Summary of the Judgments of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2019)

China Intellectual Property Magazine,[Patent]

On January 1, 2019, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court of China officially opened its office to hear nationally intellectual property cases, for example patents, which are highly technical and professional. Over the past year, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court has effectively strengthened the trial system and capacity building, concluded a large number of technical IP cases with important impacts according to law, vigorously improved IP protection, and continuously promoted the unification of technical IP cases. It has made important contributions to the strict protection of intellectual property rights, service innovation-driven development strategies, and the creation of a world-class business environment.
 
In this Judgments of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2019), 36 typical cases were selected from the technical intellectual property cases concluded by the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Tribunal in 2019, and 40 judgment rules were refined, reflecting the judicial philosophy, trial ideas and adjudication methods of the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Court in the field of technological intellectual property in handling new, difficult and complex cases, which will be hereby promulgated.
 
I. Patent civil trial
1. Identification of functional features
In the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE VS Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Chen Shaoqiang (referred to as the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of “wiper connector” hereinafter) [final ruling No. 2 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the Supreme People ’s Court pointed out that if a certain technical feature of the claims of a patent has defined or implied particular structures, components, steps, conditions or mutual relationship thereof, even if this technical feature also defines the functions or effects it achieves, in principle, it is not a functional feature as mentioned in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases.
 
2. The effect and function of the subject name substantially limit the claim
In the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of Sun Xixian VS Hunan Jingyi Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 657 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the Supreme People ’s Court pointed out that if the effects and functions described in the title of the subject matter of the claim are not the effects, functions, etc. that can be achieved by the structures, components, steps, conditions or mutual relationships recorded in the characterizing part of the claim, but reflect the difference between the patented technical solution and the existing technical solution, then the effects and functions recorded in the title of the subject matter of the claim have a substantial definitive effect on the protection scope of the claim.
 
3. Judgment of infringement of multi-agent implementation method patent
In the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of  Shenzhen Jixiang Tengda Technology Co., Ltd. VS. Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd., the original trial defendant Jinan Lixia Hongkang Electronic Product Management Department, Jinan Lixia Haowei Electronic Product Management Department [final ruling No. 147 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the Supreme People's Court pointed out that if the alleged infringer aimed at production and operation, the  essence of the patent method was solidified into the infringed product, the act or the result of the act had played an irreplaceable and substantial role in allowing the technical features of the claims of the patent to be comprehensively covered or the end user could naturally reproduce the process of the patent method when the alleged infringing product was used normally, then it shall be judged that the accused infringer implemented the patent method and violated the rights of the patentee.
 
4. Consideration of inventive points in defense confirmation of the prior art
In the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of Wang Yeci VS Xuzhou Huasheng Industrial Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 89 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)] , the Supreme People ’s Court pointed out that the patent in question clearly pointed out the inventive point of its technical solution, and emphasized that the technical features other than the inventive point were universal parts. If the technical feature corresponding to the invention point is already disclosed in the prior art and the remaining technical features are not, but the prior art and the general components must be combined to form an overall technical solution corresponding to the patented technical solution in question, it can be deemed that the existing technical defense is established.
 
5. Identification of "main technical drawings" in the preemption defense
In the aforementioned Wang Yeci VS Xuzhou Huasheng Industrial Co., Ltd. case, the Supreme People's Court pointed out that the design drawings are the basic basis for product processing and inspection in the field of machinery manufacturing. The infringer has already designed the drawings of key components of the infringed product and other parts of the product are all general parts, it can be determined that it has completed the main technical drawings necessary for the implementation of the invention and creation, and it has made the necessary preparations for the production of the alleged infringing product. The preemption defense is established.
 
6. Examination of seller’s legal source defense
In the dispute over infringement upon utility model patent of Baokou (Xiamen) Bathroom Co., Ltd. v.Guantao County Peilong Plumbing Installation and Maintenance Shop [final ruling No. 118 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019], the Supreme People’s Court stated that the establishment of the seller’s defense for legal source needs to satisfy two requirements: an objective requirement that the alleged infringing product has a legitimate source, and a subjective requirement that seller has no subjective fault, which are interrelated with each other. If the seller can prove that he complies with the lawful and normal market trading rules, the source of the products he obtains is clear, the channel is legal, the price is reasonable, and his sales behavior conforms to the principle of good faith and conforms to trading practices, he can be presumed to have no subjective fault. Under this circumstance, the right holder should provide counterevidence. When the right holder fails to provide further evidence sufficient to reverse the above presumption, the seller’s defense for legal source shall be established.
 
