of RMB 5 million, and the infringer along with relevant responsible parties have been held criminally liable.

　　

 

　　This is by no means an isolated incident; rather, it reflects the increasingly fierce technological competition in the field of advanced chemical materials in recent years. Moving forward, Special Plastics Vision will focus on the plastics and petrochemical industry, systematically examining eight landmark cases of high‑profile technology disputes that have emerged in recent years.

　　Haizheng Shengcai Wins the Lawsuit! Awarded 5 Million in Compensation

　　This commercial battle in the polylactic acid industry dates back to a night in 2024. Under the guidance and assistance of Qian, an employee of the supplier Walter, Zheng and Ke donned Walter work uniforms and illegally gained unauthorized access to Hainoer’s resin production workshop through improper channels. Inside Hainoer’s facility, Zheng, Ke, and others separately conducted reconnaissance—observing and photographing—of certain production equipment, process flows, and operating parameters, while also stealing auxiliary additives.

　　On December 20, 2025, Zhejiang Haizheng Biomaterials Co., Ltd. issued an announcement disclosing that it, together with its wholly owned subsidiary Zhejiang Hainoer Biomaterials Co., Ltd., has filed a criminal action with accompanying civil claims against six defendants—three individuals (Mr. Zheng, Mr. Ke, and Mr. Qian) and three companies (Pliith Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Anhui Jinpuri New Materials Co., Ltd., and Zhangjiagang Walter Precision Machinery Co., Ltd.)—regarding alleged infringement of trade secrets. The claimed damages currently total RMB 30 million.

　　Haizheng Shengcai is the first company in China and the second worldwide to achieve commercial-scale production of polylactic acid. Walter is a supplier to Haizheng Shengcai, while Pliith is a peer company, and Anhui Jinpuri is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pliith. Among them, Mr. Zheng is an employee of Pliith, Mr. Ke is an employee of Anhui Jinpuri, and Mr. Qian is an employee of Walter Precision.

　　Now, the dust has settled. In terms of civil damages, Puli Si was ordered to pay 4.85 million yuan, and Qian Moumou was ordered to pay 150,000 yuan, for a total of 5 million yuan.

　　The rivalry among peers sharing the same technical origins is intensifying.

　　The core relationship between Haizheng Shengcai and Puli Si Biotechnology Co., Ltd. can be summarized as that of direct, peer competitors sharing a common academic lineage. Both companies initially built their core technologies on polylactic acid (PLA) biodegradable plastics, a technology pioneered by Academician Chen Xuesi and housed at the Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun—making it a textbook case of “technological convergence.” A judicial dispute arose when Puli Si allegedly infringed upon Haizheng Shengcai’s trade secrets, serving as a quintessential example of intra‑industry rivalry amid overcapacity in the PLA sector.

　　In 2024, China’s polylactic acid (PLA) production capacity stood at approximately 300,000 tons, while consumption was only 120,000 tons. With planned capacity set to exceed 1 million tons by 2025, oversupply has driven product prices close to the cost threshold. As a result, Haizheng Bio‑Materials’ net profit attributable to shareholders plummeted 74% year over year in 2025, and the ramp-up of Pliith’s production capacity has further intensified price competition within the industry, serving as the underlying catalyst for this commercial infringement case.

　　If disputes in the polylactic acid sector have thus far been confined to intense, intra‑segment competition, then a series of rights‑protection actions undertaken by Kaisa Bio, a leading player in bio‑based materials, has expanded the industry’s intellectual‑property battles to a much broader national stage.

　　Kaisa Bio has filed multiple lawsuits and been awarded 6 million yuan in damages.

　　Long-chain dicarboxylic acids are a leading segment in China’s bio-based materials sector and serve as crucial feedstocks for the production of nylon, lubricants, and other chemical products. Kaisai focuses on the polyamide value chain, offering products that include monomer precursors for bio-based polyamides—such as a range of bio‑derived long-chain dicarboxylic acids and bio‑based pentamethylene diamine—as well as a suite of related bio‑based polyamide products.

