TY - JOUR
AB - No. 146 [2021] of the General Office of the Supreme People’s Court1 General Office of the Supreme People’s Court Notice on Issuing Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases and 50 Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2020 The Higher People’s Courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government; the Military Court of the People’s Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People’s Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: In order to give full play to the exemplary and guiding role of model cases, as based on the recommendation from all Higher People’s Courts, and the intellectual property cases tried by the Supreme People’s Court in 2020, the Supreme People’s Court selected the top ten intellectual property cases and 50 model intellectual property cases tried by Chinese courts in 2020 in accordance with the relevant procedures. The list of these top ten cases and the model cases is hereby issued for the reference of the people’s courts at all levels in intellectual property trials.2 General Office of the Supreme People’s Court 22 April 2021 Top ten intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2020 1. Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v China National Intellectual Property Administration, Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. Case on the invalidity of an invention patent (Administrative Judgment No. 34 [2017], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) 2. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Software Technologies Co., Ltd. v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. Co., Ltd. Case confirming non-infringement of a patent and cases on the licensing of standard essential patents (Civil Ruling No. 732, 733 and 734 [2019], Final, IP Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) 3. Red Bull Energy Drink Co., Ltd. v T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd. Case on trademark ownership (Civil Judgment No. 394 [2020], Final, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) 4. Suzhou Xysemi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v Shenzhen Yusheng Technology Co., Ltd., HU Caihuan, HUANG Jiandong, HUANG Sailiang. Case on the infringement of the layout design of an integrated circuit (Civil Judgment No. 490 [2019], Final, IP Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) 5. Wuhan Atlantic Metallurgical Engineering & Technology Co. Ltd. v SONG Zuxing. Case on the distribution of company surplus (Civil Judgment No. 135 [2019], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) 6. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch v SHARP Co., ScienBiziP Japan Co. Case on the licensing of standard essential patents (Civil Ruling No. 689 [2020], First, Civil Division 03, Guangdong, of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province) 7. Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd. v Chengdu GAMESKY Technology Co., Ltd., 4399 Network Co., Ltd. Case on copyright infringement (Civil Judgment No. 1164 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Jiangsu, of the Higher People’s Court of Jiangsu Province) 8. Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v Zhejiang Soudao Network Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Juketong Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition case (Civil Judgment No. 1987 [2019], First, Civil Division, 8601, Zhejiang, of the Railway Transportation Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province) 9. Huizhou Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. v China Audio-Video Copyright Association. Monopoly case (Civil Judgment No. 780 [2018], First, Civil Division 73, Beijing, of Beijing Intellectual Property Court) 10. Li Haipeng and other 9 persons. Case on the crime of copyright infringement (Criminal Ruling No. 105 [2020], Final, Criminal Division, Shanghai, of the Higher People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality) Introduction to the top ten intellectual property cases tried by Chinese courts in 2020 1. Administrative case on a request for invalidation of the ‘Xiao i Robot’ patent for an invention: Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v China National Intellectual Property Administration, Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. Case on the invalidation of an invention patent (Administrative Judgment No. 34 [2017], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) [Facts of the Case] Shanghai Zhizhen Intelligent Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Zhizhen Company’) is the owner of a patent for an invention named ‘a chat robot system’ (hereinafter ‘the patent’). The patent, by adopting the formatted command statements to interact with robots, enables users to talk with the chat robots through an instant messaging platform or an SMS platform. Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Apple’) requested that the patent should be invalidated. The China National Intellectual Property Administration and the first instance court both held that, according to the common technical knowledge, those skilled in the art could realize the interactive function by using the game server of the chat robot system described in the patent, which meets the patent law requirements for sufficient disclosure, and therefore the patent was valid. The second instance court held that according to the previous licensing records, Zhizhen Company had recognized that the function of the game server was an important reason for the inventiveness of the patent, and there was no record on how to connect the game server to other parts of the chat robot in the description of the patent, which does not sufficiently disclose how to realize the game function described in the patent. On this basis, the first instance judgment and the contested administrative decision were annulled. Zhizhen Company refused to accept this decision and applied to the Supreme People’s Court for a retrial. The Supreme People’s Court held that the game server feature in this patent was not a technical feature that distinguished this patent from the prior art, and that the technical solution involved in the game server need not be described in detail. A person skilled in the art could realize the relevant technologies through the description of this patent specification. Therefore, the technical solution related to the game server of this patent met the patent law requirements for sufficient disclosure. The Supreme People’s Court then revoked the second-instance judgment after the trial and upheld the first-instance judgment. [Significance of the Case] This case involved a fundamental patent in the field of artificial computer intelligence in China. ‘Disclosure for protection’ is the basic principle of the patent system. Judging whether the technical solution of this patent application has been sufficiently disclosed is not only a difficult problem in both examination and litigation in the field of artificial intelligence, but also directly determines whether the patent applicant can enjoy exclusivity over the relevant technical solution. The retrial judgment of this case clarified the criterion of sufficient disclosure of a patent specification involving a computer program, sufficiently protected the independent innovative achievements of enterprises, and helped to strengthen intellectual property rights in the fields while at the same time safeguarding the public interest and encouraging innovation. 2. Anti-suit injunction issued in three cases concerning standard essential patents on wireless communication: Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Software Technologies Co., Ltd. v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. Co., Ltd. Case confirming non-infringement of patent and cases on the licensing of standard essential patents (Civil Ruling No. 732, 733 and 734 [2019], Final, IP Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) [Facts of the Case] In January 2018, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and Huawei Software Technologies Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Huawei’) filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, requesting a judicial declaration that Huawei had not infringed three Chinese patents of Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. Co., Ltd (hereinafter ‘Conversant’), and also requesting a judicial determination on royalty rates for the standard essential patents (SEPs) in China. In April 2018, in response to Huawei’s litigation, Conversant filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the District Court of Düsseldorf, Germany, requesting the German court to order Huawei to cease the infringement and compensate for alleged losses. On 16 September 2019, the first instance court determined the royalty rates for Conversant’s SEPs involved in the case for Huawei and its Chinese affiliates. However, Conversant refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). On 27 August 2020, when the appeal case was still in the litigation process before the SPC, the German court delivered its first instance judgment, holding that Huawei and its German affiliates had infringed Conversant’s European patents, and ordering Huawei and its German affiliates to cease to provide, sell, use, import, or hold relevant mobile terminals for these purposes and to destroy or recall the infringing products. The German court’s judgment holding that Conversant’s SEP royalty rate offer to Huawei did not violate the requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination of FRAND commitments, could be enforced in advance since Conversant had provided security of EUR 2.4 million. However, the royalty rate for multi-mode 2G/3G/4G mobile terminal products in Conversant’s offers was about 18.3 times the rate in China determined in the three first instance judgments. On the same day, Huawei applied to the SPC for an injunction, requesting that Conversant be ordered not to apply for enforcement of the German court’s judgment prior to the SPC’s final judgment. The SPC issued an ‘anti-suit’ injunction subject to Huawei providing guarantees, i.e. Conversant should suspend the application for execution of the said German court’s judgment until the SPC’s final judgment was rendered. In the event of a finding of a violation, Conversant should pay a daily fine of RMB 1 million per day if the violation continued. The decision was sent to Conversant on the same day. Conversant petitioned against the ‘anti-suit’ injunction within a reasonable period of time, but the petition was then rejected by the SPC after a court hearing. [Significance of the Case] The SPC for the first time issued an ‘anti-suit’ injunction in the field of intellectual property, clarifying the factors of necessity, degree of damage, adaptability, public interest and international comity, and also imposed the per diem fine for the first time, which initially constructed the judicial practice path of anti-suit injunction. The ruling helped the parties to reach a global package settlement, bringing to an end the parallel litigation in many countries around the world, and achieving sound effects from both legal and social perspectives. 