I. Patent Case Trial

1. The characterization of patent evaluation reports in patent infringement disputes

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法民再244号

[Judgment Summary]

In patent infringement disputes, patent evaluation reports can be used as one of the evidences in the trial of the case, but the validity of the patent involved should still be judged based on the patent authorization text and the effective decision of the administrative department [China’s National IP Administration]. In the case where the patent owner files an infringement lawsuit based on a valid patent, it cannot be determined that the patent owner does not have the basis to exercise the right to sue, and then the lawsuit can be dismissed simply because the patent evaluation report makes a negative conclusion that the patent involved does not meet the statutory authorization conditions.

2. Coordination of patent infringement determinations in related cases

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法知民终740号

[Judgment Summary]

For the same alleged infringing products, the same patent rights, and the same grounds for non-infringement defense, the determination of related cases should be consistent to prevent conflicts in judgment. Even if the alleged infringer does not appeal after the first-instance judgment, the second-instance court can also change the judgment and determine that the relevant defense of the alleged infringer is also established based on the determination of the establishment of the same grounds for defense in another effective judgment.

3. Judgment with performance conditions and interest on debt during the period of delayed performance

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法知民终370号

[Judgment Summary]

1. If the patent invalidation procedure is suspended due to property preservation measures being taken against the patent involved, and the National Intellectual Property Administration fails to make a decision on the invalidation request before the judgment of the patent infringement lawsuit, the people’s court may make corresponding arrangements for the performance of the obligations determined by the judgment according to the specific circumstances of the case, including adding necessary conditions to the performance of the judgment items such as cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. For example, the patent claim based on which the patent right holder filed the lawsuit can be made into a precondition for the performance of the judgment item after the National Intellectual Property Administration makes a decision to maintain the validity of the patent claim, and make arrangements for the debt interest during the period, so as to reasonably balance the interests of all parties.

2. For a judgment with attached performance conditions, the debt interest for the period of delayed performance may be ordered at the same time, that is, after the performance conditions of the judgment are met, interest shall be calculated based on the loan market quotation rate for the same period announced by the National Interbank Funding Center from the date of delivery of the effective judgment to the date when the performance conditions are met; if the obligation to pay money is still not performed after the performance conditions determined by the judgment are met, the debt interest for the period of delayed performance shall be doubled.

4. Handling of patent infringement judgments that have been executed after the examination decision declaring patent rights invalid 

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法知民再1号

[Judgment Summary]

1. The enforcement actions after the decision to declare a patent right invalid does not fall under the circumstances stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Patent Law that the invalidation decision does not have retroactive effect on the effective patent infringement judgment. The relevant enforcement funds should generally be ordered by the enforcement court in the execution reversal procedure to order the applicant for enforcement to return the acquired property and interest to the person subject to enforcement. The people’s court may also order the return in the retrial judgment depending on the circumstances.

2. For patent infringement judgments involving multiple alleged infringers, if the different execution times of the compensation obligations of different alleged infringers result in different application results of Article 47, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, which violates the principle of fairness, the People’s Court may apply the provisions of Article 47, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law to deal with it.

5. Treatment of a Class I declaration made by a generic drug applicant before patent information registration

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法知民终1593号

[Judgment Summary]

If the drug marketing authorization holder correctly registers the patent information within the prescribed period, but the generic drug applicant has made a Class I statement before the registration, the drug marketing authorization holder should have the opportunity to require the generic drug applicant to promptly apply to change its statement type within a reasonable period. If the generic drug applicant applies to change its Class I statement to a Class IV statement, or refuses to apply for change within a reasonable period, or applies to change to other erroneous statements, the People’s Court shall accept and conduct substantive review of the drug patent linkage lawsuit filed by the patent right holder.

6. Handling of changes in drug technical solutions in drug patent linkage disputes

【Case Number】

（2023）京73民初855号

[Judgment Summary]

In cases of disputes over drug patent linkage, the people’s court shall use the technical solution of the drug review and approval department to determine whether the drug falls within the scope of patent protection. The applicant for drug marketing authorization shall promptly and truthfully explain to the people’s court any changes in the technical solution that affect the judgment of whether it falls within the scope of patent protection, otherwise it shall bear adverse consequences in accordance with the law.