　　In February 2026, Kaisai Biotechnology formally filed a lawsuit with the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court against ST Ningke and its subsidiary, Jiangsu Zhongzheng Biochemical, seeking RMB 5.2 million in damages on the grounds of infringement of patent No. ZL201910378102.X.

　　Kaisa Bio has achieved multiple victories in its patent‑enforcement efforts. Earlier, it won its first‑instance lawsuit against Shandong Guiyuan and Zeqian, securing compensation of RMB 6.3262 million, and obtained a RMB 30 million punitive damages award from the Supreme People’s Court in its case against Shandong Hanlin and others, while also establishing a claim of RMB 28.87 million for infringement of trade secrets. This latest suit against ST Ningke further extends the company’s enforcement campaign to new growth hubs in Northwest and East China.

　　

 

　　Kaisa Bio’s intellectual‑property enforcement efforts have expanded from Shandong to Ningxia, Jiangsu, and other regions, underscoring its determination to root out infringement nationwide. The successful resolution of this series of enforcement cases signals that China’s bio‑manufacturing sector has officially entered a new phase of stringent regulatory oversight and rigorous sanctions for IP violations.

　　Technological competition among domestic enterprises is intensifying, while patent disputes between international chemical giants frequently set new industry records with damages awards in the tens of billions.

　　Dow Wins the Lawsuit! A Record-Breaking $9 Billion Compensation Has Been Paid

　　On March 3, 2026, Dow confirmed that it had received CAD 1.62 billion (approximately USD 1.2 billion) in compensation from NOVA Chemicals, pursuant to a ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The total amount now stands at CAD 1.8 billion (approximately USD 1.3 billion or RMB 9 billion).

　　As early as 2005, Dow sued its former partner, Nova, alleging that Nova had used confidential information obtained during their joint venture to reverse-engineer Dow’s catalyst formulation and subsequently engaged in large-scale production of infringing products at its Joffre plant.

　　In 2019, Dow won a lawsuit in Germany, blocking Nova from exporting infringing products to Europe, and Nova paid Dow an initial compensation of CAD 1.43 billion (approximately RMB 7.5 billion). In 2022, Dow prevailed in a Texas court in the United States, with Nova paying USD 420 million in damages (about RMB 3 billion). On June 10, 2025, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued a final judgment ordering Canada’s Nova Chemicals to pay Dow (NYSE: DOW) an additional CAD 1.62 billion (roughly RMB 8.5 billion) in damages.

　　Both Dow and Nova are major ethylene producers. Dow’s ethylene capacity stands at 16 million tonnes, while Nova’s is 4.2 million tonnes. This ruling marks the conclusion of a 20-year legal dispute between the two companies, which ended with a record‑breaking compensation award of RMB 19 billion.

　　The sky-high damages awarded to international giants have sounded an alarm for the industry, while patent disputes between foreign‑invested firms and established domestic chemical companies further highlight the tug‑of‑war over interests and the clash of regulatory frameworks in the course of China’s industrialization.

　　Seeking 430 million yuan in damages! Arkema sues Huayi.

　　In March 2024, Arkema unexpectedly filed a lawsuit against Huayi Group—its partner of 28 years—on grounds of patent infringement. On November 15, 2025, Shanghai Huayi Group Co., Ltd. issued an announcement disclosing the latest developments in a patent‑infringement litigation involving one of its subsidiaries.

　　Arkema claims to be the patentee of Chinese invention patents No. 200780034079.8 and No. 201210384253.4, both entitled “Method for Preparing Acrylic Acid.” Without its authorization, two subsidiaries of Huayi Group, acting for commercial production purposes, have unlawfully employed the patented method to produce acrylic acid products and have further used the acrylic acid obtained directly through that patented process to manufacture other products, thereby infringing Arkema’s patent rights.

　　

 

　　The two parties have maintained a long-standing cooperative relationship. In 1996, Arkema invested US$35.01 million and Huayi invested US$17.50 million to establish Shanghai Arkema Hydrogen Peroxide Co., Ltd. as a joint venture, with Arkema holding a 66.6% stake.

