/>iOn April 22, 2023, China Supreme Peoples Court (SPC) released the Summary of the Annual Report of the Supreme People’s Court on Intellectual Property Cases (2022) (最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2022）摘要). This annual report explains 43 legal application issues from the intellectual property cases concluded by the Supreme People’s Court in 2022 including patent cases, trademark cases, copyright cases, unfair competition cases, new plant variety cases, integrated circuit layout design cases, monopoly cases, technical contract cases, and litigation procedures.
1. Trial of patent cases
(1) Trial of patent civil cases
1. Rules for the use of external evidence in claim interpretation
Between the appellant Guangzhou Huaxin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and the appellee Guangzhou Chengke Trading Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Junhai Trading Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Zhaoke Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Junling Electronics (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Foshan Xiaxin Technology Co., Ltd. in the Invention Patent Infringement Dispute Case [（2020）最高法知民终580号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if the technical terms in the claims are not specifically defined, the technical terms shall be interpreted first according to the usual understanding of technical terms by technicians in the art, rather than directly according to the usual meanings in daily life. The common understanding of technical terms by persons skilled in the art may be determined by combining common sense evidence such as relevant technical dictionaries, technical manuals, tool books, textbooks, national or industrial technical standards, and preferably evidence to a higher degree similar to the field to which the patent technology involved in this case belongs.
2. Retrospective effect of a decision to maintain validity after a claim has been amended
In the case of the retrial applicant Li Lei and the respondent Lv Jiajie (hereinafter referred to as the “Maglev field core leakage” infringement dispute case) [（2021）最高法民申6412号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, in patent infringement disputes, the review decision on the invalidation request to maintain the validity of the patent right on the basis of amending the claims does not have retrospective effect on the patent infringement judgments made and executed by the people’s courts before the decision is made.
3. Single comparison in prior art defense
In the above-mentioned “Maglev field core leakage” infringement dispute case, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the existing technology defense, the accused technical solution should be compared with an existing technical solution, and two different technical solutions recorded in the same prior art literature should not be combined into one technical solution used in the defense of the prior art.
4. The legality of the basic facts of the prior art defense
In the case of the appellant Shanghai Huanxin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and the appellee Guangdong Farina Technology Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Water Town Zhouzhuang Tourism Co., Ltd., and Beijing Zhenbian Network Technology Co., Ltd. [（2020）最高法知民终1568号], the Supreme People’s Court stated that no one should benefit from illegal activities. If the accused infringer or a third party instigated by it discloses the patented technical solution in violation of express or implied confidentiality obligations, and the accused infringer claims a prior art defense based on the illegal disclosure, the people’s court shall not support it.
5. Determination of legal source defense of “three no products”
In the dispute between the appellant Yuandesheng Plastic Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and the appellee Xinzhonghao Communication Store in Nangong City [（2021）最高法知民终1138号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, if the alleged infringing product does not have the name and address of the manufacturer, then the product quality inspection certificate, etc., can be used as an important consideration for determining that the seller has not fulfilled its reasonable duty of care.
6. Determination of the duty of reasonable care in the legal source defense
In the case of the retrial applicant Zhang Zhenwu and the respondent Guangxi Road and Bridge Engineering Group Co., Ltd. for infringement of utility model patents [（2022）最高法民再6号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the lawyer’s letter received by the accused infringing company where the patentee, patent name, patent number and contact information of the patent involved in the case have been recorded in the document, but the infringer did not take any measures, but still purchased the accused infringing product that infringed the utility model patent right of a relatively simple technical solution of others, it should be determined that it has not fulfilled its reasonable duty of care, and the legal source defense cannot be established.
7. Identification of the actual inventor of an invention-creation
In the retrial, the applicant Mo Lianghua and the respondent Duntai Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., the defendant in the first instance, the appellant in the second instance Shenzhen Moshi Technology Co., Ltd., the third party in the first instance, Jia Yifeng in the second instance, and Xia Tao, the third party in the first instance in the patent ownership dispute case [（2021）最高法民申7941号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that where an employee applied for a patent involved in this case in another person’s name within one year after he or she left his or her post, if the existing evidence could prove that the patent involved in this case was strongly related to his or her own job or assignment at the original entity, and the other person had an interest relationship with the employee and did not have the technical capability to research and develop the patent involved in this case, the employee could be determined as the actual inventor of the patent involved in this case, and the patent involved in this case was a service invention-creation.
8. The operating performance declared by the infringer can be used as the basis for calculating damages
In the case of the appellant Fuzhou Baiyi Baili Automation Technology Co., Ltd. and the appellees Shanghai Diangua Construction Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhang Shoubin for infringement of utility model patents [（2021）最高法知民终1066号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that If the patentee claims to use the scale of the infringer’s publicized business scale as the basis for the calculation of damages, and the infringer argues that the scale of business is exaggerated and not actual business performance, but fails to submit evidence to prove its actual scale of infringing business, the people’s court may rely on this business scale as advertised as the basis for the calculation of damages.
9. Punitive compensation liability for reselling the same infringing product after the infringement settlement
In the case of the appellant Jin Minhai and the appellee Baijia Hardware, Electrical, Mechanical, Electrical, Labor Insurance and Building Materials Business Department of Baisha Town, Zhengdong New District, and the defendant Zhengzhou Baifa Trading Co., Ltd. for infringement of invention patents [（2022）最高法知民终871号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if the infringer and the patentee reach a settlement on the dispute over the sale of the infringing product, if the infringer then sells the same infringing product again, it can be determined that it constitutes intentional infringement and the circumstances are serious. If the patentee requests punitive damages based on the amount of compensation agreed on in the previous settlement agreement as the basis for calculation, the people’s court may support it in accordance with the law.
10. When the validity of the patent right is in doubt, the parties can be guided to make future interest compensation commitments
In the case of the appellant Shenzhen Zudian Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and the appellees Shenzhen Senshuqiang Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Youdian Wulian Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of utility model patents [（2022）最高法知民终124号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when the validity of the patent right involved in a patent infringement case is in doubt or disputed, the people’s court may adopt different handling methods such as continuing the trial and making a judgment, ruling to suspend the lawsuit, or ruling to reject the lawsuit, depending on the circumstances. The choice of handling method mainly depends on the preliminary judgment of the people’s court on the validity of the patent right involved. In order to effectively promote the settlement of patent infringement disputes, the people’s courts can actively guide and encourage the parties involved in patent infringement cases to voluntarily make a two-way or one-way benefit compensation commitment or statement based on the consideration of fairness and integrity. If the patent right is declared invalid, the non-enforcement reversal benefit enjoyed by Article 47, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law is waived; the accused infringer can promise to compensate the interest of the relevant infringement damages if the patent right is maintained and valid after the procedure of confirmation of the patent right. If the parties concerned voluntarily make the above commitments, the people’s court shall take it as an important factor in the selection of the method of handling the subsequent trial procedures of patent infringement cases.
11. The characterization of patent infringement and the legal basis for damages
In the dispute case between the appellant Yao Kuijun and the appellee Jiaxing Jieshun Travel Products Co., Ltd., and the defendant Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. [（2021）最高法知民终2380号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that although the act of counterfeiting another person’s patent and the act of infringing upon patent are both patent-related infringements, the tort patterns, the infringed legal interests and the way of assuming liabilities are different. The act of merely counterfeiting the patent of others but not implementing the patented technical scheme shall not constitute an infringement upon the patent right as prescribed in Article 11 of the Patent Law, and the determination of liabilities for compensation for damage shall be governed by the general provisions of the Civil Code on compensation for infringement.
12. Confirmation of the determination of “initiating a lawsuit within a reasonable time limit” in a non-infringement lawsuit
In the case of intellectual property rights dispute between the appellant WM Zhongde Automobile Technology Chengdu Co., Ltd., WM Automobile Technology Group Co., Ltd., WM Smart Travel Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and the appellee Chengdu Gaoyuan Automobile Industry Co., Ltd. [（2021）最高法知民终2460号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed for confirmation of non-infringement of intellectual property rights should present evidence to prove that the defendant “failed to file a lawsuit within a reasonable time limit.” The “reasonable time limit” shall be determined on the basis of the type and nature of intellectual property rights and the specific circumstances of the case, with full consideration of the difficulty in finding evidence for the infringement and reasonable time needed for litigation preparation. The “litigation” includes various types of litigation, such as tort litigation and right confirmation litigation, which may substantially resolve disputes between both parties and eliminate the unease of the person being warned.
13. Duty of good faith administration of PCT applicants registered during title disputes
In the case of the appellants Gu Biwen, Zhou Zhirong and the appellee Zhangzhou Cankun Industrial Co., Ltd., and the defendant Zhang Zhonghua in the first trial [（2022）最高法知民终130号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, during the period of dispute over the ownership of a PCT application, if a registered PCT applicant fails to perform its obligation of good management without good reasons, and thus causes the termination of the validity of the PCT application, the PCT applicant shall bear the civil liability for compensation for the losses; and if the actual right holder is also at fault, the amount of compensation may be reduced according to law.
14. Handling of Cases Involving 4.2 Claimed Drug Patent Linkages
In the dispute between the appellant Zhongwai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and the appellee Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to confirm whether it falls within the scope of patent protection [（2022）最高法知民终905号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, where a generic drug applicant makes a declaration under Article 6 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes (for Trial Implementation) that the generic drug it applies for does not fall into the scope of patent protection for the generic drug, in principle, it shall make a declaration on the claims with the broadest scope of protection corresponding to the generic drug so as to guarantee the authenticity and accuracy of the declaration. When the registration platform for drug patent information of the China discloses two or more independent claims corresponding to a generic drug, the generic drug applicant shall make a declaration on the two or more independent claims.
In drug patent linkage litigation, when judging whether the technical solution of a generic drug falls within the scope of patent protection, in principle, a comparative judgment should be made on the basis of the application materials of the generic drug applicant; Whether the application materials are identical or not generally does not fall within the scope of review of drug patent linkage litigation.
(2) Trial of patent administrative cases
15. Consideration of “reasonable expectations of success” in the judgment of patent inventiveness
In the administrative dispute case between the appellant Novartis Co., Ltd. and the appellee China National Intellectual Property Administration and Dai Jinliang, the third party in the original trial [（2019）最高法知行终235号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that “reasonable expectations of success” may be taken into consideration when judging whether an invention-creation is obvious. By comprehensively considering the existing technical conditions at the date of patent application, technical evolution characteristics, innovation models and conditions, average innovation costs, and overall innovation success rate, among others, if a person skilled in the art has the motive to attempt to obtain a patented technical solution from the closest approach to the existing technology and reasonably expects to do so, it may be determined that the patented technical solution is not inventive. “Reasonable expectations of success” require only a level of “necessity of attempt” for those skilled in the art and do not require “certainty of success” or “high probability of success.”
16. Whether the technical solution with certain defects is practical
In the case of administrative dispute between the appellant Xiamen Jidali Shoes Co., Ltd. and the appellee China National Intellectual Property Administration for reexamination of a utility model patent application [（2022）最高法知行终68号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that utility requires that an application for a patent for invention or utility model can produce positive effects, but does not require that the application be free from defects; as long as the defects are not so serious as to make the relevant technical solution unable to be implemented or to realize the purpose of the invention, the technical solution cannot be denied the practicability on such grounds only.
17. Judgment on whether the use of a chemical product invention is fully disclosed
In the retrial case [（2021）最高法行再283号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the use of a chemical product invention should be completely disclosed, but if any person skilled in the art could predict that the invention could achieve the said use based on his or her level of knowledge and cognitive ability before the date of patent application, and even if the description did not record any experimental data sufficient to prove that the invention could achieve the said use, the use of the chemical product invention could meet the requirements for full disclosure.
18. Promising sales to an uncertain third party is not an exception to the administrative approval of drugs and medical devices
In the case concerning the administrative ruling on patent between the appellant, Nanjing Hang Seng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and the appellees, Jiangsu Nanjing Intellectual Property Office and Bayer Intellectual Property Co., Ltd.[（2021）最高法知行终451号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the exceptions to the administrative examination and approval of drugs and medical appliances in the Patent Law only apply to the acts of implementing a patent for the purpose of obtaining the information needed for the administrative examination and approval of generic drugs and medical appliances and the acts of implementing patent for the aforesaid acts of obtaining the administrative examination and approval. Where the latter party promises to sell patented products to an uncertain third party other than the actual one with which it has established a specific transaction connection, it does not have the preconditions and conditions for applying the administrative approval infringement exceptions to drugs and medical devices.
2. Trial of trademark cases
(1) Trial of trademark civil cases
19. The owner of a trademark shall not prohibit others from legitimately using the place names in the trademark
In a case about disputes over infringement upon trademark rights and unfair competition between retrial applicants Wu Xiaoling and Liu Wenping and the respondent, Zou Xue’e Tofu Workshop, Zou Xue’e, Gao Gensheng vegetable stall, Gao Gensheng stall, Yu Zhulan bean product stall, and Yu Zhulan in Yuanzhou District West Yu Zhulan [(2021）最高法民申7933号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the registered trademark contains a place name and the trademark right holder may not prohibit business operators within the region marked by the place name from using the place name in good faith and in a proper manner.
20. Prior administrative punishment does not affect the determination of civil tort liability
In the retrial case of trademark infringement and unfair competition between the applicant Nanfang Pump Co., Ltd. and the respondent Yongan Nanfang Science and Technology Pump and Valve Business Department (hereinafter referred to as the “Nanfang Pump” trademark infringement case) [（2021）最高法民申6419号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in trademark infringement cases, the alleged infringement had been subject to administrative punishment. The specific circumstances of the alleged infringement and the tort liability that should be borne should still be determined in light of the litigation claims and relevant evidence of the parties in the infringement case.
21. Application of the statute of limitations in trademark infringement cases
In the aforesaid trademark infringement case concerning “Nanfang Pump,” the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, in the absence of any evidence on the commencement date of statute of limitations and in the absence of any defense by the alleged infringer regarding the issue of statute of limitations, the people’s court shall not directly apply the relevant provisions of Article 18 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks as regards statute of limitations to determine that the alleged infringer is not required to assume compensation liability.
(2) Trial of trademark administrative cases
22. To apply for a registered trademark should reasonably avoid other people’s prior trademarks
In an administrative dispute over a request for declaring the trademark right invalid with the respondent, Shenzhen Xiangli Arts & Crafts Co., Ltd., against the respondent, Beijing Hongwen Boya Traditional Hardwood Furniture Co., Ltd., and the appellant, China National Intellectual Property Administration, of the second instance [（2022）最高法行再1号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, because a party knew through business transactions the prior trademark used by others but did not reasonably avoid the use thereof, it still applied for registering the trademark in dispute that is similar to the trademark of others, which violated the principle of good faith, and the trademark in dispute should not be registered.
23. Determination of the distinctiveness of English trademarks
In the administrative dispute case filed by retrial petitioner Gao Aosi v. respondent, China National Intellectual Property Administration [(2022）最高法行再4号] over rejection of a trademark application, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, to judge whether an English-language trademark is distinctive or not, the common understanding of the relevant public of China who uses the goods or services designated by such a trademark shall be taken as the standard, the integral elements and meanings of the trademark shall be used for judgment, the relevance of the trademark itself to the goods or services designated by the China National Intellectual Property Administration shall be considered, and whether the trademark can play the role of distinguishing the sources of goods or services in use shall be considered.
24. The impact of administrative regulations on the similarity judgment of goods and services
In the administrative dispute case concerning the request for declaring the trademark right invalid [（2021）最高法行再76号] of the retrial petitioner, Hebei Huatuo Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., against the respondent, Huatuo Guoyao Co., Ltd., and the defendant of the first instance, the China National Intellectual Property Administration, concerning the request for declaring the trademark right invalid, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when determining whether a commodity or a service is similar, it is necessary to determine the management norms for the production and sale of such a commodity and for the relevant services in light of the state’s maintenance of the relevant market order, and consider the impact of such norms on the commodity sales channels, service modes and consumer groups. Therefore, the long-term stable market order formed by such norms shall be taken as an important consideration.
25. Determination that trademark registration damages the name right of foreign natural persons
In the administrative dispute between the retrial applicant, Manolo Blahnik, and the respondent, the China National Intellectual Property Administration and Fang Yuzhou, over a request for declaring the trademark right invalid [（2021）最高法行再75号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that foreign natural persons, as well as well known designers, used and promoted their names as product brands. Where, before an application for the registration of the disputed trademark is filed, the name of the person has a certain popularity among the relevant public in the Mainland China, and the disputed trademark completely includes the name of the natural person, if the relevant public considers that the disputed trademark refers to the natural person, or considers that the commodities marking the disputed trademark are approved by or have special connections with the natural person, the registration of the disputed trademark may damage the right to name of the natural person.
26. The influence of the trademark registrant’s earlier trademark on the approval and registration of its later trademark
In the administrative dispute over a request for declaring the trademark right invalid [（2022）最高法行再3号】] of the Supreme People’s Court, Guangdong Good Wife Technology Group Co., Ltd., the retrial applicant, v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kaida Energy Management Consulting Co., Ltd.], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that whether a trademark can be registered should be judged according to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law, and that a prior well known trademark owned by a trademark registrant is not a natural reason for the approval and registration of its subsequent trademark upon application.
3. Trial of copyright cases
27. Providing infringing copies to the public infringes the exclusive publishing rights of others
In the case concerning the dispute over infringement upon copyright between the retrial petitioner, China Labor and Social Security Publishing House Co., Ltd. and the respondent, Fujian Provincial Frontier Vocational Training School[（2022）最高法民再101号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, a training school which holds infringing reproductions by purchase or other means and provides such infringing reproductions to the trainees on a paid basis is a distribution of works. If the training school cannot prove that the reproductions as issued have legal sources, it is an act of distributing the books involved in this case without permission, and thus infringes upon the exclusive right of the publishing house to publish.
28. Determination of commissioned works and legal person works
In the case concerning dispute over copyright infringement between the appellant, CCTV Animation Group Co., Ltd., and the appellant, Hangzhou Dadou Son Culture Development Co., Ltd. [（2022）最高法民再44、45、46号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, under the circumstance that the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the author created the work on behalf of his entity or created the work for the purpose of completing the secondment task, the work in question should not be determined as a legal person or a work with special duties. Where there is evidence to prove that the works involved in this case were created upon commission, such works may be determined to be works made for hire.
29. Fragments of audio-visual works that meet the conditions for identification of works shall be protected by copyright
In a dispute over infringement upon the right of projection of a work between the retrial petitioner, Shanghai Canxing Culture & Media Co., Ltd. and the respondent, Yingbin Music Hall, Dongli District, Tianjin [（2022）最高法民再30号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that as long as the relevant standards for the determination of works in the Copyright Law are met, fragments of audio-visual works may be determined as independent works, and the corresponding copyright protection shall be granted. Whether it is a fragment of a work and the length of its content are not legally necessary conditions for judging whether the intellectual achievement constitutes a work. The copyright law protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. The intention of creation belongs to the category of ideas and should not be the basis for the identification of works.
4. Judgment of Unfair Competition Cases
30. The act of selling counterfeit and confusing goods constitutes unfair competition
In the case of dispute over unfair competition between the retrial applicant, Bai Ruirunxing (Beijing) Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., and the respondent, Xintai Linghang Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. [（2022）最高法民再230号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, where a business operator sells commodities sufficient to cause people to mistake its commodities for others or has special connections with others, it may be determined in accordance with the law that it has constituted an unfair competition act as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law.
31. Determination of false or misleading commercial advertisements
In the case concerning disputes over infringement upon trademark rights and unfair competition between the retrial petitioner, Nanjing Delson Electric Co., Ltd. and the respondent, Maebler Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. [（2022）最高法民再1号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that replacing the trademark in engineering pictures of business operators with their own trademark, and printing such engineering pictures as successful engineering cases on product brochures for publicity, so as to deceive or mislead the relevant public, constitutes false or misleading business publicity as prescribed in Article 8 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law.
32. Determination of commercial defamation
In the case of disputes over commercial defamation between the retrial petitioner, TCL Kingmaker Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd., and the respondent, Hisense Video Technology Co., Ltd., and the defendant in the first instance, TCL Technology Group Co., Ltd. [（2021）最高法民申6512号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the fundamental requirement for determining whether commercial slander has been committed is whether the conduct of the relevant business operators has caused damage to the commercial reputation or commodity reputation of competitors in a misleading manner.
5. Trial of New Plant Variety Cases
33. Determination of known varieties in the judgment of plant variety specificity
In an administrative dispute over dismissal of a request for review of a new plant variety filed by the appellant, Heilongjiang Sunshine Seed Co., Ltd., and the appellee, Review Board for New Plant Varieties of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the Supreme People’s Court (（2021）最高法知行终453号], it was pointed out that in the judgment on the specificity of new plant varieties, the purpose of determining the previously known variety was to fix the object of comparison, i.e., to compare whether there was any obvious trait difference between the variety in question and the variety known before the date of filing the application. Therefore, the known varieties in the specificity judgment cannot be the varieties themselves. Different from the criterion of specificity, novelty judgment is to judge whether the sale and promotion time of the variety applied for protection of new plant varieties has exceeded the prescribed time by taking the variety itself as the object of investigation.
6. Trial of integrated circuit layout design cases
34. The right holder may choose any original part of the layout design as the basis of rights
In the case of disputes over infringement upon the exclusive rights in an integrated circuit layout design between the retrial petitioner, Nanjing Weimeng Electronics Co., Ltd., and the respondent, Quanxin Electronic Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.; and the defendant in the first instance, Shenzhen Jinhuixin Technology Co., Ltd., [（2021）最高法民申3269号] the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that, as long as the content of the layout design right claimed by the rights holder is within the scope of its protected layout design rights, the rights holder may choose either all the original parts as the basis of the exclusive rights or any original parts thereof as the basis of the rights.
7. Trial of Monopoly Cases
35. Anti-monopoly review of settlement agreements reached due to patent infringement disputes
In the monopoly agreement dispute case between the appellant Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and the appellee Wuhan Taipu Transformer Switch Co., Ltd. [（2021）最高法知民终1298号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the dispute over patent infringement if the settlement agreement has no substantial connection with the protection scope of the patent involved in the case, and the product involved exceeds the scope of the allegedly infringing product, its core is not to protect and exercise the patent right, but to use the exercise of the patent right as a cover to actually seek to divide the sales market , restricting the production and sales of goods, fixing prices, etc., can be identified as a horizontal monopoly agreement.
36. – 40. [Not IP-related]
8. Trial of technical contract cases
41. Determination of the nature of technical contracts
In the case of disputes over a technology contract between the retrial petitioner, Suzhou Siyuan Natural Products R&D Co., Ltd., and the respondent, Nanjing Hailing Traditional Chinese Medicine Pharmaceutical Technical Research Co., Ltd., [（2021）最高法民申7796号] the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that a technology contract is a contract concluded by the parties regarding the development, transfer, licensing, consultation or services of technologies, which establishes their mutual rights and obligations. The specific nature of a technology contract should not be determined simply according to the name of the contract, but in combination with the subject matter of the contract and the rights and obligations stipulated in the contract.
9. Intellectual Property Litigation Procedures
42. Determination of the Jurisdiction Court for Cases of Infringement on the Right of Information Network Dissemination
In the case of plaintiff Zhang Xulong and defendants Beijing Modie Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng Lei, and Ma Yue for infringement of information network dissemination rights [(2022)最高法民辖42号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that jurisdiction in civil dispute cases involving infringement upon the right of dissemination on information networks shall be determined in accordance with 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 Dispute Cases Infringing the Right of Information Network Dissemination.
43. Determination of Jurisdictional Junctions
In the case of dispute over design patent infringement between Aoguang Animation Co., Ltd. and Zhao Hongcai, Ba Mei’er Toy Factory of Chenghai District, Shantou, Xingzhi Beauty Toys Co., Ltd. of Chenghai District, Shantou, and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. [（2022）最高法民辖91号], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the plaintiff had filed a joint lawsuit against several defendants, and generally there was prima facie evidence proving that the defendant had some connection with the facts involved in this case so as to determine the jurisdictional connection point.
The full original text is available here (Chinese only).
