最高法：严格依法规制头部企业掠夺性定价和排他性滥用市场支配地位行为

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court is taking steps to address "involution" competition through judicial measures, focusing on regulating monopolistic behaviors and preventing large enterprises from squeezing the profit margins of small and medium-sized enterprises [1][3]. Group 1: Judicial Measures Against Involution Competition - The Supreme People's Court's Intellectual Property Court aims to explore judicial paths to comprehensively address "involution" competition, emphasizing the need to regulate predatory pricing and other exclusionary practices by dominant firms [1][3]. - The court has identified three main factors contributing to "involution" competition: monopolistic behaviors, insufficient innovation, and unfair competition practices [1]. Group 2: Actions Taken by the Intellectual Property Court - The court has increased the supply of competition rules and case studies, clarifying the boundaries of market behavior, and has published 34 typical cases related to monopolistic and unfair competition since 2021 [2]. - Judicial anti-monopoly efforts have intensified, with 66 cases recognized as monopolistic since the court's establishment, including 15 cases in 2025 [2][4]. - The court is focusing on protecting innovation and promoting high-quality competition by applying measures such as evidence preservation and punitive damages to combat patent infringements [2]. Group 3: Addressing Malicious Competition - The court is targeting malicious competition cycles by strictly regulating unfair competition behaviors, such as stealing trade secrets and organized poaching, to prevent downward competition spirals [2][3]. - In 2025, the court handled several high-profile cases in sectors like platforms, new energy, and pharmaceuticals, encouraging cooperation and innovation among leading enterprises [3]. Group 4: Strengthening Judicial and Administrative Coordination - The court is enhancing the integration of administrative enforcement and judicial adjudication, ensuring that antitrust violations identified in civil lawsuits are reported to enforcement agencies [4]. - Since its establishment, the court has effectively adjudicated 203 antitrust cases, with 66 cases confirmed as monopolistic, covering various sectors including pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, and e-commerce [4].