7. Identification of the Inventor of a Utility Patent

【Case Number】

（2022）苏05民初925号

[Judgment Summary]

The invention patent for use is an invention based on the discovery of new uses of known compounds. Its core is not the known compounds themselves, but the discovery and application of new uses of known compounds. If the proposal of the invention concept of “new uses of old drugs” plays a key role in research and development activities, the person who proposes the invention concept, makes substantial contributions to the formation or substantial improvement of specific technical solutions, and makes substantial contributions to phased research and development can be listed as the inventor.

8. Identification of usage environment characteristics and infringement judgment

【Case Number】

（2022）沪73知民初223号

[Judgment Summary]

The identification of the characteristics of the usage environment can be based on the invention title, invention theme, and the claims of the involved patent, combined with the content of the specification for comprehensive judgment. When considering whether the accused technical solution has the relevant usage environment features of the patent claims involved, it is not required that the accused infringing product necessarily has components related to the usage environment features, as long as the accused infringing product can be applicable to the usage environment defined by the usage environment features.

9. Inventions and creations related to sacrificial offerings that violate social ethics and harm public interests should not be granted patent rights

【Case Number】

2023）最高法知行终2号

[Judgment Summary]

1. The patent system is intended to protect inventions and creations that can promote scientific and technological progress and economic and social development. So-called “inventions and creations” that have no substantial benefits for scientific and technological progress and economic and social development should not be protected by patents. The understanding and application of specific provisions, including the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Patent Law, should be based on the legislative purpose stipulated in Article 1 of the Patent Law.

2. In judicial practice, the core socialist values should be used as a guide to advocate and promote social morality that meets the requirements of the times and is recognized by the people. Even if a certain sacrificial product does not belong to feudal superstitious funeral products, it may still fall under the circumstances of violating social morality or harming the public interest as stipulated in Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law.

10. Acceptance of deletion amendments to claims during oral proceedings of patent invalidation examination

【Case Number】

（2022）最高法知行终870号

[Judgment Summary]

During the oral hearing of patent invalidation examination, if the National Intellectual Property Administration considers that some of the modified claims are unacceptable, the patentee shall be allowed to delete the unacceptable claims in the current claims text and use the remaining acceptable claims as the basis for examination. Regardless of whether the deletion is proposed orally or in writing by the patentee in court, the National Intellectual Property Administration shall generally accept it; if the replacement page is not submitted in court, the National Intellectual Property Administration may require it to be submitted within a certain period of time; if the replacement page is not submitted within the specified period of time, it can be regarded as the patentee has not modified the claims in accordance with the law, and corresponding treatment shall be made accordingly.

11. Whether the scope of the design for which protection is sought is clearly shown

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法知行终672号

[Judgment Summary]

If, based on the general consumer’s knowledge level and cognitive ability, taking into account the patent views, usage status diagrams and general common sense, there are still multiple possible designs for the design shown in the design patent drawings, then it can be determined that the design patent document fails to clearly show the design of the product for which patent protection is sought.

II. Trial of Trademark Cases

12. Factors to be considered in determining infringement of geographical indication certification trademark rights

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法民再21号

[Judgment Summary]

The following factors need to be considered in determining whether the alleged infringing behavior constitutes an infringement of the geographical indication certification trademark right: first, whether the alleged infringing goods meet the conditions for using the geographical indication trademark, that is, the goods come from a specific place of origin; second, whether the alleged infringing goods have the specific qualities of geographical indication products; and third, whether the alleged infringing behavior is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source and specific quality of the goods.

13. Determination of the Prior Use Defense of a Trademark

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法民再218号

[Judgment Summary]

The application of the defense of prior use of trademarks requires a balance between the interests of the prior user of the trademark and the exclusive right holder of the registered trademark. If a trademark identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark is used in good faith on the same or similar goods and has a certain influence, the prior user has the right to continue using it within the original scope; if the prior use is earlier than the trademark application date but later than the use time of the trademark registrant, and there is evidence to prove that the prior user knew or should have known, etc., the prior use defense is not established.