　　At its core, the dispute stems from a clash between domestic Chinese chemical companies—following breakthroughs in the localization of production processes—and foreign‑owned firms over patent protection and market competition. In its announcement, Huayi Group stated that the case remains at the first-instance stage and no judgment has yet been rendered.

　　Patent disputes are rampant in the traditional chemical industry, while in the booming new‑energy materials sector, the consequences of core‑technology leaks are even more severe, prompting correspondingly stricter penalties.

　　A hefty fine of 22.5 million! Decoding the Tianci Materials infringement case.

　　On the evening of January 13, 2026, Tianci Materials (002709.SZ), China’s leading electrolyte manufacturer, issued a major announcement stating that its wholly owned subsidiary, Jiujiang Tianci, had received a Criminal Judgment from the People’s Court of Lianxi District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province, marking the official first-instance verdict in the closely watched trade secret infringement case.

　　

 

　　Jiujiang Tianci was established on October 30, 2007. As the core production base of Tianci Materials, it possesses the industrialization‑level core technologies for manufacturing lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in liquid form and lithium hexafluorophosphate in liquid form. A key figure, Li Sheng, was once a central technical pillar at Jiujiang Tianci. After joining the company in August 2017, he successively held several critical positions, including Director of Process Technology in the Battery Production Department and Chief Engineer, gaining an in-depth understanding of the company’s core production processes and technical documentation.

　　Following Li Sheng’s departure in May 2021, Yue Min, then Chairman of Zhejiang Yanyi, sought to obtain the trade secrets of Jiujiang Tianci. By offering substantial consulting fees and senior management positions as incentives, he successfully induced Li Sheng, together with another former employee, Zheng Feilong, to disclose confidential business information. In exchange for this core technology, Zhejiang Yanyi paid Li Sheng RMB 2.69804 million and Zheng Feilong RMB 500,000, for a total of RMB 3.19804 million.

　　The defendant, Zhejiang Yanyi New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhejiang Yanyi”), and the relevant persons in charge were severely penalized for the crime of infringing upon trade secrets, with total fines amounting to RMB 22.5 million. Meanwhile, Zhejiang Yanyi has voluntarily prepaid RMB 80 million to compensate Jiujiang Tianci for its economic losses.

　　In the traditional bulk chemical sector, the leakage of critical process know-how can likewise spark multi-billion-dollar litigation.

　　Titanium dioxide technology has been infringed!

　　Longbai Group plans to file a claim exceeding RMB 1.3 billion.

　　On October 14, 2025, Longbai Group announced that its controlling subsidiary, Yunnan Metallurgical Xinli Titanium Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yunnan Xinli”), has filed a lawsuit with the Yunnan Provincial Higher People’s Court regarding the infringement of its trade secrets related to the chloride-process titanium dioxide technology, and the court has accepted the case for filing.

　　

 

　　According to the announcement, the defendants Liu Jianliang, Jiang Shuan, Zhao Zequan, and others held key leadership or technical positions at Yunnan Xinli between 2007 and 2019. In the second half of 2019, Jiang Shuan and Zhao Zequan joined an affiliated company of Hebei Yangan and are suspected of having exploited their former employer’s trade secrets to support the planning, design, and construction of its titanium dioxide chloride production line.

　　Notably, Hebei Jicheng New Materials Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Hebei Yanguang Holdings, has also filed a lawsuit against Yunnan Xinli with the Intermediate People’s Court of Xiong’an New Area in Hebei Province, on the grounds of a “dispute over confirmation of non-infringement of intellectual property rights.”

　　While the massive damages claim in the chlorination process for titanium dioxide has yet to be finalized, a high‑profile patent litigation in the biodegradable plastics sector has come to a close in an unexpected manner.

　　Major patent litigation involving PBAT! The case concluded with the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the lawsuit.