3. Case on the ownership of the ‘Red Bull’ Trademark: Red Bull Energy Drink Co., Ltd. v T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd. Case on trademark ownership (Civil Judgment No. 394 [2020], Final, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) [Facts of the Case] T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd (hereinafter ‘Thailand T.C. Company’) signed a joint venture contract with a third party to the case, agreeing to establish a joint venture company, Red Bull Energy Drink Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Red Bull Company’), with Thailand T.C. Company providing Red Bull Company with product formulas, process technologies, trademarks and subsequent improvements of the technologies. The two parties had agreed that the trademark used by Red Bull’s products would be Red Bull Company’s property. However, after investigation, it was found that the 17 ‘Red Bull’ series trademarks were all held by Thailand T.C. Company. Thailand T.C. Company and Red Bull Company had then signed multiple trademark licensing contracts for the Red Bull series of trademarks, and Red Bull Company had paid royalties. Thereafter, Red Bull Company invested heavily in marketing and advertising for products bearing the ‘Red Bull’ series of trademarks. Both Red Bull Company and Thailand T.C. Company initiated a series of lawsuits concerning the ‘Red Bull’ related trademarks. Red Bull Company filed a lawsuit in the Higher People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality, requesting a confirmation of its ownership of the ‘Red Bull’ trademark rights and an order for Thai T.C. Company to pay RMB 3.753 billion for its advertising expenses. The court of first instance rejected all Red Bull Company’s claims. Red Bull Company contested the decision and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The SPC held that there were two ways of acquiring the initial rights in a registered trademark, original acquisition and subsequent acquisition. In order to determine whether a party had acquired the rights, a court should examine whether the parties had reached clear agreements on the change of ownership, the term of use, the nature of use, etc., assessed comprehensively in the light of the parties’ true intentions and actual performance. In the licensing relationship, the licensee’s use and promotion of the trademark, or its maintenance of the reputation of the licensed trademark, cannot naturally become the factual basis for the acquisition of the trademark right. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. [Significance of the Case] This was the core case of a series of disputes between the parties. The judgment on this case clarified the legal boundary between trademark transfer and trademark licensing. The judgment was of exemplary significance for similar cases, and sent a positive signal that the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign operators enjoyed equal protection. It was a vivid example of the implementation of a high-quality development of the judicial service and helped improve and optimize the business environment. 4. Case on the infringement of the layout design of the integrated circuit of a ‘Lithium-ion Battery Protection Chip’: Suzhou Xysemi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v Shenzhen Yusheng Technology Co., Ltd., HU Caihuan, HUANG Jiandong, HUANG Sailiang. Case on the infringement of the layout design of an integrated circuit (Civil Judgment No. 490 [2019], Final, IP Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) [Facts of the Case] Suzhou Xysemi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd (hereinafter ‘Xysemi Company’) registered the layout design of an integrated circuit entitled ‘single-chip negative electrode protection lithium-ion battery protection chip for integrated controllers and switch tubes’ on 22 April 2012 and has since then held the exclusive right to this layout design. Xysemi claimed that, without authorization, Shenzhen Yusheng Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Yusheng Company’), HU Caihuan, HUANG Jiandong, and HUANG Sailiang reproduced and sold chips that were substantially the same as the layout design of the integrated circuit it had registered, thereby infringing its exclusive rights. Xysemi filed a lawsuit in the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province. The court of first instance held that the layout design of the integrated circuit of the alleged infringing chip was essentially the same as the original part of the layout design at issue and constituted an infringement. It therefore ordered Yusheng Company to pay Xysemi compensation of RMB 500,000 for economic loss, and held that HU Caihuan, HUANG Jiandong and HUANG Sailiang were jointly and severally liable for this compensation. Yusheng Company, HU Caihuan, HUANG Jiandong and HUANG Sailiang contested the judgment and appealed to the SPC, claiming that the paper setting out the layout design at issue was not clear and should not be protected; the scope of protection of the exclusive right of the layout design could not be determined by the chip sample; and the layout design involved in the case was not original. The SPC