Building a world-class intellectual property power with Chinese characteristics is a major strategic deployment made by the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core. The People's Court has always adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, fully implemented the spirit of the Party's 20th National Congress, thoroughly implemented Xi Jinping's rule of law, firmly established the concept that protecting intellectual property rights is protecting innovation, and tried all kinds of knowledge in a fair and efficient manner in accordance with the law. Property rights cases, in promoting the construction of a powerful country in intellectual property rights, serving the overall situation, serving the people's justice, and constantly ensuring Chinese modernization with high-quality.
In order to thoroughly study and implement the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions on intellectual property work, active justice, "grasping the front end, treating diseases", actively exploring the judgment rules and judgment methods that conform to the laws of intellectual property cases, and actively giving full play to the norms of intellectual property judgments Guide the demonstration and leading role, the Supreme People's Court selected and determined eight special guiding cases of intellectual property rights, covering patents, copyrights, integrated circuit layout design, and anti-fighting antitrust and other areas of intellectual property and competition. Respond to social concerns in a timely manner and continuously meet the judicial protection needs of innovative subjects. Among them, the guiding case No. 217 "Cixi Bo a Plastic Products Co., Ltd. v. Yongkang Lian a Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tian a Network Co., Ltd. and other disputes over infringement of utility model patent rights" clearly defines the judicial review rules for the accused infringer to apply for reverse behavior preservation and provide guarantee in intellectual property infringement disputes involving e-commerce platforms. Guiding case No. 218, "Suzhou Sai an Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Yu a Technology Co., Ltd. and other infringement of the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design dispute" clearly defines the nature of the registration of integrated circuit layout design and the rules for determining the originality of the layout design. Guiding case No. 219, "Guangzhou Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd., Jiujiang Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. v. Anhui New Fine Chemical Co., Ltd." clearly determines whether the infringement of intellectual property rights constitutes a serious case and applies the rules for determining punitive damages. Guiding case No. 220 "Jiaxing Zhongmou Chemical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xin New Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wang Group Co., Ltd., Ningbo Wang Technology Co., Ltd. and other disputes over infringement of technical secrets" clearly defines the rules for determining the use of all technical secrets and the calculation rules for the amount of damages in case of intentional infringement. Guiding case No. 221, "Zhang Mouxun v. Yibin Heng Investment Group Co., Ltd., Sichuan Yibin City Wu Mou Building Materials Industry Co., Ltd. and other monopoly disputes", made it clear that the operator involved in the horizontal monopoly agreement to participate in and perform the agreement during the loss is not protected by law. Guiding case No. 222 "Guangzhou de a aquatic equipment technology co., ltd. v. Guangzhou yu a aquatic technology co., ltd. and south a aquatic research institute dispute over compensation for property damages" clearly defines the applicable rules that the registered patentee shall abide by the principle of good faith and have the obligation to safeguard the validity of the patent right in good faith during the dispute over the ownership of the patent right. Guiding case No. 223 "Zhang moulong v. Beijing a butterfly culture communication co., ltd., cheng mou and ma mou's dispute over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works" clearly defines the rules for determining jurisdiction over civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works. Guiding Case No. 224, "A US (Tianjin) Image Technology Co., Ltd. v. Henan A Lu Bee Industry Co., Ltd. for Infringement of the Right to Network Dissemination of Works Information", clarifies that in the case of disputes over copyright ownership, the rule of proof that the copyright ownership of a work cannot be determined only by watermark or statement of rights.
, the people's court will deeply implement Xi Jinping's thought of the rule of law, and provide a solid legal guarantee for speeding up the construction of an intellectual property power, better serving the construction of a new development pattern, and promoting high-quality development with a more fair and efficient intellectual property trial in the new era.
Act [2023] No. 230
Supreme People's Court
Notice on Issuing the 39th Batch of Guiding Cases
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:
After discussion and decision by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, eight cases (Guiding Cases No. 217-224), including Cixi Bomou Plastic Products Co., Ltd. v. Yongkang Lian Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tianmou Network Co., Ltd., are hereby issued as the 39th batch of guiding cases for reference when trying similar cases.
Supreme People's Court
7 December 2023
Guiding Case No. 217
Cixi Bo Mou Plastic Products Co., Ltd. v. Yongkang Lian Mou Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tian Mou Network Co., Ltd., etc. Infringement of Utility Model Patent Dispute
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil Litigation/Infringement of Utility Model Patent Rights/Reverse Act Preservation/Guarantee Amount/Fixed Guarantee/Dynamic Guarantee.
Referee Points
1. In an intellectual property infringement dispute case involving an e-commerce platform, if the accused infringer applies to the people's court for behavior preservation and requests to order the e-commerce platform operator to restore links or services, the people's court shall review it.
2. After the accused infringer has taken measures such as disconnection or suspension of service due to suspected infringement of the patent right, and the patent right involved has been declared invalid but the relevant patent confirmation administrative litigation has not yet ended, the accused infringer applies for taking action preservation measures to restore the link or service. Its preliminary proof or reasonable explanation will lead to irreparable damage such as market competitive advantage and serious loss of business opportunities, if the possible damage to the obligee caused by the adoption of act preservation measures to restore links or services does not exceed the damage caused by the non-adoption of act preservation measures to the alleged infringer, and does not harm the public interest, the people's court may order permission.
3. The People's Court may, by adopting the aforementioned act preservation measures, order the accused infringer not to withdraw a certain amount of money from his collection account for selling the accused infringing product through the e-commerce platform as security before the judgment in this case becomes effective. The amount of security provided shall be reasonably determined by taking into account the amount of compensation claimed by the right holder, the loss that may be caused to the right holder by the mistake of taking protective measures, and the available benefits of the accused infringer after taking protective measures. The guarantee may be in the form of a fixed guarantee plus a dynamic guarantee.
basic case
Cixi bo mou plastic products co., ltd (hereinafter referred to as bo mou company) is the patentee of the utility model patent of "flat mop cleaning tool with new barrel structure" (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved) and "a mop bucket for squeezing and cleaning flat mop" (patent no. hereinafter referred to as 180.2). Bo Company thinks that the mop artifact sold on "Tianmou Network" operated by Yongkang Lian Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lian Company) in Zhejiang Tianmou Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianmou Company) constitutes an infringement of the above two patent rights, therefore, two lawsuits were filed with Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as Ningbo Intermediate People's Court) and another case No. (2019) Zhejiang 02 Zhimin Chu No. 368 (hereinafter referred to as No. 368 case). Ningbo Intermediate People's Court applied for property preservation according to a company in Bo. Each of the two cases froze the balance of Alipay account of a company in 3.16 million yuan. Because Bo Company filed a complaint with Tian Company, Lian Company filed a complaint with Tian Company and issued a Letter of Commitment for Intellectual Property Deposit, agreeing to deposit 1 million yuan deposit in its Alipay account, and agreeing to Alipay Company and Tian Company to freeze all sales revenue of its online store from 22 o'clock on November 10, 2019.
Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of First Instance found that the infringement in this case was established, and ordered a company to stop the infringement and jointly compensate for the losses. Tianmou Company immediately deleted it and disconnected the sales link of the accused infringing products. On the same day, Bo Company once again filed a complaint with Tian Company on the alleged infringing products. Subsequently, Tianmou Company deleted the sales link of the accused infringing product on "Tianmou Network.
A company and others appealed to the Supreme People's Court. In the second instance, the patent rights involved in the case were declared invalid by the State Intellectual Property Office, and Bo said that it would file an administrative lawsuit in this regard. 2020 A company filed an application for reverse behavior preservation with the Supreme People's Court on November 5, 2012, requesting the court to order Tianmou Company to immediately restore the applicant's product sales link on "Tianmou Net. He also said that the accused infringing products are their "explosive products" and "Double Eleven" are coming soon. If the link is not restored, it will suffer irreparable losses. As of the date of the application for the preservation of the act, case No. 368 was still pending in the first instance and the 180 involved. Patent No. 2 is still in effect; the balance of a company's Alipay account has been frozen for a total of 15.6 million yuan, of which 8.28 million yuan is all the sales revenue of its online store from 22: 00 on November 10, 2019, which the company agreed to freeze.
Referee Results
The Supreme People's Court issued a civil ruling (2020) No. 993 on November 6, 2020: First, Tianmou Company immediately restored the sales link of the accused infringing products on the "Tianmou Net" shopping platform; Second, freeze the balance of Alipay account under the name of a company in 6.32 million yuan until the effective date of the judgment in this case. Three, from the date of restoration of the sales link of the accused infringing product to the date of entry into force of the judgment in this case, if 50% of the total sales of the accused infringing product exceeds 6.32 million yuan after the restoration of the link by a company, 50% of the excess sales shall be kept in its Alipay account and shall not be withdrawn.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that:
I. Regarding whether a company, as the alleged infringer, has the subject qualification to file an application for the preservation of the act.
e-commerce platform operators have the legal obligation to take necessary measures such as deletion, blocking, disconnection, and termination of transactions and services when they receive a notice from the intellectual property right holder containing preliminary evidence of infringement. As for the circumstances under which e-commerce platform operators can take measures such as restoring links at the application of platform operators, there are no relevant provisions in my country's laws. The applicant for the act preservation measures stipulated in Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law is not limited to the plaintiff. In disputes involving intellectual property infringement on e-commerce platforms, operators on the platform who are accused of infringement are allowed to apply for behavior preservation under the conditions stipulated in Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law, and e-commerce platform operators are required to take behavior preservation measures such as restoring links. It is of great significance to reasonably balance the legitimate interests of intellectual property rights holders, e-commerce platform operators and platform operators, and promote the healthy development of the e-commerce market.