7. Commitment of the seller’sreasonable expenses legal source defense is established
In the dispute over infringement upon utility model patent of Guangzhou Surui Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd., v. Shenzhen Helitai Technology Co., Ltd., and the original defendant Guangdong Kuainv Biotechnology Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 25 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019] , the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the defense for legal source is only a defense for exempting liability, not a non-infringement defense; the establishment of the seller’s defense for legal source neither changes the infringing nature of the act of selling infringing products nor exempts the responsibility for stopping the sales of infringing products. The infringer shall still bear the reasonable expenses paid by the right holder for stopping the infringement.
 
8. Calculation of damages when the infringer refuses to provide infringement account book materials without justifiable reasons
In the aforementioned dispute over infringement upon invention patent of Shenzhen Jixiang Tengda Technology Co., Ltd. VS Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd., the original trial defendant Jinan Lixia Hongkang Electronic Product Management Department, Jinan Lixia Haowei Electronic Product Management Department, the Supreme People's Court pointed out that the right holder claimed to calculate the amount of damages based on the profit of the infringement and had completed the preliminary proof of the fact of the scale of the infringement. The accused infringer refused to provide the corresponding evidence materials on the basic facts of the scale of infringement without justifiable reasons, so that the basic facts used to calculate the profit of infringement could not be accurately determined. The defense reasons such as the contribution of the involved patent to its infringement profit may not be considered.
 
9. The scope and conditions of patent infringement administrative complaints constituting infringement warnings
In the case of non-infringement of patent of VMI Holland Company, Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd. VS Sachi Huachen Machinery (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the right holder only filed a patent infringement dispute request with the patent administrative department against some producers, sellers, and users of the alleged infringing product, causing the operations of producers, sellers, and users who did not participate in the administrative process to be in an uncertain state. It may be determined that the request for handling a patent infringement dispute constitutes an infringement warning for the above-mentioned producers, sellers, and users who have not participated in the administrative processing procedures.
 
10. Handling the relationship between temporary injunction and partial judgment
In the aforementioned case of VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE VS Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd., and Chen Shaoqiang, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the right holder applied for an act preservation to stop the infringement, and also applied for a partial judgment to stop the infringement. The people's court should not refuse to process the application for preservation of the act just because a partial judgment to stop the infringement has been made, but should examine the application for preservation of the act. If it meets the conditions for the preservation of the act, it shall make a ruling in time.
 
11. Procedures after a patent infringement case is heard when the right holder claims the patent right is declared invalid
In the dispute over infringement upon invention patent of Shenyang Flying Boat Digital Printing Equipment Co., Ltd. VS Qingdao Hanze Electric Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 161 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, during if the first-instance, the right holder’s claim of the patent right is declared invalid, but the patent right in question remains valid on the basis of other original claims or new claims formed by amendment, the right holder shall be allowed to re-clarify the claims. If the right holder chooses the currently valid claim to claim the patent right, the court of first instance shall continue the trial; after it is clarified that the right holder still insists on claiming the right based on the invalidated claim, the court of first instance may rule to dismiss the prosecution.
 
12. Handling after part of the parallel technical solutions in a patent infringement case has been declared invalid
In the dispute over infringement upon utility model patent of Shenzhen Yunchongba Technology Co., Ltd. VS the Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 350 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that during the lawsuit, the corresponding part of one or more parallel technical solutions in the patent claims involved was declared invalid, but the corresponding parts of the remaining parallel technical solutions remained valid, and the right holder continued to claim rights in accordance with the claims that remained valid, the Supreme People’s may dismiss the prosecution for the claim that declared the invalid part, and at the same time make a judgment on the claims that remain valid.
 
