In cases involving infringement of intellectual property rights, the right holder may seek either damages or statutory compensation. In practice, damages are difficult to substantiate, as they require proof of the amount of losses incurred and, in certain instances, the infringer’s fault. Consequently, the overwhelming majority of companies and entrepreneurs opt for statutory compensation, since it does not require proof of the precise amount of losses or the existence of fault. 

As of January 2026, significant amendments have been introduced to the legislation governing the recovery of compensation for intellectual property infringements. One of the key changes concerns the minimum and maximum limits of compensation. 

Previously, courts could award compensation: 

1. In a fixed amount ranging from 10,000 rubles to 5 million rubles (US$130 to US$65,000); 

2. In an amount equal to double the value of the counterfeit goods, or double the value of the right of use. 

From January 4, 2026, compensation may be calculated as follows: 

1. In a fixed amount, with the minimum limits ranging from 10,000 rubles to 50,000 rubles (US$130 to US$650) and a maximum limit of 20 million rubles (US$261,000); 

2. In an amount ranging from one to two times the value of the infringing goods; 

3. In an amount ranging from one to two times the value of the right to use the intellectual property under a license agreement. 

Separate special regimes have been established for copyright-related infringements. 

Another significant amendment concerns the courts’ authority to alter the method of calculating compensation. 

Under the previous legal framework, the method of calculating compensation was determined exclusively by the claimant, and courts were not permitted to change it. For example, if the claimant sought recovery in the amount of double the value of goods sold by the defendant, the court was bound by that choice and could either accept the claimant’s calculation or reduce the amount to a single value of the goods, provided the defendant submitted a written motion to that effect. If a court independently changed the method of calculation, such judicial acts were subsequently overturned by the Intellectual Property Court. 

For instance, in Case No. A40-77616/2025, sole proprietor S.N. Bykov sought compensation from Warehouse Complex Stroygroup in the amount of double the value of goods bearing an unlawfully affixed trademark. The court of first instance upheld the calculation and satisfied the claim in full. However, the appellate court disagreed with the claimant’s calculation, independently altered the method of calculation and awarded compensation in the minimum amount of 10,000 rubles (US$130). The Intellectual Property Court later overturned the appellate ruling, holding that the court was not entitled to change the method of calculating compensation on its own initiative. 

In light of recurring situations in which courts altered the method of calculation, as well as in implementation of rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the legislature introduced a new provision into the Civil Code of the Russian Federation granting courts the express authority to change the calculation method. 

New provision of Article 1252.1 of the Civil Code 

Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 1252.1 of the Civil Code in force from January 4, 2026, if the method of calculating compensation chosen by the right holder is not applicable to the circumstances of the infringement, the court is entitled to change the method of calculation and award compensation in a fixed amount. 

Accordingly, courts are now authorized to convert a claim calculated as a multiple of the value of goods or license fees into a fixed-sum award. 

At present, however, the legislation does not provide specific guidance as to when a chosen calculation method should be deemed “inapplicable to the circumstances of the infringement.” It may be assumed that courts will exercise this authority in situations where the claimant is unable to prove the actual volume of infringing goods, even though the fact of infringement has been established. 

Given that the amendments entered into force only on January 4, 2026, forthcoming judicial practice will clarify how compensation for infringement of exclusive rights will be assessed under the new framework.