Extract Of Annual Report On Issues Of Law Application By Nationwide Courts In IP Cases (2024)

Article Insights

On April 21, 2025, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) released the Annual Report on the Issues of Law Application in intellectual property (IP) cases, sorting out 43 law application issues identified from the IP cases concluded by courts nationwide in 2024.

I. Patent Case Trials

1. Qualitative determination of patent evaluation reports in patent infringement cases

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial No. 244

【Ruling summary】

In patent infringement dispute cases, the patent evaluation report can be used as a piece of evidence in the court proceedings. However, the validity of the involved patent should still be assessed based on the patent grant text and the effective decisions of the administrative authority. In case where a patentee files an infringement lawsuit based on a valid patent, it should not be concluded that the patentee lacks the basis to exercise the right of action solely because the patent evaluation report makes a negative conclusion that the patent does not meet the statutory grant conditions, even with the lawsuit dismissed.

2. Consistency of patent infringement determinations in related cases

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 740

【Ruling summary】

For the same non-infringement defenses involving the same allegedly infringing products, the same patent and the same cause of action, the determination of related cases should remain consistent to prevent conflicting rulings. Even if the alleged infringer does not appeal after the first-instance ruling, the second-instance court can, based on the findings related to the same cause of defense established in the effective or valid ruling in another case, lawfully reverse the ruling and determine that the accused infringer's relevant defenses are equally valid.

3. Ruling on conditions for performance and interest on debts during delay of performance

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 370

【Ruling summary】

1. In cases where the patent invalidation proceedings are suspended due to property preservation measures taken in relation to the patent at issue, causing the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) unable to make a decision on the invalidation request before the ruling in the patent infringement litigation is made, the People's Court may, based on the specific circumstances of the case, make corresponding arrangements for the performance of obligations as determined in the ruling, including, among other thing, imposing necessary conditions on the performance of the ruling regarding cessation of infringement, and damages. For instance, maintenance of the validity of the patent on the basis of which the patentee filed the lawsuit, as determined by the CNIPA examination decision is taken a pre-condition for the performance of the ruling, and also arranging for the accrued interest on the debt during the period, in order to reasonably balance the interests of all parties involved.

2. For rulings with conditions for performance, the interest on the debt during the delay in performance can also be ruled on simultaneously, that is, after the condition for the performance of the obligations is met, interest shall be calculated from the date the effective ruling is rendered until the performance condition is met, based on the loan market quotation interest rates published by the National Interbank Funding Center for the same period (i.e., simple interest); if the monetary payment obligation remains unfulfilled after the performance condition determined by the ruling is met, the interest on the debt during the delay in performance shall be paid at a double rate.

4. Handling of executed patent infringement rulings after decisions are made declaring the patent invalid

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court IP Civil Re-Trial No. 1

【Ruling summary】

1. The performance or execution actions taken after the decision to declare a patent right invalid do not fall under the circumstance described in Article 47.2 of the Patent Law, which states that the invalidation decision does not have retroactive effect on the effective patent infringement ruling. Generally, the executing court should order the applicant for execution to return the property and its fruits or interest obtained from the executed party in the execution reversal procedure. The people's court may also order the return in the retrial ruling as deemed appropriate.

2. In cases of patent infringement rulings involving multiple alleged infringers, if the differing execution time of the damages obligations of the different alleged infringers lead to varying applications of the second paragraph of Article 47.2 of the Patent Law, which violates the principle of fairness, the people's court may handle the matter pursuant to the provisions of Article 47.3 of the Patent Law.

5. Handling of type 1 declaration made by the generic drug applicant before patent information registration

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 1593

【Ruling summary】

If the holder of the drug marketing authorization correctly registers the patent information within the specified time limit, but the generic drug applicant has made a Type 1 declaration before the registration of the patent information, the holder of the drug marketing authorization should have the opportunity to request the generic drug applicant to apply in a timely manner for a change in their declaration type within a reasonable time limit. If the generic drug applicant applies for changing his or its Type 1 declaration to a Type 4 declaration, or refuses to apply for a change within a reasonable time limit, or applies for a change to another incorrect declaration, the people's court should accept and conduct substantive hearings on the patent linkage litigation initiated by the patentee.