13. The effect of voluntary waiver of claims in patent invalidation administrative procedures on patent infringement litigation
In the dispute over infringement upon utility model patent of Shandong Yanggu Dasheng Pipe Co., Ltd., Shandong Zhuorui Dasheng Pipe Co., Ltd. VS Shunfang Pipe Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 14 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the administrative procedure of invalidation of the patent in question, if the right holder voluntarily waives claims in the civil infringement case by deleting the claims, regardless of whether the validity of the administrative decision that records the waiver is finally determined, there is no possibility of reinstatement of the abandoned claims, and they can no longer be included in the scope of protection of patent rights in disputes of infringement. The basis of the right to claim infringement no longer exists, and the relevant claims can be rejected by judgment.
 
14. Handling of new evidence against existing technology in the review process
In the retrial of the dispute over infringement upon utility model patent of Foshan Yunmi Electric Technology Co., Ltd. VS Foshan Shunde District Midea Washing Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd., the original trial defendant Shenzhen Kangzhi Technology Co., Ltd., and the original trial defendant Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd. [Appeal No. 350 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if the parties did not file an appeal after the first instance judgment was made, and they argued against the existing technology on the grounds of new evidence in the retrial review procedure, then the existing technical defense claim will not to be reviewed.
 
II. Trial of Patent Administrative Cases
15. Separate comparison principle in novelty judgement
 
In the administrative dispute over patent for invention invalidation of Tong Kening and CNIPA VS Zhejiang Shuangyu Industry Co., Ltd [final ruling No. 53 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the technical solution carried by each reference document is independent, and even if the technical solutions respectively recorded in two reference documents are dedicated to the same existing technical carrier entity, the two reference documents shall not be naturally combined to evaluate the novelty of claims, since in this case the actual object for comparison has become an existing technology in the evaluator's mind that has never been recorded in any reference document.
 
16. Relationship between inventiveness and sufficient disclosure of the description as required by law
 
In the administrative dispute over re-examination of rejection for patent for invention application of CNIPA VS Roger Kingdon Craig from the Rotterdam Medical Centre of Erasmus University (referred to as the administrative dispute over re-examination of rejection for patent "binding molecules" hereinafter) [final ruling No. 127 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)] , the supreme court pointed out that judgement on inventiveness has difference function and follows different logic in the sense of patent law as compared with other legal requirements such as sufficient disclosure of the description and claims being supported by the description, and the content substantially to be examined for the legal requirements like sufficient disclosure of the description shall not, by principle, be taken into consideration for judgement of inventiveness, otherwise it might put too much burden on the judgement of inventiveness, also it might restrict the applicant from performing substantial debating for issues such as sufficient disclosure of the description and claims being supported by the description, and furthermore it might cause the legal requirement of sufficient disclosure of the description to be suspended.
 
17. Determination of the technical problem actually to be solved in an invention in judgement of inventiveness
 
In the administrative dispute over patent for utility model invalidation of CNIPA and Kashi Bosi Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd. VS Shandong HOWO Electric Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 32 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that when determining the technical problem actually to be solved in an invention in the judgement of inventiveness, the technical problem shall be appropriately extracted according to the actions, functions or effects that can be implemented by the distinguishing technical features in the present technical solution, and shall neither be over-generalized nor be simply equivalent to the actions, functions or technical effects that can be implemented by the distinguishing technical features.
 
18. Determination of technical teaching in judgement of inventiveness
 
In the previous administrative dispute over re-examination of rejection for patent "binding molecules", the supreme court pointed out the technical teaching that can be acquired by a person skilled in the art from the prior art when faced with the technical problem actually to be solved shall be, in principle, specific and explicit technical means, rather than an abstract idea or a general research direction. It may imply the risk of hindsight and may cause an under-evaluation of the inventiveness of the invention to determine the technical teaching provided by the prior art only according the consistency in research direction and the abstract and common requirements in the art.
 
19. Consideration of preservation of biomaterials in judgement of inventiveness
 
In the administrative dispute over patent for invention invalidation of Dai Jingliang VS CNIPA and Beijing Wantel Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (the third party of original trial)[final ruling No. 16 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the biomaterials sought for protection in the patent application possesses inventiveness over the reference document in the case that the reference document only disclosed the preparing methods of the same or similar means such as screening and mutation, but did not preserve the prepared biomaterials; therefore a person skilled in the art could not obtain the biomaterials sought for protection in the present patent by repeating the preparation method or other methods, and had no motivation to improve the preparation method to obtain the biomaterials.
 