14. Determination of legitimate use of scenic spot names

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法民再123号

[Judgment Summary]

If the logo is only used to refer to the name of a scenic spot, or to illustrate and describe the relevant content and characteristics of the scenic spot, and it does not exceed the necessary limits, and the relevant public pays general attention and combines it with daily life experience, and will not be confused about the source of the goods or services, it is a legitimate and reasonable use of the logo and does not constitute trademark infringement.

15. When there is evidence that the infringement has made profits, the amount of damages should be determined based on the profits made.

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法民再178号

[Judgment Summary]

Article 63 of the Trademark Law stipulates the order of application of the calculation method of damages. When determining the amount of damages, the People’s Court should give priority to the actual losses of the right holder, the infringement profits of the infringer and the reasonable license fees as the calculation method. Only when the actual losses, infringement profits and license fees are difficult to determine, the statutory compensation shall be applied.

16. Whether retail services and “selling for others” services constitute similar judgments

【Case Number】

（2022）苏民终356号

[Judgment Summary]

The retail services provided by commodity sellers to end consumers are highly similar to the services of “selling for others” in Class 35 in terms of purpose, content, method and object. In the process of providing retail services, if the unauthorized use of a mark identical to the “selling for others” trademark in Class 35 is likely to cause confusion and misidentification of the relevant public about the source of the services, it shall be deemed to constitute trademark infringement.

17. Calculation of contribution rate and application of punitive damages in pharmaceutical trademark infringement cases

【Case Number】

（2021）苏05民初437号

[Judgment Summary]

1. In cases of pharmaceutical trademark infringement, the contribution rate of the mark in question to the profits of the allegedly infringing drug should be reasonably determined by comprehensively considering the macro development trend of the pharmaceutical field, the micro perspective of consumers in purchasing drugs, the different barriers to entry into a specific pharmaceutical industry, the technical distinction between original research drugs and generic drugs, and the reputation of the pharmaceutical company itself.

2. The alleged infringer, as a shareholder of the right holder and an operator in the same industry, applied for registration of a logo similar to the right holder’s trademark for use on the same goods after the termination of the shareholding relationship, and did not stop the alleged infringement after the administrative judgment had determined that the trademark should be declared invalid. The drugs involved have potential side effects and are easily confused , and the infringement may endanger human health. This is a case of “malicious infringement of trademark exclusive rights with serious circumstances” as stipulated in the Trademark Law, and punitive damages can be applied in accordance with the law.

18. Determination of Distinctiveness of Trademark Registration Based on Product Design

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法行申5449号

[Judgment Summary]

If the applicant of a disputed trademark applied in the form of a product trade dress does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that, through its actual use, the relevant public has been able to use the disputed trademark as a mark for identifying the source of goods rather than merely as a product design, then the disputed trademark does not have distinctive features.

19. Determination of whether trademark registration infringes upon the prior domain name rights of others

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法行再244号

[Judgment Summary]

To determine that the registration of the disputed trademark infringes on the prior domain name rights of others, the following conditions must be met at the same time: the domain name was registered first and has a certain degree of popularity, the goods or services provided by the domain name operator are the same or similar to the goods or services approved for use by the disputed trademark, and the disputed trademark is the same or similar to the domain name, which is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. The publicity and use evidence of the goods or services provided by the domain name operator can be used as the factual basis for determining whether it has a certain degree of popularity.

20. Application of Article 44 of the Trademark Law: “Obtaining registration by other unfair means”

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法行再88号

[Judgment Summary]

When judging whether a disputed trademark falls under the circumstance of “obtaining registration by other improper means” as provided for in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, it is not appropriate to determine that a trademark applicant has “obtained registration by other improper means” simply because the number of trademark applications has reached a certain scale. For applicants who can prove that they have a genuine intention to use the disputed trademark or have actually put the trademark into commercial use, and that the application for the disputed trademark is reasonable or legitimate, it is generally not appropriate to determine that the disputed trademark falls under the circumstance referred to in this article.

