/>iIn follow up to China’s Ministry of Public Security’s press conference on April 23, 2021 regarding criminal Intellectual Property (IP) law investigations, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) on April 25, 2021 released criminal IP law prosecution data and a list of typical cases. In 2020, the SPP prosecuted 12,163 people in 5,847 cases, a year-on-year increase of 7.6% and 10.4% respectively. Criminal trademark infringement cases accounted for 94.2% of the total, copyright infringement cases accounted for 5.3% of the total, and trade secret infringement cases accounted for 0.5% of the total.
An approximate translation of the 12 typical cases follow (edited for length and clarity). The full original text of the cases is available here (Chinese only) and in case of discrepancy the Chinese version should be relied on.
Case 1
Beijing Huajie Information Technology Co., Ltd., Li Jia and others misappropriation of trade secrets
1. Case facts
Beijing Chinasoft Rongxin Computer System Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chinasoft Rongxin Company”) is a state-owned holding company mainly engaged in technology development, computer system services, and software sales. It develops a variety of financial supervision software. Li Jia, Li Moubo, and Li Mouming joined Chinasoft Rongxin in 2005, 2008 and 2009, and signed a confidentiality agreement with the company. They served as the company’s deputy general manager, senior software development engineer, and business analyst. During their tenure, the defendants Li Jia and Li Mouming jointly invested in the establishment of Shanghai Huajie Company, a competiting company in the industry, in January 2013. The shares were held by relatives and friends, and the two actually operated the company secretly. In February 2014, Li Mouming resigned and served as the legal representative and general manager of Shanghai Huajie Company, responsible for the company’s operations; in April, Li Moubo resigned and joined Shanghai Huajie Company and was responsible for the company’s illegally obtained software from Chinasoft Rongxin. Li Jia still stayed at Chinasoft Rongxin Company, but participated in the operation of Shanghai Huajie Company. From 2013 to 2016, he provided the software model data of Chinasoft Rongxin Company to Shanghai Huajie Company many times. From 2013 to 2016, Shanghai Huajie Company sold financial supervision software to a number of companies, causing losses of more than RMB 1.5 million to right holders. It has been identified that the relevant software of Chinasoft Rongxin Company is not publicly known, and the software sold by Shanghai Huajie Company is identical to the non-public source code of the relevant software of Chinasoft Rongxin Company.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
The public security agency started an investigation on Li Mouming on December 13, 2017 for suspected infringement of trade secrets. At the request of the public security organs, the People’s Procuratorate of Haidian District of Beijing (hereinafter referred to as the Haidian District Procuratorate) intervened in the investigation, guided the collection of evidence, and immediately applied to the Beijing Procuratorate Science and Technology Information Center for professional simultaneous auxiliary examination, and promptly guided the public security organs to extract the Shanghai Huajie company’s servers in accordance with the law. Seizure of key office computers having the electronic data in China; and quickly contacted the judicial appraisal institute of the National Industrial Information Security Development Research Center to clarify the direction of the appraisal and follow up the appraisal process.
Review and Arrest On June 11, 2018, the public security organ asked the Haidian District Procuratorate for review and arrest of Li Mouming for suspected misappropriation of trade secrets. In response to Li Mouming’s defense of not participating in operations and Shanghai Huajie’s copyright, the prosecutors determined that his defense could not be established by sorting out accounts, verifying copyright registration, and taking witnesses’ testimony, and approved the arrest in accordance with the law.
Review and prosecution On September 13, 2018, the public security agency transferred Li Mouming for the prosecution of misappropriation of trade secret. After review, the Haidian District Procuratorate added Shanghai Huajie Company as a corporate crime, additionally identified two criminal facts, and pursued and prosecuted the offenders Li Jia and Li Moubo. The Haidian District Procuratorate successively prosecuted the defendant Shanghai Huajie Company and the defendants Li Moming, Li Mobo, and Li Jia for the crime of misappropriation of trade secrets.
During the trial, the prosecutor responded to the defender’s opinions that Shanghai Huajie Company enjoys the copyright of the software involved in the case, and the collegiate panel accepted the prosecution opinions. As for Li Jia’s refusal to plead guilty, the prosecutor firmly held that the defendant had participated since the company’s establishment including decision-making operations, multiple transmissions of confidential documents from Chinasoft Rongxin Company, etc. The prosecutors carried out interrogations one by one, and Li Jia pleaded guilty and repented in court. The Haidian District Court sentenced Shanghai Huajie Company to a fine of 500,000 yuan for the crime of infringing on trade secrets in the first instance, sentenced Li Jia and others to imprisonment ranging from two years and two months to one year and six months, and fined them up to 200,000 RMB. Li Jia and others did not appeal, and Shanghai Huajie Company filed an appeal. On October 30, 2020, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court made a ruling dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Prosecutors have a pre-trial leading role and shouuld consolidate the evidence of the case.
(2) Prosecute omitted parties in accordance with the law to ensure the quality of the case.
(3) Strengthen the concept of governmental recommendations to private enterprises.
Case 2
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets by Zhao from Shandong
1. Case facts
Shandong Dezhou Luying Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Luying Company”) and Jiuhe Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jiuhe Company”) are collectively referred to as Jiuhe Group. , a large-scale food enterprise integrating production and sales. The defendant Zhao served as the deputy general manager of Luying Company in charge of the production business from November 2009 to June 2018, and signed a confidentiality agreement with the company, stipulating that he would have confidentiality obligations during his tenure and within five years after leaving.