　　PBAT is an aromatic–aliphatic copolyester, primarily synthesized via a polymerization reaction using raw materials such as terephthalic acid (PTA), adipic acid (AA), and 1,4-butanediol (BDO).

　　Shanghai Juyou Chemical Co., Ltd. has filed lawsuits with the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court, alleging infringement of trade secrets related to the PBAT production process against Yangzhou Huitong Technology Co., Ltd., seeking a total of RMB 560 million in damages across the two cases—RMB 300 million and RMB 260 million, respectively.

　　On July 15, 2025, Yangzhou Huitong Technology Co., Ltd. (stock code: 301601; stock abbreviation: Huitong Technology) issued an “Announcement on the Progress of Major Litigation,” disclosing that in two significant lawsuits involving alleged infringement of trade secrets, the plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims, and this matter will not affect the company’s current or future-period profits.

　　Some lawsuits end with the plaintiff withdrawing the suit, while others escalate through repeated back-and-forth, spreading from trade secrets to claims of reputation and ultimately turning into all‑out confrontations.

　　Qicai Chemical and Xianniko Chemical Face Multiple Lawsuits in Legal Battles

　　On December 24, 2025, Qicai Chemical, a publicly listed company specializing in high-performance organic pigments, filed a lawsuit with the Haicheng People’s Court against Xianniko Chemical and its legal representative, Lu Chuanxin, alleging infringement of its right to reputation. The company is seeking compensation of RMB 53.3147 million and demanding a public apology. At the heart of the dispute lies nearly three years of ongoing litigation over trade secrets; Xianniko has repeatedly revised its claimed damages, most recently raising them to RMB 400 million, which Qicai Chemical contends constitutes a malicious lawsuit.

　　On January 20, 2026, Anshan Qicai Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qicai Chemical”) announced that it has been sued by Sennico Chemical (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sennico”) for infringement of its right to reputation, with the claimed damages amounting to RMB 90 million.

　　

 

　　Overall, the dispute between the two parties has escalated from a single claim of trade secret infringement to a multi‑pronged litigation involving both trade secrets and reciprocal defamation claims, with total damages sought exceeding RMB 540 million. All cases have now entered the court trial phase, and the ensuing verdicts will be the key focus going forward.

　　Conclusion

　　Currently, commercial‑secret and patent litigation in the field of advanced chemical materials is characterized by three salient trends: first, the amounts at stake continue to set new records, with multi‑hundred‑million‑yuan claims becoming commonplace and sky‑high damages awards appearing with increasing frequency; second, infringing conduct is closely linked to the movement of key personnel—employees leaving their firms to join competitors and taking with them critical proprietary information has emerged as a major catalyst for disputes; and third, a hybrid criminal–civil enforcement strategy is steadily maturing, with companies mounting coordinated efforts through both criminal prosecution and civil claims.

　　From polylactic acid and bio-based materials to new‑energy electrolytes, titanium dioxide, biodegradable plastics, and even niche segments like fine chemicals, each technological dispute sends a clear message: core technologies are no longer mere icing on the cake; they have become the very lifeline upon which companies depend for survival and growth.

　　Rapid expansion of industry capacity and intensifying market involution are compelling companies to build competitive moats through technological barriers. Meanwhile, the confluence of factors—including accelerating talent mobility, a shift from cooperative to competitive relationships, and breakthroughs in domestic technologies—has transformed trade secret and patent disputes from isolated incidents into recurring features of industry development. Sky-high damages, cross-border strategic battles, intra‑industry rivalry, and reciprocal litigation: each case serves as a vivid reflection of the reshaping of industry dynamics and the realignment of interests.

　　For the plastic‑processing materials industry, robust intellectual property protection is not a constraint on development; rather, it serves as a solid foundation for shifting the sector from “scale‑driven expansion” to “high‑quality innovation.” Only by upholding the bottom line of innovation and respecting intellectual property rights can companies that are deeply committed to R&D reap the rewards they deserve, thereby helping China’s new materials industry make the leap from “large” to “strong” in global competition.