20. Relationship between the scientific value of a research result and inventiveness judgement
 
In the administrative dispute over re-examination of rejection for patent for invention application of Institute of crop science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences VS CNIPA [final ruling No. 129 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that acquisition of a search result may go through hard working and thus constitutes a meaningful research result or has other values, but this cannot naturally make the search result possess inventiveness in the sense of patent law.
 
21. Determination of prior art disclosed in the form of a real object
 
In the administrative dispute over patent for invention invalidation of Beijing Baidu Netcom Science Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd. VS CNIPA [final ruling No. 1 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that where the party concerned claims for the prior art by a real object, he shall clarify the claimed prior art and the corresponding relationship between the prior art and the real object, and meanwhile prove by evidence or sufficiently describe that the public may obtain the technical solution intuitively from the real object.
 
22. Requirements on specific ways for amending claims in declarationprocedureof patent invalidity
 
In the administrative dispute  over patent for invention invalidation of Alfa Laval VS CNIPA and SWEP International (the third party of the original trial) (referred to as the administrative dispute over patent invalidation of "stainless steel brazing" hereinafter) [final ruling No. 19 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the limitations on specific ways of amending claims in the declaration procedure of invalidation shall be aimed at achieving the legislative intent of two legal standards of amendments: amendments made to claims shall not go beyond the scope as recorded in the original description and claims, and the protection scope of the original patent shall not be extended; meanwhile, the efficiency of administrative examination behaviour shall be taken into consideration, the contributions made by the patentee shall be protected fairly, and it is not appropriate to restrict the specific way of amendments too strictly, otherwise the limitations on amendments might be purely taken as the punishment on the patentee for improper drafting of claims.
 
23. Comparison basis for whether amendments to claims have expanded the original protection scope
 
In the above the administrative dispute over patent invalidation of "stainless steel brazing", the supreme court pointed out that in the declaration procedure of patent invalidation, where the amendment made to the claims is made by adding all or part of additional technical features of a dependent claim to an independent claim which the dependent claim cites, judgement on whether the amended independent claim expands the protection scope of the original patent shall be made based on the protection scope of independent claims of the original patent as the amendment object, rather than the protection scope of the original claim to which the additional technical features belong.
 
24. Conditions and procedures for cnipa to make a decision of rejection of re-examination based on new reasons or evidence
 
In the administrative dispute over the rejection of re-examination of patent for invention of National Health Research Institutes VS CNIPA [final ruling No. 5 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that generally speaking, where the claims, reference documents and legal reasons on which the decision of re-examination is made have changed with respect to those for the decision of rejection, it shall be considered that new reasons or evidence are introduced, and the CNIPA shall, by principle, notify the applicant in a "notification of re-examination" before making a decision of re-examination to allow the applicant to make observation and amendments, rather than making a decision of re-examination of maintaining the original decision of rejection by directly changing reasons, only with the exception of extremely particular cases.
 
25.Comprehensive examination principle in declaration procedure of invalidation
 
In the administrative dispute over patent for invention invalidation of Tong Kening and CNIPA VS Ningbo Yude metal products Co., Ltd., and Nantong Mingxing Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Institute of Softwareat the Chinese Academy of Sciences (the third parties in the original trial) [final ruling No. 124 for IP administrative case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that in the declaration procedure o invalidation, CNIPA shall not maintain invalidation of all patent rights without a comprehensive examination of all the reasons of the applicant for applying declaration of invalidation.
 
III. Trial of Cases of New Varieties of Plants
26. Relationship between variety certification and granting of right of the new variety of plant
 
In the dispute over infringement of right of new variety of plant of  Qinghai University for Nationalities VS Qinghai Jinxiang Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 585 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)],  the supreme court pointed out that variety certification is an administrative licensing for entry to the market, while granting of the right of the new variety of plant is granting of a civil right; therefore, they are not necessarily related with each other, and the fact of obtaining variety certification shall not be taken as the basis for determining the right of new variety of plant.
 
27. Determination of propagative materials
 
In the dispute over infringement of right of new variety of plant of Cai Xinguang VS  Guangzhou Runping Commercial Co., Ltd. (referred to as the dispute over infringement of right of new variety of plant of "Sanhong pomelo" hereinafter)[final ruling No. 14 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that a propagative material in the current protection scope for right of new variety of plant shall be an alive body having fertility and shall be able to reproduce new individuals having the same characteristics with the authorized variety. The protection scope of the authorized variety is not limited to the propagative material obtained in a specific manner when applying for the right of new variety of plant. When a plant different from the propagative materialfor authorization has been commonly used by the breeder, this planting material shall be included in the protection scope of the new variety of plant as a propagative material of the authorized variety.
 
28. Determination of infringement on new variety of plant by an act of selling a planting material with attributes of both harvesting materials and propagative materials
 
In the above dispute over infringement of right of new variety of plant of "Sanhong pomelo", the supreme court pointed out that if a planting material can be used as both a harvesting material and a propagative material, the real sale intent of the seller and the actual use act of the user shall be taken into consideration when determining whether the act of selling the plating material infringes the right of new variety of plant.
 
29. Determination of exclusive implementation licensing for right of new variety of plant
 
In the dispute over infringement of right of new variety of plant and unfair competition of Jiangsu Fengqing Seed Technology Co., Ltd. VS  Anhui Hequan Seed Industry Co., Ltd(and Anhui Lelinong Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (defendant in the original trial) [final ruling No. 130 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that exclusive implementation licensing for right of new variety of plant means that the licensee obtains the unique right of implementing the authorized variety in the authorized legal domain for the right of the new variety of plant, and if the so-called "Exclusive Implementation Licensing" obtained by the licensee is limited by additional domain restriction in the authorized legal domain, then this implementation licensing constitutes a common implementation licensing.
 
IV. Judgement on Technology Secret Cases
30. Treatment of criminal and civil cross cases involving commercial secrets
 
In the dispute over technical secret licensing contract of Ningbo Biwo Textile Machinery Co., Ltd. VS  Ningbo Cixing Co., Ltd.  [final ruling No. 333 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the dispute over commercial secret licensing contract caused by breach of confidence is not based on the legal relationship generated by the same legislative fact as the associated criminal case,  and the court may transfer the criminal suspect while continuing to hear the dispute over commercial secret licensing contract.
 
31. Joint trial of proceeding of infringement of technical secret and proceeding of ownership of patent right
 
In the dispute over infringement of technical secret and ownership of patent right of Dalian Bomai Technology Development Co., Ltd. VS He Kejiang and Suzhou Makowangzhi Biotechnology Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 672 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)],  the supreme court pointed out that where the proceeding of infringement of technical secret and proceeding of ownership of patent right is based on the same fact or the results of judgements are interrelated, it is appropriate to perform the joint trial.
 
V. Judgement on Computer Software Cases
32. Determination of development target in computer software development contract
 
In the dispute over infringement on computer software copyright of Ningbo Ruiqizhiwei Information Technology Co., Ltd. VS Zhejiang Fast Development Technology Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Haishu Yaoguang Barbershop [final ruling No. 694 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that determination on whether the software in the dispute is the development target in the computer software development contract shall not be made only on the literal agreement in the contract, but shall take into consideration of comprehensive elements such as the purpose of the involved contract, the association or functional mating of the disputed software and the software on which the agreement was made and fulfilment of the contract.
 
33. Applicable scope of open-source agreement and influence on determination of software copyright infringement
In the dispute over computer software copyright infringement of Beijing Shinning Fashion Information Technology Co., Ltd  VS Buluanmaie-commerce (Beijing) Co., Ltd.  [final ruling No. 663 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the front-end codes and rear-end codes of a website are obviously different in display manner, the technology used and functional division, and they are mutually independent and inter-associated separate programs; even if the front-end uses open-source codes in the GPL agreement items, the rear-end codes are not to be restrained by the GPL agreement, and copy of rear-end codes without permission also constitutes infringement on software copyright.
 
34. Determination of delay of the fulfilment of the developer in computer software development contract
 
In the dispute over the computer software development contract of Beijing Zhongyiyou Network Technology Co., Ltd. VS Beijing Shengshixinghui Network Technology Co., Ltd.  [final ruling No. 433 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that during the fulfilment of the computer software development contract, adjustment and improvement of content and functions of the software are quite normal considering the facts that the requirements from the client become more clear and the communication between two parties become deeper, as well as the specific conditions of fulfilment stage of the trustee, the objective change of market situation and even the consideration of transaction costs; it is not appropriate to simply determine the delay of the fulfilment of the developer just because the developer delivers the software after the time limit specified in the contract expires.
 