In July 2018, after Zhao resigned from Luying Company, he joined Zhengjiu Food (Changchun) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhengjiu Company) as the deputy general manager. Soon afterwards, Zhao successively disclosed the business information of Luying Company and Jiuhe Company’s customer food varieties, customer quality standards, sales agreements, sales policies, return policies, product price lists, etc., through WeChat, which he learned during his work to Tian and his salesman, the actual controller of Zhengjiu Company. Sales staff of Zhengjiu Company used the above information to sell similar products to Luying Company and Jiuhe Company’s customers at low prices. Luying Company and Jiuhe Company were forced to adopt discounts such as lower prices, exemption of shipping costs, and additional gifts to maintain customer relationships. According to measures, Luying Company and Jiuhe Company suffered losses of more than RMB 3.42 million due to the illegal disclosure and use of trade secrets. The information disclosed by Zhao belongs to business information that is not known to the public.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
It was found that the defendant Zhao used his position to facilitate the purchase of equipment for Luying Company and received a kickback of 120,000 RMB. He was suspected of taking bribes by non-state employees. He was transferred to the Prosecutor of Yucheng City, Shandong Province by the public security agency on November 19, 2019. The procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Yucheng City Procuratorate) reviewed and prosecuted. The prosecutors who handled the case discovered when reviewing the report materials that Lu Ying reported that “Zhao joined a company in the same industry with a high salary and privately solicited the original company’s customer base” and believed that Zhao might be suspected of infringing on trade secrets, so the case was returned to supplementary investigation. The public security organs are required to collect evidence to determine whether Zhao constitutes a crime of misappropriation of trade secrets, and guide the public security organs to investigate and collect evidence concerning Zhao’s illegal disclosure of information related to Luying’s business operations, and verify whether the relevant information is confidential.
Review and prosecution On April 3, 2020, the public security agency transferred Zhao to the Yucheng City Procuratorate for review and prosecution for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. The public security agency entrusted the appraisal of the loss of the right holder. The appraisal agency used the positive correlation between the price of raw materials and the sales price as the calculation assumption from November 28, 2017 to November 2018. The company’s loss was determined to be 4,152,700 RMB. The procuratorial agency believed that the loss was calculated as an estimated loss, not an actual loss, and the amount of the crime is doubtful. In order to find out the amount of loss, the Yucheng City Procuratorate initiated a supplementary investigation on its own, collected 25 accounting books of more than 3,000 pages of account certificates for verification, and calculated based on the actual ex-factory unit price and quantity of the product according to the outgoing list and invoice in the golden tax system. It was determined that the losses of Luying Company and Jiuhe Company were RMB 3.4263 million, which was supported by the court decision.
In court public prosecution, in response to the possible defense opinions of the defense, the prosecutors formulated multiple court plans and prepared a detailed outline of evidence; during the court trial, the prosecutors found that the business information of Luying Company and Jiuhe Company was a trade secret, and Zhao had been involved in the operation of the case. Information has the obligation to keep confidential, the basis for determining the loss of the right holder, the causal relationship between Zhao’s illegal disclosure, the business information allowed to be used by others and the loss of the right holder, and other key facts, combined with documentary evidence, electronic data, witness testimony, etc., to provide sufficient evidence to obtain Good trial results. On August 20, 2020, the Yucheng City Court found that Zhao was guilty of infringement of trade secrets and sentenced to four years in prison, a fine of 500,000 yuan, and the crime of bribery by non-state personnel. He was sentenced to ten months in prison, and several crimes were punished. , Decided to carry out a four-year and six-month imprisonment with a fine of 500,000 yuan. Zhao did not appeal after the verdict of the first instance was pronounced, and the verdict has come into effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Severely punish crimes of infringement of trade secrets and maintain fair and orderly competition.
(2) Give full play to the functions of procuratorial supervision, investigate and analyze suspects, and correct evidence.
(3) Abide by objectivity and justice and protect the rights of the defendant.
Case 3
Shanghai Wanchao Company, Yu XX, etc. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
1. Case facts
The right holder Shanghai Entanhua Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Entanhua Company”) obtains technical information related to automobile panoramic sunroofs from related companies through agreements, authorizations, etc., for production and operation, and sets up a hierarchical management system, signs confidentiality agreements and other measures to keep technical information confidential. After appraisal, the company’s automobile sunroof mechanical unit, automobile sunroof sunshade drive system, sunroof rear glass drainage system and automobile sunroof technical drawings are all technical information unknown to the public.
From April 2012 to February 2014, the defendant Yu XX worked as a senior product engineer at the right holder Intanhua Company and had access to the above technical information. In March 2014, Yu resigned from Entanhua Company and was hired by the defendant Shanghai Wanchao Automobile Sunroof Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wanchao Company”) operated by the defendant Jia Mo to be responsible for the research and development of automobile panoramic sunroofs. Yu XX violated the confidentiality agreement with Entanhua Company and disclosed Entanhua Company’s technical information and used it for the research and development of Wanchao Company’s related sunroof products. Wanchao’s legal representative, Jia XX, knowing that Yu XX has illegally disclosed the technical secrets of others, still uses relevant data for the research and development, production and sales of Wanchao’s related automotive sunroof products. Later, Jia and Yu applied for patents on some technologies as co-inventors. After identification, Wanchao’s partial automotive sunroof products, related patents and some electronic data in the computer are essentially the same as or identical to Entanhua’s technical information, and the company’s net profit from sales of related products amounted to more than RMB 12.98 million.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
The public security agency transferred the defendant Yu XX to the Shanghai Jiading District People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Jiading District Procuratorate) for review and prosecution on May 18, 2018, for the alleged crime of misappropriation of trade secrets. Yu XX denied access to and disclosing the technical secrets involved. When asked by the public security organs, Jia also denied knowing that the technology was a trade secret of others, saying that the relevant technical information was purchased by Yu XX from foreigners. (Wanchao Company allegedly paid 250,000 RMB for this).
In order to further ascertain the facts of the case, the prosecutors on the one hand guided the public security organs to continue to collect evidence by continuing investigation. After excluding the possibility of others divulging technical secrets and finding that Yu had committed a criminal act of misappropriation trade secrets, and the circumstances were particularly serious, the prosecutors filed a complaint in Shanghai Putuo on November 16 for the crime of misappropriation trade secrets. The district court filed a prosecution. On the other hand, through self-supplementary investigation, the defendant Wanchao Company and its operator Jia XX were additionally indicted. The prosecutors through on-site visits, collection of relevant documentary materials, and questioning of relevant witnesses found that Wanchao Company has a strong sense of confidentiality in the course of its operations. For the technical data involved in the process of self-development, it used encryption software, physical isolation and other measures to protect it, and the process of obtaining the trade secrets involved in the case is obviously abnormal, and the original electronic document has the mark of Intanhua Company. After supplementing the above-mentioned evidence, the prosecutors filed additional charges against Wanchao Company and Jia on July 18, 2019 for the crime of misappropriation trade secrets.
At the trial stage of the public prosecution court, the defendant Yu XX still insisted on pleading not guilty. The Jiading District Procuratorate provided evidence on the case facts that Entanhua’s technical information is a trade secret, and that Wanchao’s electronic data and products are substantially identical or identical to Entanhua’s technical information. At the same time, it combined a large amount of objective evidence and sufficient evidence. Demonstration that Yu XX has committed the infringement of trade secrets by disclosing and allowing others to use it, as well as the subjective intention of Wanchao Company and Jia XX to commit a crime. On January 19, 2020, the Shanghai Putuo District Court found that each defendant was guilty of misappropriation trade secrets and sentenced Wanchao to a fine of 4 million RMB; sentenced Yu XX to five years imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 RMB; sentenced to Jia XX three-year’s imprisonment suspended for three years, and a fine of 350,000 yuan. After the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, neither the personal defendant nor the corporate defendant appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Strengthen the judicial protection of trade secrets in accordance with the law, and maintain the economic order of fair competition.
(2) Comprehensively use the evidence to form a chain and fully investigate the facts of the crime.
(3) Use criminal prosecution with caution to seek a balance between handling cases in accordance with the law and avoiding impacts on business operations.
Case 4
A case of trade secret misappropriation by Zhou in Zhejiang
1. Basic case
Zhejiang Chunfeng Power Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chunfeng Power Company) is a high-tech enterprise specializing in the research and development, manufacturing and sales of all-terrain vehicles, competitive motorcycles and other products. The 2V91 series engine technology independently researched and developed in secret and maintained confidentiality. In 2004, the defendant Zhou joined Chunfeng Power Company to engage in engine technology research and development and signed a confidentiality agreement. From February 24 to March 1, 2014, the person in charge of the Chunfeng Power Engine Research Institute authorized Zhou to review his mail during his business trip, and Zhou used the authorization to send the 2V91 series engine trade secret data developed by the companyt from the company’s secret-related intranet mailbox to his own extranet mailbox.
In March 2015, the defendant Zhou applied to Zhejiang Tongshuo Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tongshuo Company) controlled by Feishen Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Feishen Company) to preside over the research and development of engines after his resignation from Chunfeng Power Company. In the meantime, the defendant Zhou used the 2V91 series engine technical information he obtained for the engine research and development of Tongshuo Company. From May 2017 to January 2018, Tongshuo sold 314 engines involved in the case to Flyshen, 300 of which were used by Flyshen to be equipped with all-terrain vehicles and sold . After appraisal, the engines produced by Tongshuo Company and Chunfeng Power Company share many trade secrets. The defendant Zhou’s behavior caused a loss of more than RMB 839,000 to Chunfeng Power Company.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
To review and prosecute this case, the investigative agency identified the Chunfeng Power Company’s 2V91 series engine R&D cost of 9,141,500 yuan as the amount of loss of the right holder, and transferred it to the People’s Procuratorate of Yuhang District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as the Yuhang District Procuratorate) for review and prosecution. The procuratorial organ handling the case believed that the amount of loss could not be used as a basis for conviction, and proactively contacted a number of audit and evaluation units to fully demonstrate the calculation method of the loss in this case, and finally determined that the sales volume of the infringing product was multiplied by the profit of each vehicle of Chunfeng Power and then multiplied by the engine. The method of calculating the amount of loss based on the proportion of the value of the entire vehicle yielded a loss of more than RMB 830,000 for the right holder in this case, which was supported by the court’s decision. According to the facts and evidence of the case, the procuratorial organs also passed the interpretation and reasoning, prompting the defendant Zhou to change from refusing to plead guilty to pleading guilty.
Appearing in court on October 31, 2019, the Yuhang District Procuratorate indicted Zhou for the crime of misappropriation of trade secrets. During the court trial, the defendant argued the trade secrets have been disclosed in the maintenance manual by the right holder or clearly stipulated by the national standard, and they do not constitute trade secrets. The prosecutors carefully reviewed a large number of professional materials, consulted many experts in the engine field, including appraisers, and strictly examined the evidence in the entire case. They concluded that some trade secrets have been disclosed, but some trade secrets were still trade secrets. It does not affect the conclusion of the overall misappropriation determination. On March 26, 2020, the Yuhang District Court sentenced Zhou to fixed-term imprisonment for one year and six months, suspended for two years, and fined 800,000 RMB. Zhou did not appeal, and the judgment has come into effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Punish the crime of misappropriation of trade secrets in accordance with the law, and promote the development of national high-tech enterprises.
(2) Leverage experts to accurately determine the amount of misappropriation.
(3) Extend procuratorial functions and actively participate in the comprehensive management of intellectual property rights.
Case 5
Copyright infringement case by Shanghai Li XX
1. Case facts
“Great Wall of China” and other series of toys were created by LEGO A/S (hereinafter referred to as Lego Company).
From 2015 to April 2019, the defendant Li hired 8 people including Du without the permission of the Lego company to disassemble the assembled toys sold by the Lego company and then used computer modeling, copying drawings, and commissioning others to create molds, etc., produced and copied 47 series of 663 assembled building block toy products in a toy factory, and sold them online and offline under the “Lepin” brand. The defendant Du and other 8 people received fixed remuneration from Li XX on a monthly basis. It was identified that between September 11, 2017 and April 23, 2019, Li and others produced and sold more than 4.24 million boxes of 634 models of infringing products, involving more than 300 million RMB. On April 23, 2019, the public security organs seized items such as molds, spare parts, various packaging boxes, various manuals, Lepin toys and other items used to copy Lego toys in the factory leased by Li . A total of more than 600,000 boxes of 344 types of infringing products for sale were seized, valued at more than 30 million RMB. Du bought Lepin toys from the factory and sold them, with a sales amount of more than 6.2 million RMB .
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
Intervention in advance On March 12, 2019, after the public security organs filed the case for investigation, the third branch of the Shanghai Procuratorate intervened in advance in accordance with the request of the public security organs to intervene in the investigation and guide evidence collection, and raised questions to the public security organs on the jurisdiction of the case, the characterization of behavior, and the legality of evidence. The Producratorate put forward specific evidence collection directions. On April 23, the prosecutors and the public security police went to a crime den in Chenghai District, Shantou, Guangdong to conduct on-site guidance to ensure that the investigation and evidence collection work was standardized and legal.
Review and prosecution On August 20, 2019, the public security organ transferred 9 people including the defendant Li to the third branch of the Shanghai Procuratorate for review and prosecution for the crime of copyright infringement. The procuratorial organs focus on the following tasks: First, accurate qualitative determination, to determine that the building block particles constitute a three-dimensional art work in the sense of the Copyright Law, and the copyright of Lego Company is protected by Chinese law. The second is to promptly inform the right holder of Lego’s rights and obligations in litigation, and request them to provide relevant evidence to help ascertain the facts of the whole case.
Appearing in court on February 25, 2020, the Third Branch of the Shanghai Procuratorate indicted 9 persons including the defendant Li in the Shanghai Third Intermediate Court for the crime of copyright infringement. The criminal suspects Li XX and Du XX respectively raised objections to the calculation of the amount of the crime and the characterization of the case, and some defendents expressed opinions on the sentencing. The prosecutor replied as follows: First, the act of copying infringing toy works for profit, once the copying is completed, it constitutes completion, whether there is an actual sale does not affect the determination of the crime of copyright infringement and the determination of the amount of crime. Second, although Du resigned, he was aware of copyright infringement and actively participated in the planning. After leaving his job, as a domestic customer of Lepin, he customized infringing toy works from toy factories and wholesale infringing toys in the name of distributors. The “distribution” behavior in copyright infringement should be convicted of the crime of copyright infringement. Third, the defendant Li involved in multiple civil lawsuits for infringing on the intellectual property rights of Lego in 2016, and was sentenced to bear the liability for compensation. He still did not want to repent and continued to engage in infringement, which caused great social harm. The panel adopted the public prosecution opinions and all the criminal facts charged. On September 2, the Shanghai Third Intermediate Court sentenced nine defendants to the crime of copyright infringement, sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from three to six years and fines ranging from 200,000 RMB to 90 million RMB. After the judgment of the first instance, the defendants Li and Du appealed against the judgment. On December 29, the Shanghai High Court ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Performing duties in accordance with the law, and equally protecting overseas copyright owners.
(2) Accurately distinguish the boundary between the crime of copyright infringement and the crime of selling infringing copies.
(3) Carry out the notification of rights and obligations, and promote the substantive participation of right holders in litigation.
Case 6
Jiangsu Ma et al. copyright infringement case
1. Case facts
Between May 2016 and February 2019, the defendants Ma Mouyu and Ma Mousong purchased equipment used to rip movies, stole the server information from authorized cinema projectors, borrowed and copied original movie master disks, and used “cloning.” The defendants also recruited personnel, sets up a studio, rip the film, encrypts the pirated film, watermarks and sold it to an offline film bar they developed, so as to profit from it. Among them, Ma Mouyu is responsible for all matters concerning the reproduction and distribution of pirated movies, Ma Mousong is responsible for copying pirated movies and developing offline movie bars, etc. Wen Mou and Lu Mou are responsible for the development of offline movie bars. The defendants, Ma Mousong, Wen Mou, and Lu Mou are the main offenders of the criminal group. The criminal syndicate has a large number of people, and has been illegally copying and distributing pirated films for a long time. A total of 413 pirated films have been copied and distributed, and the illegal business amount is more than RMB 7.77 million. Defendant Ma received illegal income of more than RMB 4.04 million, and defendant Ma received illegal income of RMB 556,000.
In September 2018, after the defendant Wen Mou left Ma Mouyu’s criminal group, he adopted the same operation method to develop personnel, and gradually formed a criminal group with Wen Mou as the chief element, and carried out illegal copying and distribution of movies for a long time, so as to obtain profits from it and copy in total 124 pirated films. From May 2016 to February 2019, Mr. Wen had illegally generated revenue of more than RMB 1.86 million and obtained illegal income of more than RMB 1.03 million.
In September 2018, after the defendant Lu left Ma Mouyu’s criminal syndicate, he obtained pirated movies from Ma Mouyu and Wen, and recruited personnel to encrypt and watermark the pirated movies and sell them offline. Between May 2016 and February 2019, the defendant Lu had an illegal business revenue of more than RMB 8.14 million and illegal gains of more than RMB 5.36 million.
Before the Spring Festival in 2019, the defendants Ma Mouyu and Wen Mou criminal group used the aforementioned criminal methods to illegally copy and distribute 8 Spring Festival movies including “Wandering Earth”, “Crazy Aliens”, and “Little Pig Peppa New Year” leading to the above-mentioned videos being circulated on the Internet.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
Early intervention In March 2019, the People’s Procuratorate of Yangzhou City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Yangzhou City Procuratorate) intervened in advance in accordance with the law, guided the investigative agencies to investigate and collect evidence, and put forward the following evidence collection opinions: First, the collection of 8 Spring Festival films caused simultaneous circulation on the Internet while the movies were still in theaters. The relevant evidence of the infringing works shall be collected by sampling according to law to determine the number of infringing works. The second is to determine the flow of funds to find out the amount of illegal revenue and the amount of illegal income. The third is to promptly seal up, seize, and freeze the property of criminal suspects to ensure that no one makes a profit due to criminal acts. In April, the Yangzhou City Procuratorate approved the arrest of Ma Mouyu and others on suspicion of copyright infringement, and proposed continued investigation after arrest, guiding the public security organs to continue investigations on the amount of crime and the role of accomplices.
Review and prosecution On September 6, 2019, the public security agency transferred the criminal suspects Ma Mouyu, Ma Mousong, Wen Mou, Lu Mou and others for prosecution. The procuratorial organ checked the details of the funds case by case, and accurately determined the amount of illegal revenue and illegal income of each defendant; based on the video production software, Baidu Cloud upload traces and other electronic data, the statistics were deduplicated and the number of pirated films of each criminal group was accurately identified.
Public prosecution in court On September 25, 2020, the Yangzhou Intermediate Court opened a court hearing on this case in accordance with the law. In response to the defender’s claim that Ma Mouyu and others should not bear the responsibility of offline movie bar owners for privately divulging the film and causing network dissemination, the procuratorial agency applied for investigators to appear in court, which proved that the actions of the defendant Ma Mouyu and others were the key to causing the film to circulate on the Internet. The Yangzhou Intermediate Court agreed with all the allegations and pronounced the verdict in court. The defendant Ma Mouyu and others were sentenced to four to six years imprisonment for copyright infringement and fines ranging from 600,000 to 5.5 million RMB. After the verdict of the first instance was pronounced, the defendant did not appeal, and the verdict has come into effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Providing strong judicial protection for copyright is of great significance to the construction of an innovative country.
(2) Accurately determine the amount of the crime and prompt the defendant to plead guilty.
(3) Strive to curb copyright infringement crimes on the Internet and purify the cyberspace.
Case 7
Sichuan Liu and other copyright infringement cases
1. Case facts
From August 2013 to July 2018, the defendants Liu XX, Qin XX, Tang XX and others did not obtain the permission of the copyright owners Perfect World (Beijing) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Chengdu Perfect World Network Technology Co., Ltd. to obtain server-side programs of the online games “Zhu Xian” and “Swordsman OL”, used an editor to modify the game task parameters and upgrade standards, and uploaded them to third-party servers located in Xiamen and Hangzhou.
Liu and others named the modified game “Du Du Zhu Xian” and “Du Du Xiao Proud Jianghu”, and published advertisements through websites and chat software to attract game players. Game players use the login program to “patch” the genuine game client, and then they can connect to the server set up by Liu XX and others to run the game.
In the meantime, Liu , Tan , and Tang jointly operated and maintained the online games “Dudu Zhuxian” and “Dudu Xiaoao Jianghu”, and used multiple informal third-party payment platform interfaces, and charged game players . Tan’s illegal income was more than 1.4 million RMB, Tang’s illegal income was more than 1.3 million RMB, and Liu’s illegal income was more than 10 million RMB.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
The Procuratorate of the High-tech Zone, based on the progress of the investigation, puts forward recommendations on the investigation direction and the focus of evidence collection in a timely manner, assigned prosecutors, investigators, and technical personnel to supplement evidence, guides the public security organs to quickly retrieve server data to ensure that key evidence is not lost; performed on-site supervision and verification.
Appearing in court on April 16, 2019, the High-tech District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution to the High-tech District Court on the basis that the defendant Liu and other three persons were guilty of copyright infringement. During the trial, the defender’s defense opinion held that most of the funds paid and settled through the third-party payment platform, without transaction details, should not be considered as the amount of crime; Tang only infringed the computer software copyright of “Zhu Xian”, and his illegal business amount should be calculated separately. The prosecutor’s reply: The defendant and the third-party payment platform used a method of settlement at a certain amount, and the total settlement amount in each time period was consistent with the amount recorded in the receiving bank account. The defendant’s use of the illegal third-party payment platform resulted in incomplete transaction records so the illegal business amount can be determined based on the total amount of RMB from the third-party payment platform and the details of the receiving bank account; although Tang only participated in the modification of the “Zhu Xian” game, he managed and operated the private server game involved in the case, and obtained illegal income.
On February 26, 2020, the court found that Liu XX and others were guilty of copyright infringement and sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from two years and six months to four year, and fines ranging from 1.3 million RMB to 10 million RMB. After the judgment of the first instance, the defendant filed an appeal. On September 28, the Chengdu Intermediate Court ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Use the “double reporting” collaboration mechanism to find the best enforcement mode (to report to both police and prosecutors).
(2) Effectively guide the investigation and collection of evidence and crack down on the difficulties of evidence collection.
(3) Demonstrate the determination of judicial protection and promote the healthy development of the industry.
Case 8
Shenzhen City, Guangdong
Mingke Phantom Technology Co., Ltd., Wang, etc. copyright infringement
1. Case facts
The defendants Wang, Shi, and Liu were originally employees of Shenzhen Global Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Global Digital). Around 2013, the three left and joined the defendant’s Shenzhen Mingke Phantom Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mingke Phantom Company). At the beginning of 2014, Wang learned that Shi could still obtain Global Digital’s cinema management system software after leaving his job. Wang and Shi negotiated to make a profit by selling the software externally, and agreed on a share ratio. Shi used the account and password he had while working at Global Digital to log in to the server of Global Digital to download the theater management system software and crack the software. Wang and Shi are responsible for software sales promotion, project implementation, user training, etc., and Liu is responsible for introducing the business and getting commissions. From 2014 to 2016, Mingke Phantom Co., Ltd. copied and distributed the digital cinema management system software legally enjoyed by Universal Digital for profit without the permission of the right holder, Universal Digital. The amount involved was more than RMB 760,000 and the amount of illegal income was 180,000 RMB. Liu had illegal income of more than RMB 30,000. It has been identified that the digital cinema management system software of many cinemas such as Guangzhou Fenghe Cinemas is identical or substantially the same as the software of Universal Digital.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
Phe public security agency transferred to the Nanshan District People’s Procuratorate of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Nanshan District Procuratorate) for review and prosecution on suspicion of copyright infringement by Mingke Phantom Company and Wang. After returning for supplementary investigation, the procuratorial organs further ascertained the method of obtaining the infringing software, the method of cracking it, the direction of sales, and the role and division of labor of the defendants in the joint crime, which strengthened the evidence. On February 22, 2017, the Nanshan District Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Nanshan District Court in accordance with the law. On June 26, the first-instance judgment sentenced the defendant to a fine of 200,000 RMB for the crime of copyright infringement, and sentenced Wang and Shi each to fixed-term imprisonment for one year and two months and a fine of 60,000 RMB; the defendant Liu was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment six months, and a fine of 30,000 yuan.
On August 4, 2017, the Nanshan District Procuratorate filed a protest with the Shenzhen Intermediate Court. After the trial, the Shenzhen Intermediate Court ruled to revoke the original judgment and remand it for retrial. After a retrial, the Nanshan District Court found that 16 theaters used infringing software, and on April 29, 2020, the defendants Wang and Shi were convicted of copyright infringement. They were both sentenced to three years in prison and fined 60,000 RMB. The defendant Liu was guilty of copyright infringement and was sentenced to six months in prison and fined 30,000 RMB. The defendant filed an appeal, and the Shenzhen Intermediate Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Accurately determine the facts of the case, appeal in accordance with the law, and increase the cost of violations.
(2) Combining case handling and victim education to enhance the overall protection effect of intellectual property rights.
Case 9
Case of counterfeiting Hedao registered trademarks
1. Case facts
Hebei Daoxiangcun Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hedao Company) is the owner of the registered trademark “Hedao” and is authorized to use the “Daoxiangcun” trademark by Suzhou Daoxiangcun Food Industry Co., Ltd. In June 2019, Yu, the legal representative of Hebei Baoding Zhongren Trading Company, and his partner Li discussed the sale of Hedao Company’s special edition mooncakes in Baoding. From July 1st to August 5th, Li went to Hedao Company many times to discuss the authorization to sell special edition Hedao mooncakes and specific operational matters, and obtained Hedao Company’s qualification certificate, product barcode and the electronic authorization certificate template of the special edition moon cakes, but has not signed a contract with Hedao Company, and has not been authorized.
In July, Yu designed seven moon cake gift boxes with registered trademarks of “Daoxiangcun” and “Hedao”, and selected Guangdong Zhongshan Jixiang Can Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jixiang Can Co., Ltd.) and Guangdong Zhongshan Yi Colored Paper Packaging Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yicai Packaging Company) as the moon cake packaging manufacturers, and Fujian Zhao’an Sihai Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sihai Food Company) as the moon cake supplier. On July 15th, Yu and Li purchased moon cakes and packaging materials and leased the production site; on August 7, Li, Zheng, and Huang (Zheng and Huang are all employees of Zhongren Trading Company) organized the workers. The moon cakes produced by Sihai Foods Company were processed and packaged into the packaging boxes and boxes marked with the registered trademarks of “Daoxiangcun” and “Hedao.” Yu also instructed Zheng to change the authorized person in the Hedao Company’s authorization certificate and change the inspection report of Sihai Foods Company’s moon cakes. Yu sold the counterfeit moon cakes to Wang, and Wang then sold it to the outside world. After investigation, the total amount of illegal business revenue by Yu and Li was 1,077,954 RMB.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
Review and Arrest On October 16, 2019, the public security agency filed a warrant with the People’s Procuratorate of Luquan District, Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province (hereinafter referred to as the Luquan District Procuratorate) on suspicion of counterfeiting a registered trademark. The procuratorate discovered during the examination that Li and Yu produced and sold moon cakes with counterfeit registered trademarks and were suspected of committing crimes. They issued a “Recommendation to Arrest the Criminal Suspect” to the public security organs. The public security agency asked Li to be arrested on November 20 on suspicion of counterfeiting a registered trademark, and the Luquan District Procuratorate approved his arrest on November 26. In addition, in response to the fact that Yu and Li sold 7,370 boxes of fake Daoxiangcun moon cakes at the wholesale market in Fengtai District, Beijing, the procuratorate issued the “Opinions on Continued Investigation and Evidence Collection of Arrest Cases” to the public security organs, requesting a concurrent investigation.
Examination and prosecution On December 23, 2019, the public security agency indicted Yu and Li on suspicion of counterfeiting registered trademarks. After review, the Luquan District Procuratorate found that Zheng was instructed to tamper with the “Electronic Power of Attorney” and “Product Inspection and Testing Report”, and that he was directly involved in the management of production. Huang was responsible for keeping workers’ records and arranging the production of fake mooncakes. Ren and Yu were accomplices, so they issued a “Notice of Supplementary Transfer for Prosecution” to the public security organ, requesting additional indictments for prosecution of Zheng and Huang. On April 15, 2020, the public security organs changed their prosecution opinions and transferred them for prosecution on suspicion of counterfeiting registered trademarks for Yu, Li, Zheng, and Huang. In addition, the procuratorial organ handling the case believed that Wang knew that fake products were sold, and the sales amount was relatively large. He was suspected of selling counterfeit registered trademarks; Jixiang Can Company and Yicai Packaging Company produced and printed registration without the authorization of the registered trademark owner. The packaging boxes and bags of trademark signs were seriously involved in the crime of illegally manufacturing registered trademark signs. So the notice was issued to the public security organs to explain the reasons for not filing the case. Upon review, the public security organs found that the reasons for not filing the case were unfounded, and issued a “notice of Initiation of the case”, the public security organs started an investigation on the crime of Wang XX suspected of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, and investigated Feng XX , the person in charge of Yicai Packaging Company, and Yao XX, the person in charge of Jixiang Can Manufacturing Company, on suspected illegal manufacture of registered trademark signs. In response to other problems in the evidence of the case, the procuratorial agency guided the public security agency to supplement the investigation, and at the same time supplemented the investigation by itself, collected more than 50 pieces of evidence, and interviewed more than 20 witnesses. The case-handling procuratorial organs strengthened communication and consultation with the defense, accurately applied the leniency system for guilty pleas and punished appropriately, laying a solid foundation for the smooth progress of the court trial, and accurately distinguished the responsibilities of each defendant, and proposed probation of sentencing for Zheng and Huang.
Appearing in court on May 15, 2020, the Luquan District Procuratorate at the Luquan District Court prosecuted Yu and four other persons suspected of counterfeiting registered trademarks. During the trial, the defender claimed that Li was the principal offender and that Yu was an accomplice. Hedao Company’s authorized act was a statement of his true intentions. The case was a unit crime. Zheng and Huang constituted defense opinions such as surrender. The prosecutor combined with WeChat chat records, The witness testimony, the confession of the co-defendant, transfer records, sales records, seizure items, summons and other evidences were answered one by one, and the defendant finally admitted all the charges. On September 9, the Luquan District Court made a first-instance judgment and found that each defendant was guilty of counterfeiting registered trademarks. He and Li were sentenced to four years, six months and four years in prison respectively, and fined 500,000 yuan and 400,000 yuan. Yuan; Zheng and Huang were sentenced to three years probation for four years and three years probation for three years, with fines of 50,000 yuan and 30,000 yuan respectively. None of the defendants appealed, and the judgment has come into effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Investigate thoroughly to crack down on the entire criminal chain.
(2) Pay attention to communication between the prosecution and the law to encourage the defendant to plead guilty and be punished.
(3) Provide guidance to enterprises including “Six Stability” and “Six Guarantees” to help the development of private enterprises. (Educate companies in IP protection).
Case 10
Counterfeit registered trademarks , Selling products with counterfeit registered trademarks, Illegal manufacturing, selling illegally manufactured registered trademark logo case
1. Case facts
From the beginning of 2017 to November 2018, the defendant Lu XX purchased the counterfeit “PHILIPS” and “Oral-B” products through the online shop managed by the defendant without the permission of the registered trademark owner of “PHILIPS” and “Oral-B”. The defendant Peng XX laser engraved the “PHILIPS” logo on the toothbrush head; the defendant Jin XX and Wu XX printed the “PHILIPS” and “Oral-B” etc. Lu XX sold the above-mentioned electric toothbrush heads to the defendant Wang XX and others, with a total sales amount of more than 6.27 million RMB. The defendants Wang XX, Chang XX, Deng XXknew that Lu XX sold counterfeit electric toothbrush heads, but they still purchased them at low prices and resold them through online stores. Among them, Wang XX sold more than 13.25 million RMB worth. During the investigation, the public security organs seized counterfeit electric toothbrush heads in Lu XX’s rental housing, with a value of more than 160,000 RMB; sezied a large number of counterfeit electric toothbrush heads with illegally used registered trademarks from Wang XX, Wu XXand others as well as tools for counterfeiting, etc.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
Intervention in advance On October 19, 2018, the public security organs filed for investigation. The People’s Procuratorate of Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Dongtai City Procuratorate) intervened in a timely manner and proposed investigation and evidence collection opinions: retrieved the online store sales records of Wang XX and others, checked the funds exchanges of the persons involved, sealed up and seized relevant physical evidence and accounts, and searched electronic data such as WeChat chat records to find out the sales amount of each defendant. On March 29, 2019, the public security agency transferred the case to the Dongtai City Procuratorate for prosecution. On May 9, the Dongtai City Procuratorate transferred the case to the People’s Procuratorate of Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as the Yancheng City Procuratorate) for review and prosecution in accordance with the relevant regulations of Jiangsu Province.
The principal offenders of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks are particularly serious, the crimes of selling counterfeit registered trademarks are huge, and the illegal manufacture and sale of illegally manufactured registered trademarks should be sentenced severely, and the accomplices, with a good attitude of repentance, should be sentenced to probation. After full interpretation and reasoning, all 9 suspects pleaded guilty and were punished.
Appearing in court on October 30, 2019, the Yancheng City Procuratorate indicted the defendants at the Yancheng Intermediate Court in accordance with the law. On April 24, 2020, the court made a first-instance judgment and adopted the prosecution’s sentencing recommendations. The nine defendants were sentenced from nine months to four years, three months in prison, and fines ranging from 30,000 RMB to 3.2 million RMB. 6 received probation. After the verdict was announced, none of the nine defendants appealed, and the verdict has come into effect.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Fully perform their duties and fulfill their responsibilities to achieve comprehensive and accurate indictments.
(2) Adhere to equal protection (for foreigners) and continuously optimize the business environment.
Case 11
Civil procuratorial supervision case of trademark infringement disputes re Beijing Anshi Venture Technology Development Co., Ltd. with Beijing Zhenghong Taida Building Material Co., Ltd.
1. Case facts
Beijing Anshi Chuangye Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anshi Chuangye Company) enjoys the exclusive right to use four trademarks including “Anshi” and has used the above-mentioned trademarks on the natural stone powder coatings it produces and sells for nearly 20 years. They are approved for use in products such as class 2 coatings, class 19 non-metallic building coatings, coatings (building materials), non-metallic refractory building coatings. On June 1, 2016, Anshi Ventures discovered that Beijing Zhenghong Taida Building Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhenghong Taida Company) printed “天然安石粉涂料” and the company name on the outer packaging bags of natural stone powder paint produced and sold by it. On July 7, Anshi Ventures filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Shijingshan District Court for a trademark infringement dispute with Zhenghong Taida Company.
The Shijingshan District Court held that: Zhenghong Taida Company’s use of the word “Anshi” violated the trademark owner’s exclusive right to use the four trademarks involved in the case, and ruled that it should stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenditures totaling 723,920 RMB. Zhenghong Taida Company appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The appeals Court held that: Zhenghong Taida Company’s use of “天然安石粉涂料” is only to indicate the name of the product, not to identify the source of the product. The judgment of the first instance was revoked and all the claims of Anshi Ventures were rejected. Anshi Venture Company applied for a retrial, and the Beijing Higher Court rejected the application for retrial.