6. Handling changes in pharmaceutical technology solutions in cases of pharmaceutical patent linkage disputes

【Case Number】

(2023) Jing 73 Civil First instance 855

【Ruling summary】

In a drug patent linkage dispute, the people's court should use the solutions reviewed by the drug evaluation and approval authority regarding whether the drug can be approved for market as the basis for determining whether it falls within the scope of the patent protection. The applicant for drug marketing licenses should promptly and truthfully inform the people's court of any changes to the solution that would impact the determination of whether it falls within the scope of the patent protection, otherwise, he or it should bear adverse consequences under the law.

7. Determination of identity of use patent inventors

【Case Number】

(2022) Su 05 Civil First instance 925

【Ruling summary】

A use invention patent is an invention made by discovering, based on a known compound, its new uses. The core of such a patent is not the known compound itself, but the discovery and application of the new use of the known compound. If the development of the invention concept of 'new use of an old drug' plays a key role in the R&D activities, those who contribute significantly to the development of the invention concept, the formation of specific solution, or substantial improvements and stages of research and development can be considered inventors.

8. Environmental feature Identification and infringement determination

【Case Number】

(2022) Hu 73 IP Civil First instance 223

【Ruling summary】

The features of the usage environment can be identified based on the title of the invention, the subject matter of the invention, and the descriptions in the claims related to installations, along with a comprehensive assessment of the content of the specification. When considering whether the accused technical solution possesses the relevant usage environment features of the patent claims in question, it is not required that the alleged infringing product necessarily has components related to the usage environment features, as long as the alleged infringing product can be applied in the usage environment defined by these features.

9. Patents should not be granted for inventions related to sacrificial houses that violate social ethics and impair public interests.

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Administrative Final 2.

【Ruling summary】

1. The patent system is designed to protect inventions-creations that promote the advancement of technology and the development of the economy and society. So-called 'inventions-creations' that have no substantial benefits for these purposes should not be granted the receive patent protection. The understanding and application of specific provisions, including Article 5, Paragraph one, of the Patent Law, should be based on the legislative purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the Patent Law.

2. In the judicial practice, the socialist core values should be taken as guidance, with efforts made to advocate and promote social ethics that meet the requirements of the times and are recognized by the people. Even if certain sacrificial items do not fall into the category of superstitious funeral items, they are still likely to violate social ethics or harm public interest as stipulated in Article 5, Paragraph one, of the Patent Law.

10. Acceptance of deletion-type amendments to claims in the oral hearing procedure during the patent invalidation examination

【Case Number】

(2022) Supreme Court IP Administrative Final No. 870

【Ruling summary】

In the oral hearing procedure during the patent invalidation examination, when the CNIPA believes that the amended parts of the claims are not acceptable, the patentee should be allowed to delete the claims that are not accepted from the current text of the claims, and the remaining acceptable claims will be the basis for examination. Regardless of whether the deletion is proposed orally in court or submitted in writing by the patentee, the CNIPA should generally accept it; if the replacement page is not submitted in court, the CNIPA may require the patentee to submit it within a certain time limit. If the replacement page is not submitted within the specified time limit, it will be regarded as the patentee not having amended the claims under the law, and the matter will be will be dealt with accordingly.

11. Determination of whether the claimed design has been clearly shown or presented?

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court IP Administrative Final 672

【Ruling summary】

If based on the general knowledge level and cognitive ability of the average consumers, and taking into account the patent view, usage status view, and the general common sense, the design depicted in the design patent drawings still has multiple design possibilities, then it can be concluded that the design patent documents fail to clearly show the design of the claimed.