VI.Judgement on Monopoly Cases
35. Determination of arbitrability of disputes over monopoly agreements
 
In the appeal of objection to jurisdiction in dispute over vertical monopoly agreements of Shell China Ltd. VS Hohhot Huili Materials Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 46 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that in view of the fact that the determination and processing of the monopoly agreement have far beyond the relationship of rights and obligations between the counterparts in the contract, the arbitration items agreed by the parties involved in the agreement shall not be used as a necessary basis for excluding the people's court from the jurisdiction of the monopoly agreement dispute.
 
VII. Judgement on Procedural Cases including Jurisdiction
 
36. Applicability of centralized jurisdiction by overall coordination of multiple associated cases with repeated appeal elements
 
In the dispute over infringement on utility model patent right of YizhengJiahe Geotechnical Material Co., VS Zhang Zhenwu, China Communications Second Aviation Bureau Second Engineering Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fourth Bureau Group First Engineering Co., Ltd. (the defendants in the original trial) [final ruling No. 447 and470 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the right holder was based on the same patent right, the same infringed product was involved, and multiple disputes over patent infringement were raised to the same manufacturers of the infringed product, therefore the infringed products actually used by different users shall be taken as truth basis for claiming compensation in each case; and the infringed products in each case were manufactured in the same period, the sued manufacturing behaviour was actually the same behaviour, and the supreme court may appoint centralized jurisdiction (as the case may be) in order to repeated judgement and achieve economic litigation and ensure coordinated judgements results.
 
37. Judgement coordination of decentralized trial of patent-associated infringement lawsuit and determination of non-infringement lawsuit
 
In the two cases of appeal for jurisdiction objection of dispute over infringement on patent right of Shanghai Baoye Group Co., Ltd. VS  Lianqi Development Co., Ltd., and Supervision Sakai International Technology (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., China Construction First Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd., Bocheng Engineering Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Hantang System Integration Co., Ltd. and China Electronic System Engineering Second Construction Co., Ltd. (the defendant in the original trial) [final ruling No. 1 and 2 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the lawsuit of infringement and the lawsuit of determination of non-infringement involving the same patent or associated patent shall be subject to joint trial in principle; where, under special circumstances, it is appropriate to perform separated trials based on the consideration of facilitating the parties involved with litigation and the people's court with hearing, then the IP court of the supreme court shall strengthen planning and coordination in the second trial to ensure consistency of judgement criteria.
 
38. Jurisdiction for dispute over equity transfer agreement including patent right transfer clauses
 
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of the dispute over patent right transfer agreement of Rongyang Aluminum (China) Co., Ltd. VS Bonali Golden Door and Window System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd.  [final ruling No. 158 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the dispute over equity transfer agreement containing patent right transfer clauses is in principle a dispute over equity transfer agreement, rather than dispute over patent transfer agreement, therefore it is not appropriate to determine jurisdiction as a patent case.
 
39. Determination of component usage behaviour as jurisdiction link
 
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of the dispute over utility model patent right infringement of Shenzhen Beina Solar Technology Co., Ltd. VS Shanghai Junzheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Yonganxing Low Carbon Technology Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 201 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out if the infringed product is a component of another product, the behaviour of using another product also makes the infringed product implement its value as a component, then the usage behaviour also constitutes usage of the infringed component product, and thus can be taken as the jurisdiction link of the case.
  
40. Determination of information network infringement behaviour as jurisdiction link
 
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of the dispute over utility model patent right infringement of Hangzhou Miou Instrument Co., Ltd. VS Ningbo Tuopusen Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. [final ruling No. 13 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the information network infringement behaviour as specified in Article 25 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China as the jurisdiction link refers to the infringement behaviour completely implemented on information network; if only part of the infringement behaviour is implemented on the network, then it does not constitute the above information network infringement behaviour, and cannot be applicable to the above jurisdiction determination specified in the Interpretation.

Member Message


Only our members can leave a message,so please register or login.

International IP Firms
Inquiry and Assessment

Article Search

Keywords:

People watch

Online Survey

In your opinion, which is the most important factor that influences IP pledge loan evaluation?

Control over several core technologies for one product by different right owners
Stability of ownership of the pledge
Ownership and effectiveness of the pledge