Anshi Ventures refused to accept the retrial ruling of the Beijing Higher Court and applied to the Fourth Branch of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate for investigation on July 16, 2019.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
The fourth branch of the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate accepted the investigation and read the original trial file according to law. At the same time, through investigation and verification, it was additionally found that: Zhenghong Taida had applied for related trademarks, some of which were approved. The two factories of Anshi Venture Company and Zhenghong Taida Company are less than 5 kilometers away.
The procuratorate found after review that Zhenghong Taida Company printed the words “天然安石粉涂料” on the outer packaging bag of the product, which belonged to trademark use. The product is distinctive; the evidence submitted by Zhenghong Taida is an introduction material for engineering practices in some areas, and it cannot prove that trademark has become the generic name of this type of stone powder coating; “天然安石粉涂料” completely contains the four trademarks involved in the case, which can easily lead the relevant public to believe that the goods involved in the case are produced by the registered trademark right holders, or that there is an association between the two companies. Zhenghong Taida’s behavior infringed Anshi Ventures’ four trademarks involved in the case. The Beijing Municipal People’s Procuratorate considered that the basic facts found in the second-instance judgment lacked evidence and that the applicable decision was indeed wrong, and filed a protest with the Beijing Higher Court. The Beijing Higher Court ruled and ordered the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to retry the case.
Supervision Results On August 25, 2020, the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate sent its staff to attend the retrial court. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that Zhenghong Taida Company adopted “天然安石粉涂料” as its product name. Considering that the two parties are close to each other, this behavior will inevitably lead to consumers confusion and misidentification of the source of the product or the relationship between the two parties; the evidence provided by Zhenghong Taida cannot prove that “natural ash powder coating” has become generic; Zhenghong Taida is infringing, and the judgment shall be revoked and the first-instance judgment shall be maintained.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Exercising the power of investigation and verification in accordance with the law, and clarifying the legal application of the legitimate use of trademarks.
(2) Strictly apply the common name identification standards to protect the legitimate rights and interests of trademark owners.
(3) Actively play its supervisory responsibilities and promote the construction of a legal business environment.
Case 12
Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Xiamen City, Fujian Failure to comply with the court’s effective judgment Administrative Prosecution Supervision Case
1. Case facts
On November 3, 2010, a precision instrument company in Fujian applied for a design patent named “instrument housing” and obtained a patent from the China National Intellectual Property Administration. The term of the patent right is from November 3, 2010 to November 2, 2020 . In April 2017, the precision instrument company complained to the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration (formerly the Intellectual Property Office) that an automation technology company mass-produced and sold related products without its consent. The scope of protection is the same, infringing on its patent rights and causing economic losses to them, and it is requested to order the infringer to immediately stop infringing on the applicant’s patent rights. After filing and reviewing the case, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration issued a “Patent Infringement Dispute Case Handling Decision” and found that the alleged infringing product was neither identical nor similar to the design patent involved, and did not fall into the scope of the patent protection involved, so it was decided to reject the patentee’s request.
The precision instrument company refused to accept the administrative decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Xiamen Intermediate Court on September 1, 2017. The Xiamen Intermediate Court found that the accused infringer did not infringe the patent rights involved in the case and ruled to reject the litigation request of a precision instrument company. The company refused to accept it and appealed to the Fujian Provincial Higher Court. After hearings, the Fujian Higher Court held that the overall shape and front panel design of the patent involved and the alleged infringing product were basically the same. Therefore, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration and the court of first instance should be corrected. The Fujian Provincial Higher Court then ruled: 1. Revocation of the administrative judgment of the first instance; 2. Revocation of the Xiamen City market Supervision Administration’s “Patent Infringement Dispute Case Decision”; 3. Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration should make a new decision. However, for more than five months after the effective judgment of the second instance was issued, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration has not yet made a new decision. On January 16, 2020, a precision instrument company applied to the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate for supervision on the grounds that the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration did not implement the court’s effective judgment.
2. The performance of duties by procuratorial organs
During the review process, the Fujian Procuratorate found that the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration had failed to perform the administrative actions determined by the judgment, which prevented the rights of the infringed subject from being protected and affected the court’s fair trial and effective judgment. Implementation should be corrected according to law. Main reasons: First, according to Article 94 of the Administrative Litigation Law, “The parties must perform the legally effective judgments, rulings, and mediation documents of the people’s courts,” the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration must perform the effective judgments in accordance with the law. Second, according to the first paragraph of Article 21 of the “Procedures for Patent Administrative Enforcement”, “the administrative department of patent work shall close the case within 3 months from the date of filing the case when handling patent infringement disputes. If the case is particularly complicated and requires an extension of the time limit, it should be approved by the person in charge of the administrative department of patents. The approved extension of the time limit shall not exceed one month.” In fact, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration has delayed the execution of the judgment for more than 5 months, which obviously exceeded the legal case processing time limit. Thirdly, according to Article 90 of the Administrative Litigation Law, “if the parties believe that a legally effective judgment or ruling is indeed wrong, they may apply to the higher-level people’s court for retrial, but the execution of the judgment or ruling shall not be suspended.” Therefore, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration argument that it did not fulfill the court’s effective judgment on the grounds that it had applied to the Supreme Court for a retrial was untenable.
Supervision Opinions The Fujian Provincial Procuratorate issued a procuratorial proposal to the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration on February 17, 2020, suggesting that the bureau: implement the effective administrative judgment of the second instance of the Fujian Higher Court in accordance with the law, and make a new handling decision based on the judgment.
Supervision Results The Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Administration issued an “Administrative Ruling on Patent Infringement Disputes” on March 11, 2020, ruling that the alleged infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent involved and constitutes an infringement. The bureau has given written feedback to the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate on the results of the process on March 13, 2020.
3. Typical meaning
(1) Give full play to the functions of administrative inspection and supervision, and create a fair and transparent legal environment for the innovation and development of enterprises.
(2) Strengthen the comprehensive protection of intellectual property rights to form a joint protection force.