, due to patent rights and other intellectual property rights obtained through administrative authorization, in the process of civil infringement litigation, the rights may be declared invalid, administrative litigation and other procedures, and the operating conditions of the operators in the platform may also change significantly in the process of litigation. At this time, due to the emergency of the situation, the operators on the platform will cause irreparable damage to their legitimate interests if they do not restore the link. If they apply to the people's court for behavior preservation and require the e-commerce platform operators to take behavior preservation measures such as restoring the link, the people's court It should be accepted and reviewed in accordance with Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations. In this case, the patent involved in the case was declared invalid by the State Intellectual Property Office in the second instance, and its validity was uncertain because the right holder was about to file an administrative lawsuit. A company that acts as a link to the deleted product has the subject qualification to file an application for the preservation of the act of restoring the link.
2. on whether preservation measures should be taken to restore the link in this case.
should mainly consider the following factors in determining whether to take preservation measures to restore the link upon the application of the alleged infringer: whether the applicant's request has a factual and legal basis; whether non-restoration of the link will cause irreparable damage to the applicant; whether the possible damage to the patentee caused by the restoration of the link will exceed the damage to the alleged infringer; whether the restoration of the link will harm the public interest; whether there are other situations where it is not appropriate to restore the link. Specific to this case:
(I) whether the request of a company has a factual and legal basis. This case is a dispute over the patent right of utility model. The authorization of utility model patents in China has not been examined in substance, and its right stability is weak. In order to balance the interests of the patentee and the interests of competitors and the public, and to maintain a normal and orderly network operating environment, when the patentee requires the operator of the e-commerce platform to delete the product sales link suspected of infringing the patent right of the utility model, the patent evaluation report made by the patent administrative department shall be submitted. If the patentee fails to submit it without justifiable reasons, the operator of the e-commerce platform may refuse to delete the link, except where the court finds infringement after hearing. In this case, Tianmou Company promptly deleted the sales link of the accused infringing product after the original trial court determined that the infringement was established, but the patent rights involved in the second instance have been declared invalid by the State Intellectual Property Office due to lack of novelty. An administrative lawsuit is about to be filed, and the validity of the patent is in an uncertain state. As a result of this lawsuit and the No. 368 case, as of November 5, 2020, the balance of Alipay account was frozen by a total of 15.6 million yuan, which seriously affected the normal production and operation. In this case, the company's request to restore the product link has factual and legal basis.
whether (II) not to restore the link would cause irreparable harm to the applicant. In the intellectual property infringement dispute involving e-commerce platform, deleting, blocking and disconnecting the commodity sales link will not only make the commodity unable to be sold on the e-commerce platform, but also affect the accumulated visits, search weight and account rating of the commodity before, thus reducing the market competitive advantage of the operators in the platform. Therefore, the determination of "irreparable damage" should consider whether there is one of the following situations: 1. Whether the applicant's personal rights such as goodwill will be irreparably damaged if the act preservation measures are not taken; 2. Whether the failure to take protective measures would result in a serious loss of the applicant's competitive advantage in the market or business opportunities, resulting in the possibility of claiming monetary compensation even if the link was deleted by mistake, but the loss is so large or so complex that it is impossible to accurately calculate its amount.
In this case, the accused infringing products were mainly sold through the online store of a company involved in the case on "Tianmou", and according to the facts found out in the original trial, the cumulative sales volume of the accused infringing products on November 13, 2019 was 283693. On December 4, 2019, the cumulative sales volume when the original court organized the parties to exchange evidence was 352996; on January 13, 2020, the cumulative sales volume at the original trial was 594347. On the one hand, it shows that the sales volume of the accused infringing products is large, on the other hand, it also shows that the cumulative number of visits and search weight are large, and the disconnection of sales links has a greater impact on its online sales interests. Especially in the "double eleven" and other specific sales time, whether to restore the link will have a great impact on the business interests of the accused infringer. In the case that the validity of the patent right involved in the case is in an uncertain state, through the restoration of link behavior preservation measures, the operators in the platform can operate normally at specific sales opportunities such as "Double Eleven", which can avoid irreparable damage to their interests.
(III) whether the possible damage to the patentee caused by restoring the link would outweigh the damage caused by not restoring the link to the alleged infringer. Although the alleged infringing products and the patented products involved are similar products, there are many similar products on the market, which will not cause Bo's patented products to be completely replaced due to the restoration of links. Moreover, the court has taken into account the losses that may be brought to Bo Company due to the restoration of the link, and will freeze the corresponding amount of the Alipay account of Lian Company and some of the benefits that will continue to be sold after the restoration of the link. Lian Company has also explicitly agreed. In this case, compared with the impact of not restoring the link on the normal operation of a company, the restoration of the link may cause less damage to Bo.
(IV) whether the restoration of links will harm the public interest. In patent infringement disputes, the public interest generally considers public health, environmental protection and other major social interests. The infringing product sued in this case is a mop bucket used in the daily life of the family. Whether the important factors considered when restoring the link will affect public health and environmental protection, especially whether it will cause undue damage to the personal property of consumers, However, there is no evidence in this case that the accused infringing product has the above-mentioned situation that may harm the public interest.
(V) whether there are other situations where it is not appropriate to restore the link. In addition to being suspected of infringing the patent right involved, the infringing product sued in this case is also suspected of infringing the patent No. 180.2 of Bo Company in case No. 368, and the patent No. 180.2 is still in effect. But first of all, the 368 case is still in the first instance trial, whether the accused infringing product is infringing, whether the existing technical defense is established is still uncertain. Secondly, in the 368 case, Bo's claim for compensation for losses has been protected by property preservation measures to freeze the balance of 3.16 million yuan in the Alipay account of a company. Third, in determining the amount of the act preservation guarantee in this case, the circumstances of case No. 368 have been taken into account, as appropriate, to increase the amount of the guarantee of a company and to freeze the portion of the benefits that the company will continue to sell after the resumption of the link. Since this act preservation measure is a lawsuit against this case, the amount of guarantee is frozen until the effective date of the judgment of this case. At that time, if case No. 368 is still under trial, Bo Company can protect its legitimate rights and interests by applying for act preservation and other measures in this case, and the court will decide whether to take act preservation measures according to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, there is no situation in which it is difficult to guarantee the rights of Bo Company in respect of Patent No. 180.2. The fact that the accused infringing product is also involved in the lawsuit for suspected infringement of patent 180.2 does not affect the adoption of protective measures for the act in this case.
3.
acts should be both reasonable and effective. It is necessary to consider the damage that may be caused to the respondent after the implementation of the act preservation measures, and to prevent the excessive amount of guarantee from causing unreasonable effects on the applicant's production and operation. In patent infringement disputes involving e-commerce platforms, the determination of the amount of guarantee for link restoration preservation measures should, on the one hand, consider the damage that may be caused to the obligee after link restoration, and ensure that the obligee's right to claim compensation separately for the damage is fully protected; On the other hand, the applicant's available benefits after link restoration should be reasonably determined to avoid unreasonable freezing of excessive sales revenue affecting its capital return and subsequent operations. In this case, Bo Company demanded the accused infringer to compensate 3.16 million yuan for economic losses in this case and case No. 368. The original court has taken property preservation measures. However, considering the large amount of sales of the accused infringing products before the link is deleted, the restoration of the link may lead to the expansion of losses of Bo Mou Company and other factors, in order to protect the interests of the patentee to the maximum extent, the amount of guarantee will be determined based on the compensation claims of Bo Mou Company in the two cases and the available benefits of the company after the link is restored. In view of the fact that the available benefits of a company will increase with the sale of products, in addition to the fixed guarantee, the dynamic guarantee will be increased in this case. As the sales revenue of a company also contains costs, management expenses, etc., in order to prevent the excessive guarantee amount from causing unreasonable impact on the production and operation of a company, the dynamic guarantee fund is determined as 50% of the sales of a company, taking into account the contribution rate of patents involved in this case and case No. 368.
Related Laws
Article 103 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law (as amended in 2023) (Article 100 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law as amended in 2017 is applicable in this case)
Guiding Case No. 218
Suzhou Saimou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Yumou Technology Co., Ltd. and others for infringement of the exclusive right of layout design of integrated circuits
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil/Infringement of integrated circuit layout design exclusive rights/registration/protection object/protection scope/originality.
Referee Points
1. The purpose of the registration of a layout-design of an integrated circuit is to identify the object of protection and not to disclose the content of the design. Disclosure of the contents of the layout design is not a condition for obtaining exclusive rights to the layout design of integrated circuits.
2. The scope of protection of the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design can generally be determined on the basis of the copy or drawing of the layout design submitted at the time of application for registration. For the layout design content that cannot be identified from the copy or pattern, it can be determined according to the sample that is consistent with the copy or pattern.
3. Obtaining the registration of an integrated circuit layout design does not necessarily mean that the content of the registered layout design is original, and the right holder should still make a reasonable explanation or explanation of the originality of the layout design for which he claims rights. If the alleged infringer is unable to provide sufficient counter-evidence to reverse the interpretation or explanation, the layout-design concerned may be determined to be original.
basic case
Suzhou Saimou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Saimou Company) applied for registration of an integrated circuit layout design named "Lithium Battery Protection Chip with Single Chip Negative Electrode Protection for Integrated Controller and Switch Tube" on April 22, 2012, and announced on June 8, 2012. The exclusive right to the layout design of the integrated circuit is still in effect. The chips that were not licensed, copied and sold by Shenzhen Zhun Electronics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhun Electronics Co., Ltd., which has been canceled) are essentially the same as the layout design of the integrated circuit involved. Shenzhen Yumou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yumou Company) will issue invoices on behalf of a company's sales behavior. When the alleged infringement occurred, Hu Mouhuan was the sole shareholder of a company, holding 51% of the shares of Yu Mou and serving as the legal representative of the two companies at the same time. After a certain Huan, he transferred the shares of a company to Huang Moudong and Huang Mouliang. During the first instance litigation, Huang Moudong and Huang Mouliang canceled a company.
