Professional profile
About Wang
Senior Partner | Intellectual property, competition law, unfair competition, IP compliance
Wang Han is a senior partner in Jingshi Law Offices’ Dongguan office whose practice focuses on intellectual property and competition law, particularly IP and anti-unfair-competition litigation. His official profile states that he has secured favorable appellate or retrial outcomes in more than ten significant matters before the Supreme People’s Court and also advises companies on IP compliance and government legal affairs. He has served foreign-invested and listed companies as ongoing counsel.
Read full profile
Dongguan’s OEM manufacturing economy makes Wang’s practice highly relevant. Product design, tooling, molds, samples, drawings and technical specifications often move among brand owners, factories, subcontractors and engineering teams. When the commercial relationship ends, the parties may disagree over who owns the tooling, who may continue using the design, whether process improvements belong to the supplier and whether similar products can be sold to other customers.
These disputes rarely fit into one IP category. A brand owner may own patents or design patents but not the physical mold. A supplier may own the tooling but be contractually restricted from using customer drawings. Technical details may qualify as trade secrets if they remain non-public and are protected by corresponding confidentiality measures. Product appearance can also raise design-patent, copyright, trademark or unfair-competition questions depending on the facts.
Wang’s litigation background is useful because the first step is to identify the enforceable right. A company that says “the supplier copied our product” still needs to prove patent scope, ownership, confidentiality, confusion or other statutory elements. The strongest case may rely on one narrow technical right rather than a broad accusation of copying.
His work for foreign-invested companies is also relevant to cross-border ownership. A global brand may develop a design overseas and send files to a Dongguan factory for production. If a dispute later occurs in China, the rights holder needs clear evidence of ownership, authorization and the contractual terms governing the supplier’s access. Poorly documented group IP can weaken an otherwise strong infringement case.
Wang’s IP compliance work gives him a preventive perspective. OEM contracts should identify ownership of customer-supplied tooling, supplier-created improvements, confidentiality, permitted production quantities, treatment of scrap and samples, return or destruction at termination, and use of subcontractors. The best litigation strategy often begins with better manufacturing contracts years earlier.
Anti-unfair-competition law is especially relevant where the supplier avoids literal patent infringement but exploits confidential know-how, customer-specific presentation or another competitive advantage obtained through the relationship. The 2025 revision of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law strengthened the current framework for trade secrets and other unfair competitive conduct, making evidence preservation and claim selection central to manufacturing disputes.
Wang’s experience before the Supreme People’s Court also matters because Dongguan IP cases can have national commercial impact. A ruling on a product design, technical feature or unfair-competition theory may affect an entire product line. Appeals require a precise factual and legal record, not merely a business narrative that the defendant acted unfairly.
His profile should be positioned as a manufacturing-IP and competition practice. The strongest user-facing matters include OEM tooling and design ownership, trade secrets, patent and design disputes, anti-unfair-competition claims, supplier termination, IP compliance systems and litigation for foreign-invested manufacturers.
Wang’s advisory work for foreign-invested companies also gives him a useful contract-management perspective. OEM disputes often begin long before litigation, when engineers exchange revised drawings, suppliers purchase molds, quality teams approve samples and procurement personnel change order volumes. If the contract does not state which communications alter ownership or permitted use, those operational records can later become the main evidence.
His competition-law practice adds another dimension where the supplier’s conduct does not amount to straightforward infringement. A former OEM may market a visually similar product, use customer-specific information, copy packaging presentation or exploit confidential pricing and customer knowledge. Different facts may support different causes of action, and the strongest remedy depends on careful claim selection.
For multinational brand owners, enforcement strategy must also consider supply continuity. An immediate injunction against a supplier may stop unauthorized sales but also disrupt lawful production if the same factory still makes products for the claimant. Counsel should separate termination, evidence preservation, tooling recovery and infringement remedies so that the enforcement plan protects the business rather than only winning the lawsuit.
Wang’s profile is therefore particularly suitable for manufacturing relationships where IP ownership, contract rights and competitive conduct overlap.
His experience in IP compliance is also useful for internal controls around drawings, sample rooms, engineering files and subcontractors. In an OEM environment, the business needs to know which materials are customer-confidential, which can be reused and which require return or destruction. A practical IP system reduces both infringement risk and later evidentiary uncertainty.
For companies operating multiple factories, the same controls should be standardized across affiliates so that a supplier receives consistent ownership and confidentiality instructions regardless of which entity places the order.
Capability
