By conducting field research and analysing judgments delivered in Beijing courts from 2004 to 2011, we find that the popular notion held by China's trade partners of the inadequacy of intellectual property protection is only partly supported by the empirical evidence. The likelihood of winning lawsuits is higher for foreign than domestic plaintiffs and the extremely low damages ruled by Chinese courts are due to particular causes. Courts lack consistent methods to calculate incurred losses in intellectual property right (IPR) infringements and consequently routinely apply the statutory damages whose upper limit is restricted by legislation. Efforts by Chinese legislators to enhance compensation by lifting the upper limit of awardable statutory damages in the Third Amendment of Chinese Patent Law (2008) did not seem to have an effect on our sample. Chinese policymakers should instead focus on the cause of the issue by providing more implementable guidelines for courts to calculate losses. Courts need to develop applicable conventions for calculating damages, based on objective criteria of how much compensation ought to be payable, which is also the basis of calculating reasonable statutory damages. Thus, the new provision of the “right of information” on pirated goods proposed by the ongoing Fourth Amendment provides a significant weapon to combat counterfeiting.

通过实地调查和数据分析 2004–2011 年北京法院的专利诉讼判决文书, 我们发现中国贸易伙伴对其知识产权保护不足的观念只能在一定程度上受到经验证据的支持。数据分析表明, 外国人赢得诉讼的可能性高于本国原告。中国法院裁定的赔偿数额极低有其特定的原因。法院缺乏统一、有效的方法来计算知识产权侵权中发生的损失, 因此惯例性地适用法定损害赔偿制度, 其额度的上限受到立法的限制。立法者在中国专利法第三修正案 （2008 年） 中通过取消法定赔偿金上限来加大赔偿力度的努力在我们的样本中并未见到成效。中国政策制定者应该为法院提供更多以客观损失（差额）为基础的、有可行性的指导方针来帮助他们解决知识产权损害赔偿计算的难题。这才是问题的主因。法院应当回归 “应付赔偿金” 的客观标准, 并逐渐发展出可以适用的一套方法来计算知识产权诉讼中的实际损失。 “实际损失” 也是合理裁量 “法定损害赔偿金” 的基础。因此, 正在进行中的专利法第四次修订提出的关于被控侵权人的 “文书提出义务” 等一揽子新规定, 为打击假冒提供了重要武器。