Sai a company believes that quasi-a company, Yu a company jointly violated the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design involved, Hu a Huan, Huang a east, Huang a bright should be aimed at a company to bear joint and several liability. Therefore, the lawsuit went to the court to request an order to stop the infringement, Yu a company, Hu a Huan, Huang a east, Huang a bright joint compensation for economic losses.
Referee Results
The Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province issued a civil judgment (2015) Shen Zhong Fa Zhimin Chuzi No. 1106 on June 19, 2019: 1. Yu Company shall compensate Sai Company for economic losses within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment. 500000 yuan; 2. Hu Mouhuan, Huang Moudong, and Huang Mouliang are jointly and severally liable for the above compensation amount; the 3. rejected the remaining claims of Sai Mou Company. After the sentence was pronounced, Yu Mou Company, Hu Mou Huan, Huang Mou Dong and Huang Mou Liang appealed to the Supreme People's Court. On October 16, 2020, the Supreme People's Court issued (2019) Civil Judgment No. 490 of the Supreme People's Court: the original judgment was upheld and the appeal was rejected.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that:
1. on whether the scope of protection of the layout design involved can be determined by sample section.
1. Whether paper and samples of copies or drawings can be used to determine the scope of protection of the layout design. At the time of registration of the layout design, the materials submitted to the registration department contain the contents of the layout design: paper copies or drawings, electronic versions of copies or drawings, samples. Among them, the paper copy or drawing must be submitted; the sample is submitted when the layout design has been put into commercial use; the electronic version of the copy or drawing is submitted on a voluntary basis, and it is specifically required that the electronic document should contain all the information of the layout design and indicate the data format of the document. It can be seen that the paper copy or drawing is the document that must be submitted to obtain registration. In determining the scope of protection of the layout design, it should generally be based on the paper copy or drawing. With the development of the semiconductor industry, layout design can complete more complex layout design on a smaller semiconductor substrate, and its integration is greatly improved. Even if, in accordance with Article 14 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Design, "the paper copy or pattern is at least 20 times larger than the integrated circuit produced by the layout design", there are still cases where the paper magnification of the copy or pattern is not sufficient to fully and clearly reflect the contents of the layout design. At this time, on the premise that the sample is consistent with the paper of the copy or pattern, the sample can be sectioned to accurately restore the detailed information of the layout design contained in the chip sample by technical means, extract the three-dimensional configuration information therein, and determine the unrecognizable layout design details in the paper to determine the content of the layout design.
2. Whether the scope of protection can be determined only by what has been made public at the time of registration. Unlike the patent law, which adopts the system design of public exchange for protection of inventions and creations, the protection of layout designs in the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Design is not conditional on the right holder's disclosure of the layout design. When the State Intellectual Property Office examines the registration of layout designs, the requirement for paper is to enlarge it to at least 20 times, and the requirement for electronic versions is to contain all the information of layout designs. After the registration announcement, the public can request to consult the paper, and the confidential information involved in the layout design paper that has been put into commercial use shall not be consulted or copied except for the needs of infringement litigation or administrative procedures; for the electronic version, no one shall consult or copy it except for the needs of infringement litigation or administrative procedures. From the above provisions, it can be seen that there is no requirement for unconditional full disclosure to the public, whether during the registration process or after the registration announcement, for the electronic version containing all the information of the layout design and the confidential information in the layout design paper that has been put into commercial use.
adopt a special law model for the protection of layout designs. The protection of layout designs does not adopt similar patent protection rules for inventions, that is, it is not through the registration of the disclosure of the contents of the layout design in exchange for exclusive rights. At the same time, the regulations on the protection of layout-design and copyright law on the protection of works is not exactly the same. The registration of a layout design is a process of determining the object of protection and a condition for obtaining exclusive rights to the layout design, not a process of disclosing the contents of the layout design, nor is it a process of obtaining exclusive rights protection by disclosing the layout design as a consideration.
2. on whether the layout design involved is original
on the originality of the layout design. First of all, the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design protects the components and three-dimensional configuration of integrated circuits, and does not extend to ideas. At the functional level of the layout design, no protection is given due to the three-dimensional configuration of components and lines. Under this level, the embodiment of originality is gradually enhanced, and the distribution and arrangement of components, the interconnection between components, the relationship between information flow and the combination effect can be protected. Secondly, the protected originality should be able to perform a certain electronic function relatively independently. The originality of a protected layout design can be embodied in any part of the layout design that has originality, or in the layout design as a whole. Any original part of the layout design is protected by law, regardless of whether it occupies a major part in the overall design and whether it can achieve the core performance of the overall design. If a layout design is a combination of accepted conventional designs, the combination as a whole should be original. At the same time, if the right holder proposes an original part, the part should be able to perform a certain electronic function relatively independently. Again, originality is a prerequisite for the protection of the layout design. The originality of the layout design contains two meanings: the design is completed by oneself; It does not belong to the conventional design recognized at the time of creation. In a tort action, when the accused infringer objects to the originality of the layout design, the people's court shall determine the originality of the layout design on the basis of the claims of both parties and the evidence submitted. For the exclusive right holder to choose the original part of the layout design, the original judgment around the part proposed by the right holder should be carried out one by one from two levels: first, the protected layout design belongs to the three-dimensional configuration of components and circuits for the purpose of performing certain electronic functions, otherwise it cannot be protected by the exclusive right of layout design. Second, the three-dimensional configuration contained in the above part is not a recognized conventional design at the time of its creation.
the right holder can explain the original part when proposing the original part. The original explanation of the right holder may be the generalization or abstraction of the original part from different angles, but it may not necessarily include the description of the three-dimensional configuration content. However, when judging the originality of the part specified by the above-mentioned right holder, it should be based on the original explanation of the right holder, the specific three-dimensional configuration of the components and lines contained in the part specified by the right holder is taken as the judgment object.
In the process of proving the originality of the part proposed by the right holder, the whole or any part of the layout design cannot be regarded as original by registration. However, for the proof of originality, the burden of proof on the right holder should not be excessively increased, requiring him to exhaust all means to prove the originality of the layout design. Relatively speaking, the accused infringer can overturn the original part of the right holder's claim as long as he can provide a conventional layout design that has been made public. Therefore, the distribution of the burden of proof for originality should fully consider the characteristics of IC layout design, the current registration status of IC layout design in China, the ability of proof of both parties and other factors, based on the originality part proposed by the obligee, first require the obligee to fully explain or initially prove the originality part of his claim, and then the accused infringer does not have originality to provide contrary evidence, in comprehensive consideration of the above facts, judgment based on evidence.
Related Laws
Article 4, paragraph 1, Article 8 of the Regulations on the Protection of Topodesigns of Integrated Circuits
Guiding Case No. 219
Guangzhou Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. and Jiujiang Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. v. Anhui New Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and other cases of infringement of technical secrets
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil/Infringement of Technical Secrets/Infringement of Intellectual Property for Industry/Punitive Damages/Damages Amount.
Referee Points
1. When judging whether the infringement of intellectual property rights constitutes a serious case and punitive damages are applicable, it can comprehensively consider whether the accused infringer takes the infringement of intellectual property rights as his business, whether he is subject to criminal or administrative punishment, whether it constitutes repeated infringement, whether there is evidence in the litigation Obstructing behavior, as well as the loss caused by the infringement or the amount of infringement profit, the scale of infringement, the duration of infringement and other factors.
2. If the perpetrator knows that his behavior constitutes an infringement, has actually committed the infringement and constitutes his main business, it can be deemed as infringing intellectual property rights. For the infringement of intellectual property rights as the industry, long-term, large-scale implementation of infringement, according to law from the high or even top of the application of punitive compensation multiples to determine the amount of damages.
basic case
On June 6, 2000, Guangzhou Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou Tianmou Company) was registered and established. On October 30, 2007, Jiujiang Tianmou High-tech Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiujiang Tianmou Company) was registered and established. The sole shareholder is Guangzhou Tianmou Company. Two days later, a company submitted two authorizations to prove the existence of a licensing relationship between the two. The first power of attorney was issued on September 30, 2008. It is recorded that the production technology and intellectual property rights of carbomer products independently developed by Guangzhou Tianmou Company are hereby granted to Jiujiang Tianmou Company for free use. The authorization period is 10 years, from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2018. During the authorization period, Jiujiang Tianmou Company has the right to use the technology, and its rights include but are not limited to: using the technology to produce, manufacture, and sell products, using the technology to improve its current industrial processes, and follow-up on the technological achievements Improve to form new technological achievements, etc. Without the written consent and confirmation of both parties, Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company shall not grant the technology to any other unit or individual for use. After the expiration of the authorization, the right to use the grant will be returned to Guangzhou Tianmou Company. The second authorization was issued on September 15, 2018, and the authorization period is from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2028. The authorization content is the same as the first authorization. The product involved in this case is Carbomer, also known as Carbomer (Carbomer), Chinese alias polyacrylic acid, carboxyl vinyl copolymer, and the neutralized Carbomer is an excellent gel matrix and is widely used in emulsions, creams and gels.
On August 29, 2011, Anhui New Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anhui New Company) was registered and established. At the time of its establishment, the legal representative was Liu, and then the legal representative was changed to Wu and Liu's capital contribution ratio was 70%.