held that the protection of the layout design of integrated circuits was not subject to the disclosure of the content of the layout design. The protected object of the layout design was the original three-dimensional configuration of the components and circuits, which was to perform a certain electronic function. The right holder’s burden of proof of originality should not be excessively increased. If the right holder claimed that the three-dimensional configuration of his layout design was original in whole or in part, and should be protected, he should explain or demonstrate its originality, and the accused infringer should then provide evidence to the contrary. The court then used the above points in combination to determine whether the three-dimensional configuration of the layout design was original on this basis. After the hearing, the IPC of the SPC rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. [Significance of the Case] This is a typical case on the infringement of the exclusive rights in the layout design of integrated circuits. The judgment clarified the nature of the registration of the layout design of an integrated circuit and the general principles on the determination of the originality of the layout design of an integrated circuit. Providing specific guidance on difficult issues in judicial practice, this decision effectively protected the interests of the right holder of the layout design of an integrated circuit in accordance with the law, which sufficiently represented the courts’ mission of increasing the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in key areas, promoting independent innovation, and enhancing core competitiveness. 5. Criminal-civilian cross case on the violation of confidentiality obligations: Wuhan Atlantic Metallurgical Engineering & Technology Co. Ltd. v SONG Zuxing. Case on the distribution of company surplus (Civil Judgment No. 135 [2019], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People’s Court) [Facts of the Case] SONG Zuxing and Wuhan Atlantic Metallurgical Engineering & Technology (hereinafter ‘Atlantic Company’) signed an ‘Agreement on Post-employment Obligations’, stipulating competition restrictions and confidentiality obligations. Atlantic Company claimed that SONG Zuxing provided the capital for registration and technical support to Wuhan Hengruigu Metallurgical Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Hengruigu Company’), and disclosed the business secrets of Atlantic Company in violation of the agreement. Atlantic Company filed a lawsuit in the court, claiming that SONG Zuxing was liable for the corresponding civil actions. In criminal proceedings against Hengruigu Company and its legal representative YANG Yuxiang (former employee of Atlantic Company), the People’s Court of Jiang’an District of Wuhan City concluded from the investigation that Hengruigu Company had committed the crime of infringing trade secrets. The first instance and the second instance court held that, although the People’s Procuratorate of Jiang’an District of Wuhan City accused Hengruigu Company and YANG Yuxiang of the crime of infringing trade secrets, the evidence obtained in the public security department's investigation showed that SONG Zuxing was not involved and there were no facts indicating that SONG Zuxing had infringed Atlantic Company’s trade secrets. According to the investigation results of the criminal case, the alleged infringement of trade secrets by Hengruigu Company and YANG Yuxiang had nothing to do with SONG Zuxing, and so Atlantic Company’s claim was rejected. Atlantic Company refused to accept this decision and applied to the SPC for a retrial. The SPC held that the prosecutors had not initiated public prosecution proceedings against SONG Zuxing, and so the criminal judgment did not involve the determination of whether SONG Zuxing had participated in the criminal acts. Therefore, if the criminal judgment did not examine and confirm the relationship between SONG Zuxing and Hengruigu Company, it did not constitute a prima facie fact in the civil proceedings in this case, nor should it be the basis for determining that SONG Zuxing had nothing to do with Hengruigu Company. In this case, according to the evidence on the records, SONG Zuxing could be identified as the actual investor in Hengruigu Company. Within two years after his resignation, SONG Zuxing secretly established Hengruigu company, which was in a competitive relationship with Atlantic Company, and therefore violated the agreement. The SPC then arraigned the case and revoked the first and second instance judgments, ultimately upholding Atlantic’s claim. [Significance of the Case] The judgment of this case fully demonstrated the judicial intention to punish dishonest acts severely and to maintain the market order of fair competition. At the same time, by clarifying the criteria for the identification and the proof of the facts in the overlapping criminal and civil intellectual property rights cases, this judgment promoted collaborative trial procedures of cross criminal and civil cases, which was of significant guidance for the assessment of such cases. 