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

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法行再51号

[Judgment Summary]

If the goods actually used for the disputed trademark do not belong to the standardized product names in the “Classification of Similar Goods and Services”, but they are essentially the same goods as the goods approved for use by the trademark, or the goods actually used belong to a subspecies of the approved goods, it can be determined that it constitutes the use of the approved goods. If the “Classification of Similar Goods and Services” changes after the disputed trademark is registered, it will not affect the above determination.

22. Determination of whether the behavior of the game live broadcast platform constitutes “marketing for others” service

【Case Number】

（2024）京行终6099号

[Judgment Summary]

The game live streaming platform takes advantage of its own traffic and user resources to promote and advertise the partner games through game live streaming, providing game downloads and forums, organizing promotional activities, etc., thereby increasing the download and in-game purchase volume of the partner games, and thereby obtaining a share of the game revenue. This behavior can be deemed to be providing planning and publicity for the sale of goods or services for others, constituting Category 35 of the “Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services” “sales promotion for others” service.

III. Trial of Copyright Cases

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

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法民再40号

[Judgment Summary]

For shapes or designs that may be both practical and artistic, parties may choose to protect them under copyright law or design patents, with different protection focuses. When claiming copyright protection, according to the existing system arrangement of China’s copyright law, it is necessary to judge whether the claimed work meets the formal requirements of works of art and whether it has the substantive requirements of originality. There is no need to establish a separate type of work other than works of art, nor is there a need to make separate requirements for originality.

24. Exhaustion of the right to distribute computer software

【Case Number】

（2022）最高法知民终1460号

[Judgment Summary]

1. If computer software must be used in conjunction with specific hardware, the right holder’s sale of hardware and computer software in conjunction with each other can be regarded as the distribution of software in the form of delivering tangible carriers, and the principle of exhaustion of distribution rights can be applied as appropriate. After paying a reasonable price, the buyer obtains the ownership of the original or copy of the corresponding software and has the right to use it himself or transfer it to others for use. The right holder’s restrictions on the scope of use, resale, etc. of the aforementioned software are not necessarily binding on the buyer with no contractual relationship with him and the third party who legally transfers the original or copy of the software from the buyer. However, the buyer or third party shall not copy the software without authorization, except for the purpose of achieving legal use, nor shall they use the copy of the software after transferring the original or copy of the software.

2. The owner of a legal copy of software is prohibited from providing the modified software to any third party without permission, which mainly refers to the situation where the modified software cannot be used as the main subject of the transaction without the permission of the software copyright owner. If the main subject of the transaction is hardware, and the software is only used in conjunction with the hardware, and the ownership of the modified software is transferred together with the transaction of the matching hardware, it is generally not necessary to obtain the permission of the software copyright owner.

25. Determination of Substantial Similarity between Works of Art

【Case Number】

（2019）京73民初1376号

[Judgment Summary]

When judging whether a work of art is substantially similar, the visual image characteristics of the work of art should usually be considered from the perspective of an ordinary observer, and the artistic expression embodied in the work of art should be identified and comprehensively judged in terms of constituent elements, forms of expression, and overall visual effects. If there are only slight differences between the two as a whole, so that ordinary observers tend to ignore these differences unless they deliberately look for differences, then the two can be deemed to be substantially similar. In the case where there are a large number of both the rightholder’s paintings and the infringing paintings being compared, all the paintings involved can be considered as a whole, and at the same time, a comprehensive judgment can be made based on factors such as the author’s creative experience, creative methods, and creative style to determine whether infringement has occurred.

26. Determination of whether a screenwriter has the right to be credited if he quits writing a film or TV script midway

【Case Number】

（2020）京0108民初39696号

[Judgment Summary]

Whether a screenwriter who quits writing a screenplay for a film or TV work midway can enjoy the screenwriter’s right of authorship for the film or TV work should be judged comprehensively based on the provisions of the screenwriter contract signed by the screenwriter, whether the film or TV work uses the original content of the screenwriter’s script, and whether the proportion of use has made a substantial contribution to the film or TV work. If the screenwriter contract does not clearly stipulate the exercise of the screenwriter’s right of authorship after termination, if the proportion of the original content of the screenwriter’s script created by the screenwriter in the film or TV work reaches the level of substantial contribution to the film or TV work, the screenwriter should be deemed to enjoy the screenwriter’s right of authorship.

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

【Case Number】

（2023）京0491民初11731号

[Judgment Summary]

The video platform operator shall bear the liability for infringement of the information network dissemination right for the provision of infringing videos on its vehicle-mounted application network server. The operator of the vehicle-mounted system software participated in the launch, display and promotion of the video platform vehicle-mounted application and provided package services. It is a participant and beneficiary of the provision of the works involved in the case and shall bear joint and several liability with the video platform in accordance with the law.

28. Implementing algorithmic unified aggregation behavior to increase the duty of care of network service providers

【Case Number】

（2022）沪0115民初29412号

[Judgment Summary]

In determining whether a video sharing platform constitutes copyright infringement or aiding and abetting infringement, it is important to distinguish between the neutrality of the technology itself and the non-neutrality of the technology application. The platform organizes a large number of infringing short videos into a certain topic and category based on the copyrighted works, and then presents them to all users in a unified manner, which contains the subjective intention of the platform. The implementation of this algorithmic unified aggregation behavior will increase the duty of care of network service providers, and thus affects the determination of whether it constitutes knowledge.

29. Determination of infringement liability of generative artificial intelligence service providers

【Case Number】

[Judgment Summary]

1. When a service provider provides generative artificial intelligence technology services, whether it constitutes contributory infringement should take into account factors such as the service provider’s profit model, the popularity and influence of the copyrighted work, the obviousness of the infringement, the level of development of artificial intelligence technology, the feasibility and cost of alternative designs to avoid damage, the necessary measures that can be taken and their effects, and the impact of the assumption of infringement liability on the industry. The fault identification standard should be dynamically adjusted to control the service provider’s duty of care to a reasonable level that is commensurate with its information management capabilities.

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

30. Determination of Direct Infringement and Necessary Measures Taken by Cloud Storage Service Providers

【Case Number】

（2022）粤民再59号

[Judgment Summary]

1. The “same file merge storage” technology adopted by cloud storage service providers does not change the source of the work. To determine whether the cloud storage service provider has replaced third-party providers in providing downloaded works to users, it is necessary to investigate whether there is any real transmission of work content data between the cloud disk and third-party network nodes during the download process. The content data of the work is completely transmitted from third-party network nodes to the cloud , which is a downloading tool and does not constitute a direct infringement of the network dissemination right of the work information.
2. For the behavior of users sharing infringing works, cloud storage service providers should take necessary measures to prevent the continuation of the infringing behavior, prevent other behaviors similar to the infringing behavior, and prevent the occurrence of behaviors similar to the infringing behavior. For unpopular works with minor infringement, disconnecting the infringing link and blocking the “sharing” function of the file pointed to by the infringing link can basically achieve the aforementioned prevention and control effects.

IV. Competition Case Trials

31. Identification of corporate names with certain influence

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法民终418号

[Judgment Summary]

To determine whether it constitutes a “trade name with a certain influence” as stipulated in Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the starting time of the use of the alleged infringing trade name should be used as the benchmark, and the degree of awareness of the relevant public in China, the time, region, amount and target of product sales, the duration, degree and geographical scope of publicity, the protection of the logo, etc. should be considered. If the accused infringer is aware of the prior use of the trade name by others, it can be deemed that the market reputation of the prior trade name has reached the accused infringer.

32. Overall judgment of infringement of technical secrets and specific assumption of civil liability for stopping infringement

【Case Number】

（2023）最高法知民终1590号

[Judgment Summary]

1. For the alleged infringement of technical secrets caused by organized, planned, and large-scale poaching of personnel and technical resources of other enterprises, the people’s court shall make an overall analysis and comprehensive judgment during the trial. If the alleged infringer produces products related to the technical secrets involved in a time that is obviously shorter than the reasonable time required for independent research and development, and the alleged infringer has channels or opportunities to obtain the technical secrets involved, at this time, due to the great possibility of infringement, the burden of proof of the infringement of technical secrets by the technical secret right holder should be further reduced, and it should be directly presumed that the alleged infringer has committed acts of infringing the right holder’s technical secrets. If the alleged infringer denies that he has committed acts of infringing technical secrets, he shall provide evidence to refute it.

2. In order to effectively stop and deter infringement and enhance the enforceability of judgments, the People’s Court may, when determining the specific manner of assuming civil liability for ceasing infringement, determine the specific manner, content and scope of ceasing infringement based on the specific claims of the right holder for the liability to ceasing infringement, or, if necessary, directly determine the specific manner, content and scope of ceasing infringement ex officio; it shall, on the basis of fully considering the nature of the protected rights and interests and the severity of the infringement, especially the actual harmful status of the infringement and the possibility of continued infringement in the future, focus on considering factors such as the necessity, rationality and enforceability of taking relevant specific measures to protect such rights and interests.

3. According to the specific circumstances of the case, specific measures to stop infringement of technical secrets may include: stop using the technical secrets involved to manufacture related products by oneself or entrust others to manufacture related products, stop selling related products manufactured using the technical secrets involved; without the consent of the real right holder, the infringer shall not implement, authorize others to implement, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of the relevant patents applied for using the illegally obtained technical secrets involved, including malicious abandonment of patent rights; destroy the relevant carriers containing the technical secrets involved held or controlled by the infringer and relevant units and personnel under the supervision of the People’s Court or witnessed by the right holder, or hand them over to the technical secret right holder; announce and/or in the form of an internal notice, notify the company’s shareholders, senior management, relevant employees, affiliated companies and upstream and downstream manufacturers who may have learned the technical secrets involved in the case, etc. to actively cooperate in fulfilling the requirements of the People’s Court’s judgment to stop infringement, and provide clear guidance on the internal intellectual property compliance operation of the company; notify the relevant requirements to stop infringement one by one to the relevant employees who resigned from the technical secret right holder to work for the infringer and its affiliated companies, all other personnel of the infringer and its affiliated companies who are responsible for or involved in related research and development work (including relevant senior management), and upstream and downstream manufacturers who may have learned the technical secrets involved, and sign a letter of commitment with them to keep the commercial secrets involved and not to infringe.

4. In order to ensure that the judgment is executed in a timely and comprehensive manner, the people’s court may, based on the specific circumstances of the case, comprehensively consider the nature and circumstances of the infringement, the possible damages and negative impacts caused by the violation of non-monetary payment obligations such as cessation of infringement, as well as factors such as enhancing the deterrent effect of the judgment, and clarify the calculation standards for the delayed performance of non-monetary payment obligations involved in the judgment. The relevant payment standards may be calculated on a daily or monthly basis or as a one-time fixed amount depending on the circumstances.

33. Determination of Trade Secret Infringement and Infringement Liability

【Case Number】

（2022）最高法知民终1592号

[Judgment Summary]

1. If the alleged infringer has illegally obtained and used trade secrets based on his prior acts of infringing trade secrets, and the evidence submitted by the right holder can preliminarily prove that the alleged infringer has committed acts again, and the alleged infringer cannot submit sufficient evidence to refute it, the right holder’s claim that the alleged infringer continues to commit acts of infringing trade secrets can be deemed valid.

2. If an employee sets up a company and participates in acts that infringe on trade secrets by means of hidden shareholding by a third party such as his/her spouse while serving in the original company, the employee and the company shall constitute joint infringement and shall bear joint liability.

3. If computer software and specific data have a unique corresponding relationship and the two cannot be used separately, and the existing evidence is sufficient to determine that the alleged infringer has used the specific data, then it can be determined that he has also used the computer software at the same time.