Hua joined Guangzhou Tianmou Company on March 30, 2004 and left on November 8, 2013. On December 30, 2007, Hua mou successively signed the "labor contract" and "commercial confidentiality", "competition restriction agreement", "employee handbook", "special training agreement" and other documents with Guangzhou tianmou company from day to resignation, and made agreements on the confidentiality obligation and competition restriction of trade secrets. Zhu Mouliang and Hu Mouchun once worked in Guangzhou Tianmou Company. During their tenure, they signed "Labor Contract", "Commercial Confidentiality, Competition Restriction Agreement", and "Commercial Technology Confidentiality Agreement" with Guangzhou Tianmou Company. From 2012 to 2013, Hua took advantage of his identity as the head of Kapo product research and development to ask Li Moumou, director of the production workshop of Jiujiang Tianmou Company, for the drawings of the reactor and dryer equipment of Kapo production process technology on the grounds of writing papers, which also violated the management system of Guangzhou Tianmou Company, many times from its Guangzhou Tianmou company's office computer to copy the card production project process equipment data to external storage media. After Hua illegally obtained the production process information from a company's Cabo production technology for two days, the original drawings and documents of Cabo production technology of a company in two days were sent to Liu, Zhu, Hu and others by means of U disk copy or e-mail, and Hua, Liu, Zhu and Hu discussed the use of the original drawings of Cabo production technology of a company in two days. In the process, both Hu mouchun and Zhu mouliang proposed whether they would infringe the relevant rights of a company in Jiujiang day. Hua mou asked Hu mouchun to design the production process of a company in Anhui province according to the original drawing of the production process technology of a company in two days, and told Hu mouchun not to do exactly the same as a company in two days. Therefore, Hu Mouchun revised the Cabo process design drawing of Guangzhou Tianmou Company according to the requirements of Zhaohua. Finally, he entrusted the revised drawing to Hefei Branch of Shandong Engineering Design Co., Ltd., entrusted Jiangsu Machinery Co., Ltd. to manufacture the reactor, and ordered the same crushing machinery and equipment as that of the company in two days to a powder machinery manufacturing company in Shanghai, which has a cooperative relationship with the company in two days, then entrust a mixing equipment co., ltd. in Wuxi, Jiangsu province to design the assembly drawing according to the technical scheme of a machinery co., ltd. in Jiangsu province, and then produce the mixer according to the assembly drawing.
Starting from 2014 at the latest, a company in Anhui New will use the Cabo production process and equipment technology illegally obtained by Hua from a company in two days to produce Cabo products, and sell them to domestic and foreign companies, with a sales scope of more than 20 countries and regions. The production of Cabo products is the main business of a company in New Anhui, and there is no evidence that it also produces other products. In January 2018, Liu, the former legal representative of a company in Anhui Province, was investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of infringing trade secrets. Under the circumstances that the relevant criminal judgment has found that Hua and Liu have committed acts of infringing upon the technical secrets of the obligee, Anhui New company has not stopped the infringement. According to relevant evidence, a company in Anhui New has continued to sell Capo products since 2014 until August 2019.
Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company sued the court in 2017 on the grounds that Anhui New Company, Hua Mou, Liu Mou, Hu Mouchun and Zhu Mouliang infringed on their Cabo technical secrets, requesting an order to order the defendants to stop the infringement, compensate for the losses and apologize.
Referee Results
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court issued (2017) Yue 73 Civil Judgment No. 2163 at the beginning of the Republic of China on July 19, 2019: 1. Hua, Liu, Hu Mouchun, Zhu Mouliang and Anhui New Company immediately stopped infringing upon the technical secrets involved in the case of Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company and destroyed the process data recording the technical secrets involved in the case. 2. A company in New Anhui shall, within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company for economic losses of 30 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 400000 yuan. Hua, Liu, Hu Mouchun and Zhu Mouliang shall bear joint and several liability for the above compensation amounts within the range of 5 million yuan and 1 million yuan respectively. 3. Reject other claims of Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Guangzhou Tianmou Company, Jiujiang Tianmou Company, Anhui New Company, Hua Mou, and Liu Mou appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
issued (2019) Civil Judgment No. 562 of the Supreme Law of the People's Republic of China on November 24, 2020: First, the first and third civil judgments of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2017) Guangdong 73 Minchu 2163 were upheld. II. Item 2 of Civil Judgment No. 2163 of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2017) is changed as follows: within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, a company in New Anhui Province shall compensate Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company for economic losses of 30 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 400000 yuan. Hua, Liu, Hu and Zhu shall bear joint and several liabilities within the range of 5 million yuan, 30 million yuan and 1 million yuan respectively. 3. Reject other appeals from Guangzhou Tianmou Company and Jiujiang Tianmou Company. 4. Reject the appeals of Hua, Liu and Anhui New Company. After the verdict was pronounced in the second instance, Anhui New Company, Hua and Liu filed an application for retrial to the Supreme People's Court.
On October 12, 2021, the Supreme People's Court issued (2021) Civil Ruling No. 4025 of the Supreme People's Court: Reject the retrial applications of Hua, Liu and Anhui New.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law) stipulates that the amount of compensation for operators who have suffered damage due to unfair competition shall be based on them. The actual loss suffered by the infringement is determined; if the actual loss is difficult to calculate, it shall be determined according to the benefits obtained by the infringer due to the infringement. If an operator maliciously violates trade secrets and the circumstances are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined in accordance with the above-mentioned methods to determine the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation shall also include the reasonable expenses paid by the operator to stop the infringement.
in this case, the actual loss of a company in two days can not be found out, so according to the identified part of the sales of a company in Anhui New, calculated its infringement profit. The process, process and some equipment of the Capo products produced by a company in New Anhui violated the technical secrets of a company in two days, but its Capo formula was not found to have infringed the technical secrets of a company in two days. When determining the profit from infringement, the court of first instance did not consider the role of the technical secrets involved in the production of Cabo, nor did it fully consider the role of other production factors except the technical secret information involved in the production process of Cabo products. Based on the sales volume of more than 3700 million yuan admitted by a company in Anhui, multiplied by 32.26 gross profit margin of fine chemical industry, the partial infringement profit that a company in Anhui can verify was nearly 12 million yuan. Considering the role of the infringed technical secrets in the production process of Capo products, the contribution degree of the technical secrets involved is determined to be 50% as appropriate. Therefore, the infringement profit of a company in Anhui New is determined to be 6 million yuan. With regard to the choice of profit margin, since Anhui New Company did not provide the original accounting vouchers, account books, profit statements and evidence to prove the profit margin of its Capo products according to the court's requirements, it should bear the adverse legal consequences of evidence, so it determined the profit margin of its products according to the gross profit margin of the fine chemical industry published in the annual report of Guangzhou Tianmou Company.
Although a company in Anhui Province submitted a business license and other evidence to the court at the second instance stage to prove that its business scope is not only the production of Capo products. However, the business scope recorded in the business license is the choice of a company in New Anhui when it applies for registration, and its actual business scope may be either larger or smaller than the business scope recorded in the business license. And according to the facts that have been ascertained, Anhui New Company does not produce any other products other than Capo products, and Anhui New Company has not further proved the fact that it produces any other products other than Capo products. In this case, Hua's alleged infringement of disclosure of technical secrets occurred between 2012 and 2013. A company in New Anhui used the Capo production process and equipment technology illegally obtained by Hua from a company in two days to produce Capo products and sell them at home and abroad. In addition, a company in Anhui clearly stated that the Capo products it produces are all produced by the same equipment. To define whether the perpetrator is in the business of infringement can be judged from both subjective and objective aspects. On the objective side, the perpetrator has actually committed the infringement, and it is the main business of the company, which constitutes the main source of profit; from the subjective side, the perpetrator, including the actual controller and management of the company, knows that his behavior constitutes infringement and still implements it. In this case, the behavior of a company in Anhui and Liu and others is such a situation.
Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates the conditions for the award of punitive damages and the range of multiple punitive damages. It can be seen that if the operator has maliciously infringed upon the trade secrets of others and the circumstances are serious, the right holder may request the infringer to bear the corresponding multiple of the amount of punitive damages. Therefore, this case should determine whether punitive damages are applicable on the basis of judging whether there is malicious infringement and whether the circumstances are serious. According to the facts that have been ascertained in this case, since its establishment, a company in New Anhui Province has been engaged in the production of Capo products. Although it argues that it also produces other products, it has not submitted evidence to support it, and although the names of the Capo products it produces are different, they are all processed by the same set of equipment. In addition, when Liu, his former legal representative, was investigated for criminal responsibility for the crime of infringing trade secrets and was found to have committed an act of infringing upon the technical secrets of the obligee, Anhui New Company still did not stop production, and its sales scope reached more than 20 countries and regions. At the same time, he refused to provide relevant accounting books and original documents without justifiable reasons at the original trial stage of the case, which constituted an obstruction of proof, which showed the profound subjective intention of infringement, the seriousness of the infringement. In view of the fact that the alleged infringement in this case crossed around April 23, 2019 when the Anti-Unfair Competition Law was amended and implemented, a company in New Anhui refused to provide financial account books and other information, which constituted an obstacle to proof. The identified infringement profit was based on the company's self-admitted sales, and only part of its infringement profit; the infringer did not submit evidence in this case to prove the specific profit before and after the law was amended, as a result, it is impossible to carry out segmented calculation based on April 23, 2019; the existing evidence shows that a company in New Anhui did not stop the infringement after the first instance judgment, and its behavior is continuous, and its infringement scale is huge and lasts for a long time. In view of this, it is objectively difficult to calculate the amount of compensation in sections based on the evidence on file. The original intention of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to establish a punitive compensation system is to strengthen legal deterrence, combat malicious serious infringements, deter and deter future or potential infringers, effectively protect innovative activities, and deal with long-term malicious infringement activities. Therefore, the amount of damages in this case can be determined from the high level based on the identified infringement profits of a company in New Anhui.
Related Laws
Article 17 (3) of the Law of the People's Republic of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition (as amended on April 23, 2019)
Guiding Case No. 220
Jiaxing Zhongmou Chemical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinmou New Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wang Group Co., Ltd., Ningbo Wang Technology Co., Ltd. and other disputes over infringement of technical secrets
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil/infringement of technical secrets/use of all technical secrets/intentional infringement of technical secrets/amount of damages.
Referee Points
1. If the obligee proves that the accused infringer has illegally obtained complete technical secrets such as product process flow and complete sets of production equipment and has actually produced the same product, the people's court may determine that the accused infringer has used all the technical secrets, except where the accused infringer provides contrary evidence sufficient to overturn it.