6. Anti-suit injunction in the OPPO case: Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch v SHARP Co., ScienBiziP Japan Co. Case on the licensing of standard essential patents (Civil Ruling No. 689 [2020], First, Civil Division 03, Guangdong, of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province) [Facts of the Case] Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd., Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch (hereinafter collectively ‘OPPO Company’) negotiated SEP licenses with SHARP Co., Ltd. at the latter’s request. During the negotiations, SHARP filed a patent infringement lawsuit against OPPO outside China. OPPO Company claimed that SHARP had violated its FRAND commitments by unilaterally initiating the litigation over the patents within the scope of the negotiations and by requesting an injunction, and accordingly filed a suit in the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, requesting the court to determine the global royalty rate of the relevant SEPs owned by SHARP. At the same time, based on the possibility that SHARP might threaten to resume negotiations with an ‘extraterritorial injunction’, OPPO filed an ‘anti-suit’ injunction application. The court of first instance ruled that SHARP should not bring a new suit or an application for injunctive relief against OPPO in other countries and regions before the judgment was rendered in this case. Seven hours after the Shenzhen court of first instance issued the ‘anti-suit’ injunction, the First District Court of Munich, Germany issued an ‘anti-anti-suit’ injunction against OPPO, ordering OPPO to withdraw the ‘anti-suit’ injunction. The Shenzhen court of first instance conducted an investigation on the ‘anti-suit’ injunction and the ‘anti-anti-suit’ injunction, determined the facts and heard evidence of SHARP’s violation of the ruling, and explained to SHARP the serious legal consequences of not abiding by the judgment of the Chinese court. Finally, SHARP withdrew the application for the petition in this case and the application for an ‘anti-anti-suit’ injunction from the German court, at the same time stating that it would respect and comply with the effective ruling of the Chinese court. [Significance of the Case] The issue of the global ‘anti-suit’ injunction and the resolution of the ‘anti-anti-suit’ injunction in this case not only showed the position of the Chinese courts, but also provided the enterprises with a fair chance to participate in international market competition. The significance of this judgment is the promotion of China’s transformation from being a follower to becoming a pioneer of international intellectual property rules. 7. Case on copyright infringement of mobile phone games: Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co.,Ltd. v Chengdu GAMESKY Technology Co., Ltd., 4399 Network Co., Ltd. Case on copyright infringement (Civil Judgment No. 1164 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Jiangsu, of the Higher People’s Court of Jiangsu Province) [Facts of the Case] ‘Douluo Dalu (Soul Land)’ is a fantasy novel written by ZHANG Wei. ZHANG Wei exclusively granted the mobile game adaptation rights to Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Xuanting Company’). At the same time, ZHANG Wei also created ‘Douluo Dalu (Soul Land): Legend of the Gods’ Realm’. Chengdu Jiqian Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Jiqian Company’) obtained the mobile game adaptation rights to ‘Douluo Dalu (Soul Land): Legend of the Gods’ Realm’ through multiple sub-licenses. Later, Jiqian Company developed the new Douluo Dalu (Shenjie) game, and signed a sharing and cooperation agreement with the 4399 Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘4399 Company’), which stated that the copyright owner of the game was Jiqian Company. Xuanting Company claimed that Jiqian Company and 4399 Company had infringed the adaptation rights to Douluo Dalu without permission; it therefore filed a suit against the infringer. Both the first and the second instance courts held that the scale of the game at issue was huge. The notarization of all the chapters would cost Xuanting Company a considerable amount of money, which inevitably increased the difficulty of proving and the cost of protecting the asignee’s rights, and this consequence would conflict with the principles of fairness and efficiency. Video games and novels are different forms of expression. When judging whether these two forms of expression are substantially similar, a court should not merely analyze the proportion of the number of characters in the novels used in the mobile game, but should comprehensively assess whether the video game made use of the novel’s original expressions of characters, relationships of the roles, special skills, story plots and other elements, and consider the utilized proportion of the novel’s original content reflected in the video game. The analysis of the proportion of a novel’s texts utilized in a mobile game can be assisted by decompiling the game resource library. The video game developed by Jiqian Company used a large number of elements such as the names of characters, the relationships of the main roles, the special skills and the story plots in the novel; this utilization thus made the video game substantially similar to the novel in this respect. Jiqian Company’s development and adaptation of the game without the authorization of Xuanting Company infringed Xuanting Company’s right of adaptation. The court therefore ruled that Jigan Company should compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totalling RMB 5 million. [Significance of the Case] This case involved determining whether mobile phone games infringed the adaptation right in written works. For the first time the game software resource library was decompiled, and the content extracted from it was compared with the content of the text works to analyze the proportion of the original content of other works used by the game, thereby improving the efficiency of the trial and broadening the view of the judicial authorities. At the same time, this was also a lively judicial practice to maintain the healthy development of the cultural industries, and properly handled new issues related to the protection of Internet copyright. 