Recently, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court imposed a fine ofRMB 10,000 yuan on the defendant in a case involving dispute over utility model patent infringement for destroying the evidence sealed up by court. When hearing the case filed by a science and technology company in Dongguan against a trade company in Shanghai, the court preserved the evidence of MS-FHGP-C1 clearing, welding & encapsulating machine, which was produced by the defendant and stored at its business place, by way of photos, videos and sealing, etc. on February 23, 2017. During this process, the defendant's general manager was clearly informed by the enforcement staff of the sealing period and that "During this period, no one may transfer, conceal, destroy or otherwise dispose of the seized property without the consent of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. Otherwise, he or she will be held liable according to law." However, during the trial, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court found that the seized equipment was partially dismantled, the seal was partially damaged, and the whole machine was moved. Later, the defendant, its agent ad litem, and the primary person in charge wrote a letter of apology to the court respectively, explaining that another customer's equipment was broken and was in need of emergency services butrelevant components were out of stock, so an employee with weak legal awareness dismantled some components of the equipment to cope with the emergency incident. They apologized for failing to take good care of the evidence and guaranteeing its intactness. The court held that the primary person in charge had been clearly informed of the defendant's obligations and the corresponding legal consequences in the course of evidence preservation, and heshould perform his management responsibility to ensure the intactnessof the seized evidence. His failure to perform such obligation resulted in the destruction of the seized evidence, hindering the court from ascertaining relevant facts and undermining the judicial order. Therefore, the court decided to impose a fine of RMB 10,000 yuan on him, so as to safeguard the judicial authority effectively and meanwhile warn the litigants involved in the case.