2. If the accused infringer constitutes an intentional infringement of technical secrets, the people's court may calculate the amount of damages on the basis of the sales profit of the accused infringer's relevant products; if the sales profit is difficult to determine, the amount of damages may be calculated on the basis of the sales price and profit margin of the obligee's relevant products multiplied by the quantity of the accused infringer's relevant products.
basic case
Jiaxing Zhongmou Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiaxing Zhongmou Chemical Co., Ltd.) is a major vanillin manufacturer in the world and has strong technical advantages. Shanghai Xin New Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Xin Company) was established on November 5, 1999. Its business scope covers technical services, technical consultation, technology development, technology transfer and new product development in the professional fields of biology and chemical industry. Since 2002, a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin have jointly developed a new process for the preparation of vanillin by the glyoxylic acid method, including condensation, neutralization, oxidation, decarboxylation and other reaction processes, as well as the recycling process of guaiacol, toluene, copper oxide and ethanol. The technical secrets claimed by a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin include six secret points. The above-mentioned technical secret carriers are 287 equipment drawings (including main drawings and component drawings) involving 58 non-standard equipment, and 25 process pipeline and instrument flow diagrams (3rd edition). The "Technology Development Contract", "Technology Transfer Contract" and "Special Contract on Long-term Cooperation of Enterprises" signed between a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin all have confidentiality clauses.
Fu Mougen has been working in a chemical company in Jiaxing since 1991 and has been the deputy director of vanillin workshop since 2008, mainly responsible for the maintenance of vanillin production equipment. Since 2003, a chemical company in Jiaxing has developed document control procedures, record control procedures, food safety, quality and environmental management manuals, equipment/facilities management procedures and other documents. A chemical company in Jiaxing trained its employees on its internal management regulations. Fu Mougen participated in management system training, environmental management system training, publicity and education training, and standard implementation training in 2007. On March 25, 2010, a chemical company in Jiaxing formulated the "Archives and Information Management Security and Confidentiality System". Since April 2010, a chemical company in Jiaxing has signed confidentiality agreements with its employees one after another, stipulating the scope of trade secrets and the confidentiality obligations of employees. Fu refused to sign the confidentiality agreement on the grounds that he intended to resign.
Wang Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wang Group Co., Ltd.) was established on June 8, 1995. Its business scope is the research and development and production of food additive potassium sorbate, the manufacture and sales of chemical products (except hazardous chemicals), etc. Wang serves as a supervisor. Ningbo Wangmou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wangmou Technology Company) was established on October 21, 2009. Wang Moujun served as the legal representative and was jointly funded by Wang Moujun and Wang Group Company. Ningbo Wangmou Flavor & Fragrance Co., Ltd. was established on November 20, 2015. It was established by Wangmou Technology Company with an investment of 80 million yuan in kind. Its business scope is the research and development and production of practical flavors and fragrances (food additives). Vanillin, Wang Moujun is the legal representative. In 2017, the enterprise name of Ningbo Wang mou flavor and fragrance co., ltd was changed to a fu lion king mou flavor (Ningbo) co., ltd (hereinafter referred to as a fu lion king mou company).
around the Spring Festival in 2010, Feng Mouyi, Fu Mougen and Fei Mouliang began to discuss and seek trading opportunities for vanillin production technology. On April 12 of the same year, the three went to Wang mou group company to discuss with Wang mou army the technical cooperation of vanillin production. Jiaxing zhi mou engineering technology consulting co., ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiaxing zhi mou company) was taken as party a, and vanillin branch factory of Wang mou group company was taken as party B to sign the vanillin technical cooperation agreement. On the same day, Wang Mou Group Company issued a bank draft of 1 million yuan to Jiaxing Zhi Mou Company. Feng Mou Yi withdrew 1 million yuan's cash cheque after endorsement transfer, from which he paid Fu Mou Gen 400000 yuan and Fei Mou Liang 240000 yuan. Later, Fu Mougen handed over a U disk to Feng Mouyi, which contained 200 drawings of vanillin production equipment, 14 flow charts of process pipelines and instruments, list of main equipment and other technical data, which Feng Mouyi handed over to Wang Moujun. On April 15 of the same year, Fu Mougen submitted his resignation report to a chemical company in Jiaxing. In May of the same year, Fu Mougen resigned from a chemical company in Jiaxing. He immediately joined Feng Mouyi and Fei Mouliang to work in vanillin workshop of Wang Mou Technology Company. On March 15, 2011, the Environmental Protection Bureau of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province approved the environmental impact report of construction projects such as the production of vanillin by Wang Technology Company, and approved the annual output of vanillin to 5000 tons. Wang a technology company began to produce vanillin on the 6th of the same year. Since its establishment, a company has continued to use Wang Technology Company as an equity-funded vanillin production equipment to produce vanillin.
In 2018, a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai filed a lawsuit with the Zhejiang Higher People's Court, arguing that Wang Group Company, Wang Technology Company, Fu Lion Wang Company, Fu Mougen and Wang Moujun infringed upon their vanillin technology secrets.
Referee Results
Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court issued (2018) Zhejiang Minchu No. 25 civil judgment on April 24, 2020: 1. Wang Group Company, Wang Technology Company, Fu Lion Wang Company and Fu Mougen immediately stopped infringing on the technical secrets involved, I .e. stopped obtaining, disclosing, using and allowing others to use the technical secrets recorded in the equipment diagram and process pipeline and instrument flow chart by improper means; the period of cessation of infringement shall continue until the technical secrets involved are known to the public. 2. Wang Mou Group Company, Wang Mou Technology Company and Fu Mou Gen shall jointly and severally compensate a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin for economic losses of 3 million yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 500000 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, totaling 3.5 million yuan. A company of Fu Lion King shall be jointly and severally liable for 7% of them, namely 245000 yuan. The 3. rejected other claims of a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin. With the exception of Wang Moujun, all parties involved in this case refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
On February 19, 2021, the Supreme People's Court issued (2020) Civil Judgment No. 1667 of the Supreme Law Zhimin Zhong: 1. revoked Civil Judgment No. 25 of Zhejiang Higher People's Court (2018) Zhejiang Minchu. 2. Wang mou group company, Wang mou science and technology company, fu mou-gen company, fu mou-gen company and Wang mou-jun immediately stopped infringing on the technical secrets of a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin, I .e. stopped obtaining, disclosing, using and allowing others to use the technical secrets recorded in the involved equipment diagram and process pipeline and instrument flow chart by improper means, and the time for stopping the infringement lasted until the technical secrets involved. until it is known to the public. 3. Wang Mou Group Company, Wang Mou Technology Company, Fu Mou Gen and Wang Mou Jun shall jointly and severally compensate a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin for economic losses of 155829455.20 yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 3492216 yuan, totaling 159321671.20 yuan, within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment. A Fu Shiwang company shall be jointly and severally liable for 7% of them, namely 11152516.98 yuan. The 4. rejected other claims of a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin. The 5. rejected the appeals of Wang mou group company, Wang mou technology company, fu lion king company and fu mougen. After the verdict was pronounced in the second instance, Wang Group Company, Wang Technology Company, Fu Lion Wang Company, Fu Mougen, and Wang Moujun refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial.
The Supreme People's Court issued (2021) Civil Ruling No. 3890 on October 19, 2021: Reject the retrial application of Wang Group Company, Wang Technology Company, Fu Lion Wang Company, Fu Mou Gen and Wang Mou Jun.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that: Wang Mou Group Company and other alleged infringers have actually manufactured vanillin products, so they must have the complete process and corresponding equipment for manufacturing vanillin products. The technical secrets claimed by a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai include six secret points, 287 equipment diagrams involving 58 non-standard equipment and 25 process pipeline and instrument flow diagrams. The accused infringing technology information carrier is 200 equipment diagrams and 14 process flow diagrams obtained by the accused infringer such as Wang mou group company. after comparison, 184 equipment diagrams have the same structure type, size, design parameters, manufacturing requirements, equipment name and number, drawing number, drawing unit, etc. as those in the involved technical secret, involving 40 non-standard equipment; there are 14 process flow diagrams that are the same as the equipment location and connection relationship, material and medium connection relationship, control content and parameters of the process pipeline and instrument flow diagram of a chemical company in Jiaxing. The drawing name, project name and design unit marked on some drawings are also the same. At the same time, the equipment diagram of toluene removal condenser provided by Wang mou science and technology company to Zhejiang hang a container co., ltd. (hereinafter referred to as hang a company) and the oxidation process flow diagram of 15 oxidation unit attached to the environmental impact report of Wang mou science and technology company are all within the scope of the technical secrets involved although they are not included in the drawings submitted by feng mou yi. In view of the fact that Wang technology company has been used in equipment processing and EIA declaration, it can be determined that Wang technology company has obtained the two drawings. In this case, the carriers of the technical secrets involved are 287 equipment diagrams and 25 process pipeline and instrument flow diagrams, of which 185 equipment diagrams and 15 process flow diagrams were illegally obtained by the accused infringers such as Wang mou group company. Considering that the accused infringers such as Wang Group Company can make some targeted modifications after obtaining the technical secret drawings involved, although there are some differences between the four items and the corresponding technical information in the technical secret involved, according to the specific infringement situation of this case, it can be completely determined that these differences are caused by the evasive or adaptive modifications made by the accused infringers such as Wang Group Company after obtaining the technical secret involved, therefore, it can be determined that these four items still use the technical secrets involved. On this basis, it can be further determined that the accused infringer, such as Wang Mou Group Company, actually used all the 185 equipment diagrams and 15 process flow diagrams it had obtained. The specific reasons are as follows: first, vanillin production equipment and process flow are usually compatible, and its production process and related devices are relatively clear and fixed. The accused infringer such as Wang mou group company have actually built the vanillin project production line and carried out large-scale production, so it must have the complete process flow and corresponding equipment for manufacturing vanillin products. Second, the accused infringer such as Wang Mou Group Company refused to provide effective evidence to prove that it had developed and tested the complete technological process and corresponding equipment of vanillin products, and it launched the vanillin project production line and actually put it into production in a very short time. Wang Mou Technology Company's vanillin production line took only about one year from start-up to mass production. In contrast, it took at least four years for the technical secrets of a chemical company in Jiaxing to build a production line. Third, Wang mou group company and other accused infringers did not submit valid evidence to prove that they had conducted small and pilot tests on the accused technical scheme and related equipment, and they illegally obtained the technical drawings involved in the case. at the same time, Wang mou technology company's environmental impact report and its illegally obtained equipment drawings and process flow charts have been used in the process of purchasing equipment from a company in Hangzhou. Considering the characteristics of the technical secret case and the actual situation of the case, and combining with the situation that the accused infringer such as Wang mou group company did not submit valid evidence to the contrary, it can be determined that the accused infringer such as Wang mou group company used all the technical secrets illegally obtained. Fourth, although the vanillin production process and corresponding equipment of Wang Group Company and Wang Technology Company are slightly different from the technical secrets involved in the case in some places, they have not submitted evidence to prove that this difference is based on their own technological research and development. Or caused by technological achievements obtained through other legitimate channels. At the same time, the existing evidence shows that the accused infringer, such as Wang mou group company, started to set up a factory to produce vanillin products only after obtaining the technical secrets involved, I .e. it is entirely possible to make evasive or adaptive modifications to some production processes or individual accessories and devices against the technical secrets involved. This modification itself is also one of the ways in which the technical secrets involved are actually used. To sum up, it is determined that the technical secrets involved in the case illegally obtained by Wang mou group company and other accused infringers from a chemical company in Jiaxing, I .e. 185 equipment diagrams and 15 process flow diagrams, have been actually used.