8. Case of unfair competition regarding data rights and interests: Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v Zhejiang Soudao Network Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Juketong Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition case (Civil Judgment No. 1987 [2019], First, Civil Division, 8601, Zhejiang, of the Railway Transportation Court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province) [Facts of the Case] Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively ‘Tencent’) developed and operates the personal instant messenger product WeChat, which provides consumers with instant social communication services. The forms of the data collected by WeChat are mainly personal information and behavioral data such as the user’s personal details, data concerning the relationship between the user and the contacts, and the data concerning the user’s operations performed in the application. The ‘Juketong Group Controling Software,’ which was developed and operated by Zhejiang Soudao Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Juketong Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively ‘the two defendants’), utilized Xposed’s plug-in technology to nest the ‘personal number’ function module in the WeChat product, which enabled WeChat users who purchased the software service to carry out commercial marketing and business management activities on the personal WeChat platform. Tencent filed a lawsuit in the Railway Transportation Court of Hangzhou, claiming that it had an interest in the data of the WeChat platform, and the two defendants’ collection and utilization of the data involved in the case without authorization constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance held that the network platform operators had different data interests in two distinguishable manners: overall and original. The two defendants’ usage of the alleged infringing software to collect the data of WeChat users without authorization and to store the data in a server under their control not only endangered the data security of WeChat users but also substantially damaged Tencent’s competition interests that were based on the entire data resources. The acts of the two defendants were in conflict with business ethics, and violated the relevant provisions of the Cyber Security Law, thereby constituting unfair competition. The court of first instance ordered the two defendants to cease the unfair competition involved in the case and jointly compensate Tencent for the economic losses and reasonable expenses, totalling RMB 2.6 million. [Significance of the Case] This case was a typical case involving the determination of the ownership of data rights and the legitimacy of data collection. The judgment of this case balanced the interests of all parties concerned, reasonably clarified the ownership and the limits of the right to all kinds of data, providing not only a rational analysis basis for the judicial protection of data but also judicial examples for preventing data monopoly, thereby improving the legal system of the digital economy, and promoting its healthy development. 9. Case of monopoly regarding copyright collective management organization: Huizhou Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. v China Audio-Video Copyright Association. Case of monopoly (Civil Judgment No. 780 [2018], First, Civil Division, 73, Beijing, of Beijing Intellectual Property Court) [Facts of the Case] Huizhou Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Huanchang Yibai Company’) sent the offer of a licensing agreement to China Audio Video Copyright Association (hereinafter ‘CAVCA’) three times, asking to sign the contract with the association directly for the relevant tracks managed by CAVCA. CAVCA replied that it did not agree to the contractual terms and asked Huanchang Yibai Company to communicate with Guangzhou Tianhe Cultural Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter ‘Tianhe Company’), a third party to the case. Huanchang Yibai company filed a lawsuit at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that: CAVCA had cooperated with Tianhe Company regarding the collective authorization of the audiovisual products or works under its collective management; Tianhe company had proposed unreasonable contractual conditions, which led to the failure of the negotiations between the two parties; and CAVCA had refused to sign a direct contract with Huanchang Yibai Company three times. These facts constituted a bundling of the licenses after the non-profit organization CAVCA had been integrated into Tianhe’s commercial collective management. This thus constituted an abuse of its dominant market position. The court of first instance held that the relevant market in this case should be defined as the market for licenses for cinematographic works or audiovisual karaoke products in Mainland China. CAVCA was currently the only collective management organization in the relevant market, and the number and