II. Trademark Case Trials

12. Factors to consider in determining infringement of geographic indication certification trademark rights

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial 21

【Ruling summary】

Determining whether the alleged infringement constitutes an infringement upon the geographic indication certification trademark rights requires consideration of the following factors: first, whether the allegedly infringing goods meets the criteria for using the geographic indication trademark, namely whether the goods originates from a certain specific region; second, whether the allegedly infringing goods has the specific quality characteristic of the geographic indication products; and third, whether the alleged infringement is likely to cause confusion among the relevant sector of the public regarding the origin and specific quality characteristic of the goods.

13. Determination of prior-trademark-use defense or counter-claim

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial No. 218

【Ruling summary】

Application of the prior-trademark-use defense right requires balancing the interests between the prior trademark user and the exclusive right proprietor of the registered trademark. For a prior user who has used in good faith a trademark that is the same as or similar to another person's registered trademark in respect to the same or similar goods and has a certain influence, he or it has the right to continue using it within the original scope. However, if the prior use is earlier than the filing date of the trademark but later than the registered user uses the trademark, and there exist the circumstances where evidence shows that the prior user knew or should have known about it, it is inappropriate to recognize the validity of the defense of prior use.

14. Determination of proper use of scenic spot names

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial No. 123

【Ruling summary】

For the use of the mark solely to refer to the name of the scenic spot, or to explain and describe the relevant content and characteristics of the scenic spot, which does not exceed the necessary limits, if the relevant sector of the public exercises general attention and combines it with daily life experience, it will not cause confusion about the source of the goods or services. The use constitutes a legitimate and reasonable use of the mark and does not constitute trademark infringement.

15. When evidence proves the benefits or profits from infringement, the amount of damages should be primarily determined based on the benefits or profits from infringement.

【Case Number】

 (2023) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial 178

【Ruling summary】

Article 63 of the Trademark Law stipulates the order of application for calculating damages. When determining the amount of damages, the people's court should prioritize the actual loss of the rights holder, the profits obtained by the infringer from infringement, and reasonable licensing fees as methods of calculation. Only when it is difficult to determine the actual loss, infringing profits, and licensing fees should statutory damages be applied.

16. Determination of whether retail services and services of 'promotion for others constitute similar services

【Case Number】

(2022) Su Civil Final 356

【Ruling summary】

The retail services provided by sellers of goods to end consumers are highly similar to the service of 'promotion for others' in Class 35 in purpose, content, method, and target customers. Where, during the retail service provision, unauthorized use of the same mark as the trademark for 'promotion for others' in Class 35 can easily lead to confusion among the relevant sector of the public regarding the source of the services, it should be determined as trademark infringement.

17. Calculation of the contribution rate of marks and application of punitive damages in drug Trademark Infringement Cases

【Case Number】

(2021) Su 05 Civil First Instance 437

【Ruling summary】

1. In a drug or pharmaceutical trademark infringement case, it is necessary to comprehensively consider factors such as the macro development trends in the pharmaceutical field, the micro perspective of consumers purchasing the drug, the different thresholds for entering the specific pharmaceutical industry, the technical distinctions between the original drug and generic drug, as well as the reputation of the pharmaceutical company itself, in order to reasonably determine the contribution rate of the involved mark to the profits of the allegedly infringing drug.

2. Where the alleged infringer, as a shareholder of the rights holder and an operator in the same industry applied, after the shareholding relationship had terminated, for registration of a mark similar to the rights holder's trademark for use in respect of the same goods, and has not stopped the alleged infringement even after an administrative ruling has determined that the trademark should be declared invalid, and the involved drugs are highly alerting and easily confused, and the infringement is likely to endanger personal health, which falls under the circumstance of "malicious infringement of trademark rights with severe circumstances" as stipulated in the Trademark Law, the punitive damages can be applied under the law.

18. Determination of distinctiveness of design of goods filed for trademark registration

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Administrative Appeal No. 5449

【Ruling summary】

In case where the disputed trademark filed for registration in the form of the design of goods, if the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove that through its actual use, the relevant sector of the public has been able to identify the disputed trademark as a sign used to identify the source of the goods, and not just the design thereof, then the disputed trademark lacks distinctiveness.

19. Determination of trademark registration harming others' prior domain name rights

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Administrative Re-Trial No. 244

【Ruling summary】

To determine that the registration of the disputed trademark damages the prior domain name rights of another party, the following conditions must be met: the domain name was registered first and has a certain degree of reputation, the goods or services provided by the domain name operator are the same as or similar to those in respect of which the disputed trademark is approved to be used, and the disputed trademark is identical with or similar to that domain name, which is likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers. Evidence of advertising and use related to the goods or services provided by the domain name operator can serve as factual evidence to determine whether it has a certain degree of reputation.

20. Application of Article 44 of the Trademark Law "Obtained registration by other unfair means"

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Administrative Re-Trial No. 88

【Ruling summary】

When determining whether the disputed trademark falls under the circumstance of "obtaining registration by other improper means" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Trademark Law, it is not appropriate to conclude that it falls under "obtaining registration by other improper means" solely based on the number of trademarks filed by the applicant for registration reaching a certain scale or number. If it can be proved that the applicant has a genuine intention to use the disputed trademark or has actually put the trademark into commercial use, and the application for the disputed trademark is reasonable or legitimate, then it generally should not be determined as constituting the situation referred to in the preceding Article.

21. Determination of goods of approved use in cases of trademark cancellation due to non-use for three consecutive years

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Administrative Re-Trial No. 51

【Ruling summary】

Where the goods in respect of which the disputed trademark is actually used is not of the standard name of the goods listed in the Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registration of Marks, but if they are essentially the same as the approved goods in respect of which the trademark is used, or if the actual goods in respect of which the trademark is used fall under a subcategory of the approved goods, then it can be determined as use in respect of the approved goods. Changes to the Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registration of Marks after the registration of the disputed trademark do not impact the above determination.

22. Determination of whether acts on a game live streaming platform constitute the service of 'promoting for others'

【Case Number】

(2024) Jing Administrative Final 6099

【Ruling summary】

Game live streaming platforms leverage their own traffic and user resource advantages to promote cooperative games through game live streaming, offering game downloads and forums, and organizing promotional activities, so as to increase the download and recharge rates of the cooperative games and allow the platforms to earn revenue sharing from the games, which can be determined as providing planning and promotion services for the sales of goods or services of others, thus constituting the service of 'promotion for others' in Class 35 of the Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of Registration of Marks.

III. Judicial trial of copyright cases

23. Works of applied art can be protected as fine art works under the copyright law

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court Civil Re-Trial No. 40

【Ruling summary】

For models or designs possibly combining practical use and artistry, one can choose to protect them as works under the copyright law or as designs under the patent law, with each protection focusing on different aspects. When claiming copyright protection, according to the existing system arrangements of the copyright law in China, it is necessary to determine whether the claimed work meets the formal requirements of a work of art and whether it possesses the substantive element of originality, without the need to establish a separate type of works outside of works of art or to raise additional requirements for originality.

24. Exhaustion of rights to distribute computer software

【Case Number】

(2022) Supreme Court Civil Final 1460

【Ruling summary】

1. If computer software must be used in conjunction with specific hardware, the rights holder's sale of hardware and computer software together can be deemed as distributing the software in the form of a tangible medium. The principle of exhaustion of distribution rights may apply as appropriate. After the buyer pays a reasonable price, he obtains ownership of the original or copies of the software and have the right to use it himself or transfer his use to others. Restrictions imposed by the rights holder on the scope of use and resale of the aforementioned software do not automatically bind buyers who have no contractual relationship with the rights holder or third parties who legally acquire the original or copies of the software from that buyer. However, the buyer or third party may not copy the software without authorization unless for the purpose of lawful use, nor may they use the software copies after transferring the original or copies of the software.

2. The owner of legally copied software must not provide modified software to any third party without permission, which mainly refers to situations where the modified software is used as the main subject matter of a transaction without the permission of the software copyright owner. If the main subject matter of the transaction is hardware and the software is only used to support the hardware, usually, there is no need to obtain permission from the software copyright owner for the transfer of ownership of the modified software that occurs due to the transaction of the associated hardware.

25. Determination of substantial similarity of works of fine art

【Case Number】

(2019) Jing 73 Civil First Instance 1376

【Ruling summary】

When determining whether a work of fine art constitutes substantial similarity, it is generally necessary to consider the visual characteristics of the work from the perspective of an ordinary observer, and to evaluate the artistic expression embodied in the entire work in terms of compositional elements, form of expression, and overall visual effect. If the two works only differ slightly overall, such that an ordinary observer would tend to overlook these differences unless deliberately looking for them, they can be considered substantially similar. When comparing a large number of copyrighted and infringing works, all relevant works can be considered as a whole, and factors such as the author's creative experience, methods, and style should be considered to comprehensively determine whether infringement has occurred.
 

26. Determination of whether a screenwriter who withdraws midway from a film or television script project is entitled to the right of authorship as a screenwriter

【Case Number】

(2020) Jing 0108 Civil First Instance 39696

【Ruling summary】

Whether a screenwriter who withdraws midway from the creation of a film or television work can enjoy the right of authorship as a screenwriter in that work should be comprehensively determined based on factors such as the terms of the screenwriting contract they signed, whether the work uses the original content created by the screenwriter, and whether the proportion of used work makes a substantial contribution to the film or television work. When the screenwriting contract does not explicitly stipulate the exercise of the right of authorship as a screenwriter upon termination, if the proportion of original content created by the screenwriter used in the work reaches a level that constitutes a substantial contribution to the work, it should be recognized that the screenwriter enjoys the right of authorship as such.

27. Determination of copyright infringement by in-vehicle system content providers

【Case Number】

(2023) Jing 0491 Civil First Instance 11731

【Ruling summary】

The operator of a video platform should be liable for infringing the right of communication over the information network for the act of providing infringing videos on its in-vehicle application network server. If the operator of the in-vehicle system software participates in the launch, display, and promotion of the video platform's in-vehicle application and provides subscription services, it is considered a participant and beneficiary of the provision of the works involved and should bear joint liability with the video platform under the law.

28. Implementing unified algorithm aggregation to enhance network service providers' duty of care

【Case Number】

(2022) Hu 0115 Civil First Instance 29412

【Ruling summary】

When determining whether a video sharing platform constitutes aiding and abetting copyright infringement, attention should be paid to distinguishing the neutrality of the technology itself from the non-neutrality of its application. If a platform collects a large number of infringing short videos using copyrighted works as connecting points, organizes them under a certain topic or category, and then presents them uniformly to all users, this act contains the platform's subjective intent. Implementing such an algorithm to aggregate content uniformly increases the duty of care for network service providers and, in turn, impacts the determination of whether they should be considered aware of the infringement.

29. Determination of infringement liabilities of generative AI service providers

【Case Number】

(2024) Zhe 0192 Civil First Instance 1587

(2024) Zhe 01 Civil Final 10332

【Ruling summary】

1. When a service provider offers generative AI technology services, whether it constitutes aiding infringement should be considered comprehensively, with account taken of the factors such as the service provider's profit model, the popularity and influence of the copyrighted work, the obviousness of the infringement, the level of development of AI technology, the feasibility and cost of alternative designs to prevent harm, the necessary measures that can be taken and their effectiveness, and the impact of assuming infringement liability on the industry. The standard for determining fault should be adjusted dynamically, keeping the service provider's duty of care at a reasonable level that corresponds to their information management capabilities.

2. Generative AI services are only subject to regulation under the anti-unfair competition law when they violate the principles of good faith and recognized business ethics, disrupt market competition, or harm the legitimate rights and interests of other operators or consumers.