Fu Mougen has been working in a chemical company in Jiaxing for a long time, responsible for the maintenance of vanillin workshop equipment, and has access to the technical secrets involved. On April 12, 2010, Feng Mouyi, Fu Mougen and others went to Wang Mou Group Company to discuss technical cooperation in vanillin production with Wang Moujun, and quickly reached a "Vanillin Technical Cooperation Agreement", which agreed that Feng Mouyi, Fu Mougen and others would use new vanillin technology to enter the vanillin branch of Wang Mou Group Company. Fu Mougen received consideration from 400000 yuan according to the agreement, and then transferred the U disk containing the technical secrets involved to Wang Moujun via Feng Mouyi. Fu mougen joined Wang mou science and technology company after resigning from a chemical company in Jiaxing, responsible for the construction of vanillin production line. Wang mou science and technology company completed the construction of vanillin production line and carried out industrial production in a very short time, fully using the equipment diagram and process flow chart of a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin. The above facts are sufficient to prove that Fu Mougen carried out the act of obtaining and disclosing the technical secrets involved in the case to Wang Mou Group Company and Wang Mou Technology Company and allowing them to use the technical secrets involved in the case. Wang a group company, Wang a technology company are engaged in the production and sales of vanillin enterprises, and Jiaxing in a chemical company has a direct competitive relationship, should be aware of Fu as a Jiaxing in a chemical company employees of the company's vanillin production equipment diagram and process flow chart does not enjoy legal rights. However, Wang Mou Group Company still directly obtained the technical secrets involved in the case of a chemical company in Jiaxing by signing the Vanillin Technical Cooperation Agreement and paying Fu Mou Gen and Feng Mou Yi, and disclosed them to Wang Mou Technology Company for use. Wang Mou Technology Company hired Fu Mou Gen and used his illegally obtained technical secrets for production, and then disclosed the technical secrets involved in the case through equipment funding and allowed a Fu Lion Wang Company to continue to use them. All of the above acts violated the technical secrets of a chemical company in Jiaxing and a company in Shanghai Xin. Since its establishment, a certain company has continued to use Wang's technology company as a technology-funded vanillin production line, which constitutes an infringement of the technical secrets involved.
Wang mou group company and other alleged infringers illegally obtained and continued to use a large number of technical secrets involved in the case with high commercial value, with bad means, malicious infringement, their behavior impacted vanillin global market, and Wang mou group company and other alleged infringers had circumstances such as obstruction of proof, dishonest litigation, etc. Wang mou group company, Wang mou technology company, fu lion Wang mou company and fu mou root refused to execute the original trial court the effective act preservation ruling and the court decided in accordance with the above-mentioned facts to calculate the amount of damages for infringement in this case in accordance with the sales profit. As Wang mou group company, Wang mou technology company and fu lion king company refused to submit account books and materials related to infringement in this case, the court could not directly calculate the sales profit based on its actual sales data, and considering that the sales price and sales profit margin of vanillin products of a chemical company in Jiaxing can be used as a reference for determining the relevant sales price and sales profit margin of Wang mou group company, Wang mou technology company and fu lion king company. In order to severely punish malicious infringement of technical secrets and fully protect the legitimate interests of the right holders of technical secrets, the people's court decided to calculate the amount of damages in this case based on the sales profit rate of vanillin products of a chemical company in Jiaxing from 2011 to 2017, that is, the vanillin output produced and sold by Wang group company, Wang technology company and fu lion king company from 2011 to 2017 multiplied by the sales of vanillin products of a chemical company in Jiaxing price and sales margin to calculate the amount of compensation.
Related Laws
1. Article 1168 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Code (Article 8 of the the People's Republic of China Tort Liability Law, which has been in force since July 1, 2010, is applicable in this case)
2. Articles 9 and 17 of the the People's Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2019 Amendment) (Articles 9 and 17 of the the People's Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law as amended in 2017 are applicable to this case)
Guiding Case No. 221
Zhang Mouxun v. Yibin Hengmou Investment Group Co., Ltd., Sichuan Yibin Wu Mou Building Materials Industry Co., Ltd. and other monopoly disputes
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil/Monopoly/Horizontal Monopoly Agreement/Monopoly Act Implementer/Compensation Loss.
Referee Points
can benefit from their violations. The horizontal monopoly agreement is obviously an illegal act. If the operator participating in the horizontal monopoly agreement takes the other operators participating in the agreement as the defendant and requests compensation for the losses during the period of participation and performance of the agreement in accordance with the provisions of the the People's Republic of China Anti-monopoly Law on civil liability, the people's court will not support it.
basic case
In March 2010, the Civil Affairs Bureau of Yibin City, Sichuan Province approved the establishment of an association in Yibin City (hereinafter referred to as an association), which is an industry social organization. Cao Mou is the president, Ruan Mou becomes the vice president, Chen Mou Qin is the secretary general, and the initiators and sponsors are Cao Mou Jun and Yibin Hengmou Group Co., Ltd., Li Mou Gao and Wu Mou Building Materials Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wu Mou Company), Ruan Mou Cheng and Yibin County Si Mou Building Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Si Mou Company). At first, there were more than 50 member units of an association, including a mechanism brick factory in Yibin City (hereinafter referred to as a brick factory) under Zhang's name.
In July, 2009, "Yibin Brick Industry Work Conference" was held, and the minutes of the meeting stated that the title column was "supply exceeds demand, more things are cheap... supply and demand balance, scarcity is expensive..."; the specific plan was to establish a brick association council and a brick association coordination office. The scope of the activity includes Cuiping District of Yibin City and brick factories within 30 kilometers, Baixi and its brick factories within 15 kilometers. Coordinate and cooperate with Yibin Renmou Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Renmou Company) to set up a floor tile association in the surrounding counties and districts to prevent peripheral products from entering the region. The shutdown plan is to stop production of 50% of the brick factory, which will be subsidized by the brick factory. Ren a company came forward to sign a lease contract with the brick co-ordination office and a cooperation agreement with the production plant. The discontinued manufacturer receives a monthly lease contract fee (I. e. part of the management fee paid by the producer) in a company, and the manufacturer pays the market management and technical guidance fee to the company. In addition, it also stipulates: "The closure and adjustment of the brick factory shall be subject to the brick agreement. No factory shall make any adjustment without authorization. The adjustment of the factory shall be deemed as a breach of contract. The liquidated damages shall be punished by 200000 yuan in cash at one time, and the coordination office and Renmou Company shall be responsible for the collection." "After the cease-fire, the brick factory is not allowed to sell the bricks in stock, and it is unconditional to make a one-size-fits-all approach... Those who sell the bricks privately are deemed to be in breach of contract, and the penalty for breach of contract is based on the principle of one sale and ten penalties." At the same time, a branch of the predecessor of an association formulated the "Interim Management Measures for a Branch of Yibin Building Materials Industry Association" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Management Measures"), which clearly put forward the specific arrangements for "external prevention of product entry and internal control of brick and tile production". Brick and tile enterprises are divided into production enterprises and discontinued enterprises. A branch of 2009 and a brick factory and other brick and tile manufacturers signed agreements such as "Stop Production and Rectification Contract" and "Technical Service Contract" on the 7th of January. According to the "Yibin City Brick Factory (Manufacturer) Approved Output Schedule", the manufacturer has a total of 19 days. According to the "Yibin brick factory (stop-production factory) approved output schedule" records, including a brick factory stop-production factory a total of 31 days.
On March 31, 2011, the Economic and Information Commission of Yibin City, Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Economic and Information Commission of Yibin City) issued the "Notice on Ordering an Association in Yibin City to Suspend Activities", which stated: "Our committee Recently received reports from the masses that when you carry out activities, you will not operate in strict accordance with the association's articles of association, and have acted beyond the scope of the association's articles of association. In accordance with the requirements of the management of the trade association, you are hereby ordered to immediately temporarily suspend all activities of the association, carry out a comprehensive rectification, and report the rectification to our committee in writing." On April 18th, 2011, an association issued the "Report on the Clean-up and Rectification Work and Request for Resuming the Normal Activities of an Association" to the Economic and Information Commission of Yibin City, which stated: "Due to the insufficient performance of the main leaders of the association... it leads to false high quotations from individual brick factories and creates false tight supply and demand information... We think that the brick association has an unshirkable responsibility to lead to such a result, it must be corrected quickly..." "The goal is clear: First, the market demand must be met unconditionally... Second, the supply must be in line with the market reasonable price (approved by the relevant departments to confirm that the current guide price is: the ex-factory price does not exceed 0.33 yuan/standard brick), not allowing member units to supply more than the association's guide price; the third is to ensure the quality..." 2011 an association to stop issuing support funds on the 9th of the year.
On March 6, 2013, the Sichuan Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce issued an ''Administrative Penalty Decision'' against an association. It believed that the ''Interim Management Measures'' reached by a member unit with a competitive relationship organized by an association agreed that some enterprises would stop production, thereby controlling Yibin The production quantity of bricks in the brick and tile market, controlling the suspension of production members to directly withdraw from the competition in the brick and tile market in Yibin City, seriously restricting market, is a monopoly agreement. The behavior of the party organizing member units to reach and implement the monopoly agreement has destroyed the fair and orderly competition order of Yibin brick and tile market.
, Zhang Mouxun sued the people's court, claiming that he stopped production in accordance with the "Stop Production Rectification Contract" and only received a small amount of suspension support fees before September 2011. In essence, the above-mentioned acts have the effect of excluding Zhang mouxun from participating in competition, constituting a monopoly and infringing upon Zhang mouxun's legitimate rights and interests. it advocates that Wu mou company, si mou company, Yibin heng investment group co., ltd., an association and Cao mou should be ordered to compensate their economic losses of 336000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 80000 yuan.
Referee Results
The Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province issued a civil judgment (2018) Chuan 01 Minchu No. 855 on December 24, 2019: 1., within 15 days from the effective date of the judgment, Wu Mou Company, Si Mou Company, Cao Mou All and an association jointly compensate Zhang Mouxun for economic losses of 336000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 5000 yuan. The 2. dismissed Zhang's other claims. After the sentence was pronounced, Wu Mou Company, Cao Mou Jun and an association refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. On November 6, 2020, the Supreme People's Court issued (2020) Civil Judgment No. 1382 of the Supreme People's Court: 1. revoked Civil Judgment No. 855 of the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province (2018) Chuan 01 Minchu. The 2. dismissed all of Zhang's claims.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that: Zhang Mouxun, as one of the implementers of the horizontal monopoly agreement in this case, whether he has the right to require other implementers of the monopoly agreement to compensate for his so-called economic losses should be combined with the legislative purpose of Article 50 of the Anti-Monopoly Law., The characteristics of the accused monopoly behavior, the legal effect of damages and other factors are considered.
First of all, the legislative purpose of Article 50 of the Anti-monopoly Law. Article 50 of the Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that if an operator commits a monopolistic act and causes losses to others, he shall bear civil liability in accordance with the law. The legislative purpose of this article is to provide civil judicial channels for stopping and combating monopoly behavior, and to provide civil remedies to subjects who have been harmed by monopoly behavior. If the plaintiff is not the victim of the monopoly act regulated by the anti-monopoly law, but the perpetrator of the monopoly act, his claim for damages is essentially a claim to divide the monopoly interest, and therefore it is not the object of the anti-monopoly law's intended relief. In this case, Zhang Mouxun is one of the participants and implementers of the horizontal monopoly agreement in this case, and because of his participation and implementation of the alleged monopoly behavior in this case, he has obtained the sharing of monopoly benefits within a certain period of time, and he is not the victim of monopoly behavior intended by the anti-monopoly law. Second, the request for damages relief, its behavior must be legitimate. The subject who participates in and carries out the illegal act himself, even if he suffers a loss as a result of participating in and carrying out the illegal act, the loss should not be remedied because of the illegality of the subject's own behavior. Zhang Mouxun voluntarily accepted the suspension of production and rectification in the "Suspension of Production and Rectification Contract", participated in and implemented the horizontal monopoly agreement in this case, and his behavior itself was illegal, and the damage he suffered as a result should not be remedied. Finally, granting damages to the perpetrators of monopolistic acts has the negative legal effect of encouraging and supporting the relevant monopolistic acts. In this case, Zhang Mouxun's claim of losses due to monopoly behavior is essentially a requirement to enforce the horizontal monopoly agreement in this case, according to the monopoly agreement on the distribution of monopoly benefits to divide up the group monopoly income. If Zhang's litigation claim is supported, it is tantamount to maintaining and encouraging the violation.
In summary, the implementer of the horizontal monopoly agreement has no right to require other implementers of the monopoly agreement to compensate for their so-called economic losses under the anti-monopoly law. Zhang Mouxun, as the implementer of the horizontal monopoly agreement involved in the case, has no right to benefit from his own illegal acts, and the people's court does not support his claim for compensation for losses.
Related Laws
Article 60, paragraph 1, of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China (as amended in 2022) (Article 50 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China implemented in 2008 is applicable in this case)
Guiding Case No. 222
Guangzhou De Mou Aquatic Equipment Technology Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Yu Mou Aquatic Technology Co., Ltd. and Nan Mou Aquatic Research Institute (dispute over compensation for property damage)
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil Litigation/Property Damage/Unpaid Patent Annual Fee/Patent Termination/Compensation Loss.
Referee Points
the registered patentee has the obligation to maintain the validity of the patent right in good faith during the dispute over the ownership of the patent right, and if the patent right is terminated, invalid or lost due to its fault, or damages the legitimate rights and interests of the real right holder, it constitutes an infringement of the property right of the real right holder, and shall bear the civil liability for compensation for the loss.
basic case
patent number is ZL 200910192778.6 and the name is "a multifunctional circulating water treatment equipment". The patentee of the invention patent (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved) is Nanmou Aquatic Research Institute, Guangzhou Yumou Aquatic Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yumou Company), and the inventors are Jiang Mouping, Li Mouhou and Jie Mouyong. The application date of the patent involved was September 28, 2009, and the authorization date was May 30, 2012. The patent right of the patent involved was terminated on September 28, 2012 due to failure to pay in time.
Guangzhou De Mou Aquatic Equipment Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as De Mou Company) believes that Jiang Mouping was an employee of De Mou Company and became a shareholder of Yu Mou Company after leaving office. Li Mouhou and Jie Mouyong are employees of Nan Mou Aquatic Research Institute. The patent involved is Jiang Mouping's job invention, and the right to apply for the patent should belong to De Mou Company. In 2010 and 2011, a company in Germany sued a certain aquatic product research institute and a certain company in South China for disputes over the patent application rights involved in the case, requesting that the patent application rights involved be owned by a certain company in Germany. When the patent rights involved were terminated for non-payment, the relevant ownership dispute was pending. Therefore, a company in Germany sued the court on the grounds that Yu and Nan Aquatic Research Institute deliberately failed to pay the annual fee for the patent, resulting in the termination of the patent and causing irreparable losses to the company in Germany, requesting to order the defendants to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights, totaling 1.5 million yuan.
Referee Results
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court issued a civil judgment (2016) Yue 73 Min Chu No. 803 on July 12, 2019: 1. Yu Company and Nan Aquatic Research Institute shall compensate De A company's economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses totaling 500000 yuan within 10 days from the date of legal effect of this judgment; 2. Reject other claims of a company in Germany. After the verdict, Yu a company, a South Fisheries Research Institute to appeal to the Supreme People's Court. On April 1, 2020, the Supreme People's Court issued (2019) Civil Judgment No. 424 of the Supreme People's Court, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment on the basis of changing the cause of action in this case.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that:
1. determination of the cause of the case
Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Patent Law stipulates that after the grant of a patent right for an invention or utility model, unless otherwise provided in this Law, no unit or individual may, without the permission of the patentee, implement the patent, that is, manufacture, use, promise to sell, sell, or import the patented product, or use the patented method, use, promise to sell, or sell for the purpose of production or business, import products obtained directly according to the patented process. According to this provision, the infringement of the patent right of the invention is limited to the manufacture, use, promise to sell, sell, import of patented products and the use of patented methods for the purpose of production and operation, as well as the use, promise to sell, sell, import of products directly obtained in accordance with the patented method. That is to say, the patent law implements the legal principle of patent infringement, except for the act of infringement of patent rights, other acts, even if related to patent rights, do not belong to the act of infringement of patent rights. In the case where the registered patentee is not the owner of the patented technology, if the registered patentee intentionally fails to pay the annual patent fee, resulting in the termination of the patent and causing economic losses to the owner of the patented technology, the loss is in fact property losses related to the patented technology. The act of deliberately failing to pay the annual patent fee leading to the termination of the patent right shall be a general infringement, and the cause of the case may be determined as a dispute over compensation for property damage. In this case, according to the claim of a company in Germany, it believed that a certain aquatic research institute in the south and a certain company in Yu would apply for a patent for a service invention owned by it, but then deliberately failed to pay the annual patent fee, resulting in the termination of the patent right, resulting in the technology entering the public domain, losing the protection of the patent right, and damaging the exclusive market interests it should have obtained based on the patent involved, therefore, the infringement claimed by a company in Germany is not an infringement of patent rights, and the economic loss it claims is actually a property loss related to the patented technology, so this case should be a property damage compensation dispute, not an infringement of the patent right of invention. The original judgment determined the cause of the case as a dispute over the infringement of the patent right of the invention, which is obviously improper and should be corrected.
2. whether a fishery research institute in southern China and a company in Yu should bear the liability for the termination of the patent right involved, and whether they should compensate the economic losses and reasonable expenses of 500000 yuan of a company in Germany.