the scale of cinematographic works and audiovisual karaoke products under its administration were significant, which allowed it to be fairly representative in the karaoke business.It should therefore be recognized that CAVCA had a dominant position in the relevant market. However, according to the available evidence, Tianhe Company was only an agent appointed by CAVCA, and not the undertaking designated by CAVCA as stipulated in Art. 17(4) of the Anti-Monopoly Law. It was not enough to prove that CAVCA had implemented monopolistic acts such as allowing its trading counterparts to make transactions exclusively and imposing other unreasonable conditions on transactions as stipulated in Art. 17(4) and (5) of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The court of first instance rejected the claims of Huanchang Yibai Company. [Significance of the Case] This case involved many controversial issues, such as the operating mechanism and charging mode of copyright collective management. This judgment not only made it clear that copyright collective management organizations are to be regulated by the Anti-Monopoly Law, but also clarified the nature of the acts of copyright collective management organizations, and was a timely response to the need to enforce anti-monopoly law. The judgment in this case actively advocated strengthening the appropriate operation of collective management organizations and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the right holders and various operators effectively, which was of great significance for the promotion of the development of the culture industry and the standardization of the market order of fair competition. 10. Crime of copyright infringement: Li Haipeng and other 9 persons. Crime of copyright infringement (Criminal Ruling No. 105 [2020], Final, Criminal Division, Shanghai, of the Higher People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality) [Facts of the Case] A total of 663 products in 47 series, including the ‘Great Wall of China’ assembled toys, are works of art created by LEGO A/S. Based on these works, Lego has produced a series of assembled toys and sold them on the market. LI Haipeng instructed DU Zhihao and others to buy the new Lego series toys. Through reverse engineering by dismantling, computer modeling, copying the drawings, and entrusting others to create moulds, they intentionally duplicated the said Lego assembled building block toys, and labelled them ‘Leping’ for online and offline sales. In the factory leased by the defendant LI Haipeng, the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau found 88 injection moulds, 68 spare parts, 289,411 packaging boxes, 175,141 sets of instructions, more than 50,000 sales orders and 603,875 ‘Leping’ toy products that copied LEGO series. The Copyright Appraisal Committee of the Copyright Protection Center of China (CPCC) then determined that the ‘Leping’ brand toys and atlases were basically the same as those of LEGO Company, which could be regarded as a kind of reproduction of the latter. The third branch of the Shanghai Municipal People’s Procuratorate initiated a public prosecution. The first and second instance courts both held that LI Haipeng, together with YAN Longjun, ZHANG Tao, WANG Peizhen, LU Peifeng, WANG Ruihe, YU Kebin, LI Heng and others, had copied and distributed Lego’s copyrighted works of art for profit without the authorization of the copyright owner, an illegal business amounting to more than RMB 330 million. As one of the distributors, DU Zhihao distributed Lego’s copyrighted works of art without the permission of the copyright owner. The amount of illegal income amounted to more than RMB 6.21 million. The circumstances were particularly serious, and they all constituted the crime of infringing copyright. [Significance of the Case] This case was a typical case of strengthening the crackdown on intellectual property infringement crimes. In application of the relevant laws and regulations, the court sentenced the principal offender LI Haipeng to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of RMB 90 million, and sentenced eight accomplices to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from three to four years and six months, with corresponding fines. This case fully reflected the People’s Court’s intention to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights and the crackdown on IPR infringement crimes. Translated from the Chinese by Hao Lan, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany. Footnotes 1 See the Supreme People’s Court of China in Chinese, 22 April 2021, 15:52:41 <http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-297991.html> accessed 30 May 2021. 2 See in this context also the opinion by Tian Lu in this issue of GRUR International at doi: 10.1093/grurint/ikab163. © Published by OUP and CH Beck on behalf of GRUR e.V. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com and GrurInt@ip.mpg.de This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases and 50 Model Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2020
JF - "GRUR International:GRUR Journal of European and International IP Law (Formerly:Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil)"
DO - 10.1093/grurint/ikac001
DA - 2022-01-29
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/top-ten-intellectual-property-cases-and-50-model-intellectual-property-u4Z4psMBld
SP - 357
EP - 363
VL - 71
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -