Statistics of case information.

To prevent the over-extension of punitive damages in private law, as has occurred in some common law jurisdictions, China requires the presence of “serious circumstances” as a prerequisite for applying punitive damages in intellectual property infringement cases. However, this requirement still lacks a clear theoretical framework and concrete identification elements. This study illustrates China’s approach by analyzing judicial decisions, and reveals: (1) sixteen elements used by judges to assess the seriousness of intellectual property infringement, which can be consolidated into three key categories: subjective malevolence, degree of conduct, and resulting damage; (2) differences in judicial emphasis across types of intellectual property, with copyright cases focusing on subjective malevolence and industrial property cases emphasizing scale and duration of infringement; (3)cases involving significant social harm are more likely to result in higher punitive damages multipliers; and(4) judges take into account not only the severity of infringement but also the goals and functions of punitive damages.为避免私法（private law）领域惩罚性赔偿（punitive damages）的过度扩张（如同部分普通法司法辖区（common law jurisdictions）出现的情形），中国在知识产权侵权（intellectual property infringement）案件中适用惩罚性赔偿时，要求以"严重情节"作为必备前提。但该要件目前仍缺乏清晰的理论框架与具体的认定要素。本研究通过分析司法裁判（judicial decisions）阐释我国的规制路径，并揭示如下结论：(1) 法官用以评估知识产权侵权严重程度的十六项考量要素，可归纳为三大核心类别：主观恶意（subjective malevolence）、行为情节程度（degree of conduct）与损害后果（resulting damage）；(2) 不同类型知识产权案件的司法裁判侧重点存在差异：著作权（copyright）案件侧重考察主观恶意，工业产权（industrial property）案件则更关注侵权的规模与持续时长；(3) 涉及重大社会危害性的案件，更可能获得更高倍数的惩罚性赔偿；(4) 法官在裁判时不仅会考量侵权行为的严重程度，还会兼顾惩罚性赔偿的制度目标与功能定位。