The principle of good faith is the basic principle of civil law. It requires civil subjects to keep their promises in civil activities, be honest and not deceive, and pursue their own interests without harming the interests of others and the interests of society, so as to achieve a balance between the interests of the parties and the interests of the parties and the society, and maintain the moral order of the market. A patent right is an intellectual property right granted after national administrative examination for a limited period of time, and its effective survival during the period of protection of the right requires the patentee to continuously pay the annual patent fee and not to voluntarily give up. No matter what the reason is, when the parties dispute the patent application right and the ownership of the patent right, based on the principle of good faith, the registered patentee shall usually have the good management responsibility to keep the authorized patent right effective, including the continuous payment of the annual patent fee, etc., because once the patent right is terminated and invalid, the patented technology will usually enter the public domain, thus causing the owner of the patented technology to lose the exclusive interest in the market and damaging the legitimate of the patented technology owner. Equity. If the registered patentee fails to fulfill the duty of good management and causes losses to the owner of the patented technology, he shall be liable for compensation. In this case, in 2010 and 2011, a company in Germany has twice sued a certain aquatic research institute in south, a certain company in Yu, and especially a certain company in Germany for the second lawsuit claiming that the invention involved is a job invention. As the registered patentee, a certain aquatic research institute in south and a certain company in Yu, they should have the good management responsibility to maintain their continuous effectiveness after the patent involved is authorized, including the continuous payment of annual patent fees, to avoid possible damage to a German company. However, Nanmou Aquatic Research Institute and Yumou Company did not pay the annual patent fee, resulting in the termination of the patent right involved on September 28, 2012, infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of a German company, obviously failing to fulfill the responsibility of good management, violating the principle of good faith, and should compensate for the losses caused to a German company. For the specific amount of compensation for the loss, the case shall determine the specific amount of compensation according to the market price at the time of the termination of the patent right in question. In view of the fact that neither party has provided evidence to prove the market price of the patent right involved in the case at the time of termination, considering that the patent involved in the case is an invention patent, the patent right involved in the case was terminated in the year of the authorization announcement, the South Fisheries Research Institute and Yu Company made serious mistakes, and the long-lasting rights protection situation of De Company, etc., even considering that De Company also had some mistakes, there is nothing wrong with the compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500000 yuan determined by the original judgment.
Related Laws
Articles 1165 and 1173 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Code (Articles 6 and 26 of the the People's Republic of China Tort Liability Law implemented on July 1, 2010 are applicable in this case)
Guiding Case No. 223
Zhang Moulong v. Beijing Butterfly Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng Mou and Ma Mou over a dispute over the infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil Litigation/Infringement of Works Information Network Communication Rights/Jurisdiction/Infringement
Referee Points
The place where the infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works occurs is uncertain and should not be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction. When determining the jurisdiction of civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works, the provisions of Article 15 of the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on several issues concerning the application of law in the trial of civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination shall be applied, that is, the people's court of the place of infringement or the place where the defendant is domiciled shall have jurisdiction.
basic case
The plaintiff Zhang Moulong used the defendants Beijing Moudie Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng, and Ma to publish and use their copyrighted photo art works on relevant websites without authorization, and infringe on the right of information network dissemination of their works. The Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province filed a lawsuit. Defendant Ma raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the case on the grounds that the case should apply the provisions of Article 15 of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions on the Right of Information Network Dissemination"), Qinhuangdao City is the plaintiff's domicile, not the place of the tort or the defendant's domicile.
Referee Results
The Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province made a (2021) civil ruling on June 2, 2021 that Ji 03 Zhimin rejected Ma's objection to jurisdiction on June 27. Ma refused to accept the ruling of the first instance and filed an appeal. The Higher People's Court of Hebei Province issued (2021) Jimin Jurisdiction Final No. 66 Civil Ruling on August 24, 2021, revoking the first-instance ruling and transferring the case to the Beijing Internet Court for trial. After examination, the Beijing Internet Court and the Beijing higher people's Court held that the Hebei Provincial higher people's Court improperly transferred the case to the Beijing Internet Court for trial, so they submitted it to the Supreme people's Court for designation of jurisdiction. On August 22, 2022, the Supreme People's Court made a (2022) civil ruling on the jurisdiction of the Supreme People's Court to determine the case by the Beijing Internet Court.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "The place where the information network infringement is committed includes the location of the computer and other information equipment that committed the alleged infringement. The place includes the place of residence of the infringed." The "information network infringement" in this provision is aimed at the infringement of general civil rights through the information network. However, the "right of information network dissemination" is the legal right enjoyed by the copyright owner as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the the People's Republic of China copyright Law, that is, "to provide works to the public by wired or wireless means, so that the public can obtain the right to the work at the time and place of their personal choice". Based on the nature and characteristics of the right of information network dissemination, once the infringement of the right of information network dissemination occurs, it will lead to "the public can obtain the work at the time and place of their personal choice", and the geographical scope of the infringement is uncertain. Therefore, Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Information Network Dissemination stipulates: "Civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place of infringement or the place of the defendant's domicile. The place of infringement includes the location of the network server, computer terminal and other equipment where the alleged infringement is committed. If both the place of infringement and the place of domicile of the defendant are difficult to determine or outside, the country, the location of the plaintiff, the computer terminal and the plaintiff's computer, the plaintiff's computer, the infr." Therefore, Article 15 of the provisions on the right of information network dissemination is a special provision on the jurisdiction of civil cases involving infringement of the right of information network dissemination, which is a specific type of civil right. In determining the jurisdiction of civil disputes over infringement of the right of information network dissemination, Article 15 of the provisions on the right of information network dissemination shall be taken as the basis.
In this case, Qinhuangdao City is the plaintiff's domicile, which does not belong to the place of infringement or the defendant's domicile as stipulated in Article 15 of the provisions on the right of information network dissemination. In this case, there is no exception that "the place of infringement and the place of residence of the defendant are difficult to determine or are outside the country" as stipulated in Article 15 of the provisions on the right of information network dissemination. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province has no jurisdiction over this case, and it is not improper for the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province to transfer this case to the Beijing Internet Court.
Related Laws
Article 29 of the the People's Republic of China Code of Civil Procedure
Articles 24 and 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law
Article 15 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Infringing the Right of Information Network Dissemination
Guiding Case No. 224
A Mei (Tianjin) Image Technology Co., Ltd. v. Henan A Lu Bee Industry Co., Ltd. for Infringement of the Right to Dissemination of Works Information Network
(Adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 15, 2023)
Keywords Civil Litigation/Infringement of Works Information Network Communication Rights/Ownership/Burden of Proof.
Referee Points
In the case of disputes over the ownership of copyright, the ownership of the copyright of the work cannot be determined only by the watermark or the statement of rights. The party claiming the copyright should further prove it, otherwise it should bear the adverse legal consequences.
basic case
Outsider G * authorized a US (Tianjin) Image Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a US Image Company) to display, sell and license others to use the company's "Getty Images" brand images in China, and a US Image Company has the right to sue for infringement in its own name. A US image company found that a Henan Lu Bee Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a Lu Bee Industry Company) used 4 of the above brand images without permission. A US image company filed a lawsuit on the grounds of copyright infringement, requesting an order to order a certain bee company to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection. In support of its claim, an American image company submitted evidence such as a confirmation of authorization issued by G *, a statement of rights on the website, and a watermark of the content of "Getty Images" on the picture in question. A Lu Bee Company argued that the upper right corner of the watermark of the picture involved was marked with a trademark registration mark "", which was not the author's signature indicating the creator's identity. There was also a photographer's signature and other brand names under the watermark, which showed that the copyright of the picture belonged to the author rather than a US image company or G * company. A certain bee company also asked G * company via email about the ownership of the pictures involved in the case, and the answer was that the pictures involved were submitted by the photographer, and the company paid royalties to the photographer after selling them in its own name, but the photographer retained the copyright of the pictures. Based on this, a certain bee company believes that because the contributor retains the copyright, G * company and a certain US image company do not enjoy the copyright of the pictures involved, and the claim of a certain US image company should be rejected.
Referee Results
On September 17, 2019, Tianjin No.3 Intermediate People's Court issued (2019) Tianjin 03 Zhimin Chu No. 73 civil judgment, ordered a Lu bee company to compensate a US image company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 8000 yuan; Reject other claims of a US image company. A small bee company refused to accept the first instance judgment and filed an appeal. The Tianjin Higher People's Court issued (2020) Jinmin Final Civil Judgment No. 311 on July 16, 2020, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. The company refused to accept the request and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court ruled that the case should be arraigned, and on December 20, 2021, it issued (2021) Civil Judgment No. 355 of the Supreme People's Court, revoking the first and second instance judgments and rejecting all claims of a US image company.
Referee reason
The Supreme People's Court held that the pictures involved were marked with the photographer's signature and other brand names in addition to the "getty Images" watermark, and the trademark registration mark "" was immediately followed by "getty Images". Therefore, the watermark alone cannot be used to determine that the copyright of the pictures involved belongs to G * Company. In addition, a US image company also submitted an authorization confirmation issued by G * company, a statement of website rights, but the authorization confirmation can only prove the fact that G * company authorized a US image company, not G * company's copyright in the pictures involved. The statement of rights is a unilateral statement. In the absence of other evidence, the copyright ownership cannot be determined only by the statement of rights. In this case, an American image company should further bear the burden of proof that G * company enjoys the copyright of the picture in question, but it failed to prove it. On the contrary, according to rebuttal evidence such as G * company's reply email submitted by a certain bee company, G * company confirmed that the photographer who submitted the article still retained the copyright of the picture involved. Therefore, a US image company's claim that G * company owns the copyright of the pictures involved in the case cannot be established, and its related claims in this case should not be supported.
Related Laws
Article 12 of the the People's Republic of China Copyright Law (amended in 2020) (this case applies to Article 11 of the the People's Republic of China Copyright Law amended in 2010)
Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Copyright Civil Dispute Cases (Revised in 2020)
Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law (as amended in 2022) (this case applies Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law as amended in 2020)
Source: Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court