30. Determination of direct infringement by cloud storage service providers and the necessary measures to be taken

【Case Number】

(2022) Yue Civil Re-trial 59

【Ruling summary】

1. The 'deduplication storage' technology used by cloud storage service providers does not change source of works. To determine whether a cloud storage service provider has substituted a third party in providing the downloaded works to users, it is necessary to verify whether there is actual content data transmission of the works between the cloud storage and the third-party network nodes during the download process. If the content data of the works is transmitted entirely from the third-party network nodes to the cloud storage, the cloud storage acts merely as a download tool and does not constitute a direct infringement of the right to disseminate works over information network.

2. For users sharing infringing works, cloud storage service providers should take necessary measures to stop the ongoing infringement, prevent other similar infringing acts, and prevent the occurrence of acts like infringement. For works that are not highly popular and whose infringement is not serious, disconnecting the infringing link and disabling the 'share' function of the file pointed to by the infringing link can generally deliver the aforementioned prevention and deterrent effects.

IV. Adjudication of Competition Cases

31. Determination of Business Names with Certain Influence

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 418

【Ruling summary】

Whether it constitutes a "trade name with certain influence" as stipulated in Article 6 (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law should be determined based on the starting time of the use of the allegedly infringing trade name and by comprehensively considering the factors such as the extent to which the relevant sector of the public in China is aware of it, the time, region, quantity, and target of product sales, the duration, degree, and geographic scope of publicity, and whether the logo is protected. If the alleged infringer was already aware that someone else had prior use of the trade name, it can be regarded that the market reputation of the prior trade name has reached the alleged infringer.

32. Overall assessment of acts infringing technical secrets and bearing of the specific civil liability for stopping the infringement

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 1590

【Ruling summary】

1. For cases involving organized, planned, and large-scale recruitment of talents and technological resources from other companies that lead to alleged technical secret infringement, the People's Court should conduct an overall analysis and make a comprehensive judgment. If the alleged infringer produces products related to the technical secret in question in a period significantly shorter than the reasonable time required for independent development, and the alleged infringer had the means or opportunity to access the technical secret, then due to the high likelihood of infringement, the burden of proof on the technical secret holder regarding the act of technical secret infringement should be further reduced, and it can be directly presumed that the alleged infringer has engaged in acts infringing the technical secret. If the alleged infringer denies committing the technical secret infringement, they should provide evidence to refute it.

2. To effectively prevent and deter infringements and enhance the enforceability of rulings, the People's Court, when determining the specific manner of bearing civil liability for stopping the infringement, may base this on the rights holder's specific claims regarding the liability to stop the infringement, or, if necessary, may directly determine the specific manner, content, and scope of stopping the infringement ex officio; full consideration should be given to the nature of the protected rights, the severity of the infringement, especially the current harm caused by the infringement and the likelihood of continued future infringement, with an emphasis on assessing the necessity, reasonableness, and enforceability of taking specific measures to protect those rights.

3. Depending on the specific circumstances of the case, specific measures to stop the infringement of technical secrets may include: ceasing the use of the technical secrets involved to manufacture products independently or entrust others to manufacture related products, and stopping the sale of products manufactured using the technical secrets involved; without the consent of the true right holder, infringers shall not implement, or authorize others to implement, transfer, pledge, or otherwise dispose of or utilize the patents applied for using the illegally obtained technical secrets, including maliciously abandoning patent rights; under the supervision of the People's Court or in the presence of the right holder, destroy or hand over to the technical secret rights holder any carriers containing the technical secrets involved that are held or controlled by the infringer or related units and personnel; through public announcements and/or internal notifications, inform company shareholders, senior management, relevant employees, affiliated companies, and upstream and downstream businesses that may have access to the technical secrets involved to actively cooperate in complying with the court's orders to cease infringement, and provide clear guidance on the company's internal intellectual property compliance operations; individually notify employees who have left the technical secret rights holder and joined the infringer or its affiliated companies, other personnel of the infringer or its affiliated companies responsible for or involved in the relevant R&D (including relevant senior management), and upstream and downstream businesses that possibly have access to the technical secrets involved, of the relevant requirements to cease infringement, and have them sign confidentiality and non-infringement commitment agreements regarding the trade secrets involved.

4. To ensure that the ruling is enforced promptly and comprehensively, the People's Court may, based on the specific circumstances of the case, take into account factors such as the nature and circumstances of the infringement, the potential damage and negative impact from failure to fulfill relevant non-monetary obligations such as stopping the infringement, and the need to enhance the deterrent effect of the ruling. The court may also clarify the standard for calculating the late performance fee for non-monetary obligations involved in the ruling. The standard can be calculated on a daily or monthly basis, or as a one-time fixed amount, depending on the circumstance.

33. Determination of trade secret infringement and liability therefor

【Case Number】

(2022) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 1592

【Ruling summary】

1. If the alleged infringer, based on his prior acts of infringing trade secrets, has illegally obtained and used the trade secrets, and the evidence submitted by the rights holder preliminarily proves that the alleged infringer would commit such acts again, and the alleged infringer cannot provide sufficient evidence to refute this, it can be determined that the rights holder's claim regarding the alleged infringer's continued infringement of trade secrets is valid.

2. If an employee, during his tenure at the original company, establishes a company and participates in acts of infringing trade secrets through off-the-record shareholding by his spouse or any other third party, the employee and the company constitute joint infringers and should be held jointly liable.

3. If computer software and specific data have a one-to-one correspondence and cannot be used separately, and the existing evidence is sufficient to determine the alleged infringer has used the specific data, it can also be determined that he has simultaneously used the computer software.

4. If there is no evidence proving that the rights holder neglected to claim his rights or tolerated the infringement, for an alleged infringer who claims, based on the statute of limitations, that his liability for infringement damages should only be calculated for the three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the People's Court will not support such a claim.　

34. Determination of illegality of ticket-snatching software

【Case Number】

(2024) Jing 0101 Civil First Instance 4607

【Ruling summary】

Ticket-snatching software uses technological means to provide users of a target platform with unfair advantages in purchasing tickets, undermining the platform's ticketing rules, harming the platform's competitive interests, as well as the legitimate rights and long-term interests of consumers, and disrupting the market order of fair competition. It should be determined as constituting unfair competition.

35. Determination of unfair data use

【Case Number】

(2023) Hu 0114 Civil First Instance 13000

【Ruling summary】

The rights holder obtains users' consent to collect, use, organize, and store relevant information, and has aggregated it into a data set based on platform user information and content information of works. The rights holder enjoys the property rights in relation to this data, including lawful control, use, and operation. The alleged infringer, without authorization, used technological means to obtain non-public data and displayed it on a website they operated, thereby conducting paid transaction services. Their method of obtaining and using such data exceeds the reasonable limits and violates business ethics, disrupts market competition, and is unfair.

36. Determination of non-public nature of technical secrets

【Case Number】

(2022) E 01 Civil First Instance 707

【Ruling summary】

Technical information for each individual step or partial parameter may already exist in the public domain, but a complete technical solution combining multiple steps and parameters that is not widely known within the industry can still be protected as a technical secret. Whether it constitutes a technical secret should be strictly examined based on the criteria for technical secrets, rather than assessed by the standards of novelty and inventiveness provided for in the patent law.

37. Standards for determining validity of technology-neutral defense

【Case Number】

(2024) Yu 0192 Civil First Instance 2546

【Ruling summary】

In a case of online unfair competition dispute, if the operator uses technology neutrality as a defense, the determination standard should be whether the manner of technology use is legitimate and whether it has substantially non-infringing uses. The use of neutral technology that bypasses or overrides the will of the online platform users and the technical settings of the platforms is considered unfair; the operator must prove that it is a substantially non-infringing use; otherwise, it should be deemed to have subjective fault and held correspondingly liable for infringement.

38. Intertwined agreements involving concerted refusal to deal constitute horizontal monopoly agreements.

【Case Number】

(2023) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 653

【Ruling summary】

When multiple operators collude to boycott another operator that is in a competitive relationship, it usually not only requires reaching a horizontal agreement to jointly resist transactions but also necessitates using vertical arrangements with upstream and downstream operators to ensure or strengthen the achievement of the anti-competitive effect of the joint boycott. Such vertical arrangements are an important component or means of the joint boycott conducted by operators in competitive relationships and generally do not affect the determination that the joint boycott constitutes a horizontal monopoly agreement.

39. Judicial review standards for concentration of operators that have or are likely to have the effect of excluding or restricting competition

【Case Number】

(2024) Jing 73 Civil First Instance 5180

【Ruling summary】

For concentration of operators that have or are likely to have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition, prohibition is not the preferred remedy. Instead, to make a decision, a comprehensive assessment should be made based on the specific circumstances of the case. If the operators involved in the concentration propose a plan of additional restrictive conditions as commitments, the plan should be evaluated for its effectiveness, feasibility, and timeliness, and then assessed to determine whether it can effectively mitigate the adverse impact of the concentration of the operators on the competition.

V. Adjudication of New Plant Variety Cases

40. Examination of burden of proof for variety identicality and appraisal methods

【Case Number】

(2022) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 1362

【Ruling summary】

1. When conducting identicality appraisal or testing between the authorized variety and the allegedly infringing variety, the variety right holder shall make every effort and diligently provide evidence for the test samples of the allegedly infringing variety and the control samples of the authorized variety used for the appraisal or testing, exercise reasonable care, ensure clear sourcing, proper preservation, and a trustworthy inspection process, in accordance with the requirements of appraisal or testing.

2. In cases of infringement of new plant variety rights, the People's Court shall examine whether the molecular marker method used for variety identicality appraisal is scientific and reliable. If the national or industry standards for molecular marker detection methods for a specific plant variety are yet to be established, qualified appraisal agencies and experts could refer to other relevant national or industry standards to issue their appraisal opinions. If their appraisal method can scientifically and accurately distinguish different varieties, with sufficient scientific basis and reproducibility, such appraisal opinions may be adopted as part of the evidence to determine whether the characteristics and traits of the allegedly infringing material are identical with those of the authorized variety.

VI. Adjudication of Integrated Circuit Layout Design Cases

41. Determination of protected subject matter of layout design and its commercial use

【Case Number】

(2022) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 2133

【Ruling summary】

1. Even if a layout design does not contain active elements, if it shows the three-dimensional configuration relationship between active elements and circuits, thereby clearly defining the interface with the active elements, and delivers the corresponding circuit functions to be realized when other standardized elements are used, it can be considered that the layout design is of the "three-dimensional configuration of two or more elements, at least one of which is an active element, and some or all interconnecting circuits," and is a subject matter of the protected exclusive layout design rights.

2. After the layout design is completed, testing via wafer fabrication is indeed required to check and verify performance. However, if the number of chips commissioned for manufacture containing the layout design significantly exceeds what is necessary for test wafers, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the rights holder's claim that the layout design has not been commercially utilized will not be supported.

VII. Intellectual Property Litigation Procedures and Evidence

42. Transfer of jurisdiction should be subject to the limitations of the responding jurisdiction.

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court Civil Jurisdiction 152

【Ruling summary】

Except in cases of violation of hierarchical or exclusive jurisdiction, if a party does not raise an objection to jurisdiction and responds to the suit, it is not advisable to transfer the case even if the court receiving the case believes it lacks jurisdiction.

43. Conditions for issuing anti-injunction (enforcement) order

【Case Number】

(2024) Supreme Court IP Civil Final 914, 915

【Ruling summary】

If a standard implementer applies to an overseas court for an injunction (or enforcement order) against a standard-essential patent (SEP) holder who has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in a Chinese court, and the SEP holder subsequently applies to the Chinese court handling the patent infringement case for a counter-injunction (or counter-enforcement) order, the People's Court, after preliminary examination, may grant or approve the SEP holder's counter-injunction (or counter-enforcement) application if the SEP holder has fulfilled their fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licensing commitments during licensing negotiations, and the standard implementer has shown obvious fault and intent to improperly obstruct the SEP holder from exercising their legitimate rights to advance case proceedings and enforcement in the Chinese court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]