4. If there is no evidence to prove that the right holder neglected to assert his rights or condoned the infringement, the people’s court will not support the alleged infringer’s claim that only the infringement damages within three years before the lawsuit should be calculated on the grounds of the statute of limitations.

34. Determination of the Improper Behavior of Ticket Grabbing Software

【Case Number】

（2024）京0101民初4607号

[Judgment Summary]

Ticket-grabbing software uses technical means to provide users of the target platform with unfair ticket-grabbing advantages, which undermines the platform’s ticket purchasing rules and damages the platform’s competitive interests. It also damages the legitimate rights and long-term interests of consumers and disrupts the fair competition market order. It should be deemed to constitute unfair competition.

35. Determination of improper use of data

【Case Number】

（2023）沪0114民初13000号

[Judgment Summary]

The right holder obtains the consent of the user to collect, use, organize and store relevant information, and aggregates and forms a data set based on platform user information and work content information. It enjoys property rights including legal control, use, and operation of the relevant data. The accused infringer illegally obtains non-public data through technical means and displays it on a self-operated website, thereby conducting paid transaction services. The way it obtains and uses such data exceeds reasonable limits and violates business ethics, disrupts the market competition order, and is improper.

36. Determination of the non-public nature of technical secrets

【Case Number】

（2022）鄂01知民初707号

[Judgment Summary]

Each single step or part of the parameters of the technical information already exists in the public domain, but the overall technical solution of multiple steps and parameters is not well known in the industry, and can still be protected as a technical secret. Whether it constitutes a technical secret should be strictly examined based on the elements of the technical secret, rather than judging by the evaluation standards of the novelty and creativity of the technical solution in the patent law.

37. Criteria for determining whether a technology neutrality defense is established

【Case Number】

(2024)渝0192民初2546号

[Judgment Summary]

In cases of unfair competition disputes on the Internet, if the operator uses technology neutrality as a defense, the judgment criteria should be whether the use of technology is legitimate and whether it has a substantial non-infringing purpose. The use of neutral technology that breaks the will of network platform users and bypasses the technical settings of the network platform is unfair; the operator should prove that it has a substantial non-infringing purpose, otherwise it should be deemed to have subjective fault and bear the corresponding infringement liability.

38. [Omitted as pertains to antirust]

39. [Omitted as pertains to antirust]

V. Trial of Cases Concerning New Plant Varieties

40. Burden of proof of variety identity and review of identification methods

【Case Number】

（2022）最高法知民终1362号

[Judgment Summary]

1. When conducting identity identification or testing of the authorized variety and the alleged infringing variety, the variety right holder shall try his best and to diligently provide evidence for the samples of the alleged infringing variety to be tested and the control samples of the authorized variety used for identification or testing, and exercise reasonable care to ensure that the sources are clear, the storage is standardized, the inspection process is authentic and reliable, and that the identification or testing requirements are met.

2. In cases involving infringement of new plant variety rights, the people’s court shall review whether the molecular marker method for variety identity identification is scientific and reliable. If there is no national standard or industry standard for the molecular marker detection method of a specific plant variety, the identification agency and appraiser with corresponding qualifications shall make an identification opinion by referring to other relevant national standards and industry standards. If the identification method can scientifically and accurately distinguish different varieties and has sufficient scientific basis and repeatability, the identification opinion can be used as one of the evidences to determine whether the characteristics and properties of the alleged infringing object are the same as those of the authorized variety.

VI. Trial of Integrated Circuit Layout-Design Cases

41. Identification of protected objects of layout designs and those that have been put into commercial use

【Case Number】

（2022）最高法知民终2133号

[Judgment Summary]

1. Although the layout design does not contain source components, it shows the three-dimensional configuration relationship between active components and circuits, which can clarify their interfaces with active components, and can achieve corresponding circuit functions when using other standardized components. It can be considered that the layout design belongs to the “three-dimensional configuration of at least two or more components that are active components and partially or completely interconnected circuits”, and is the object protected by the exclusive rights of layout design.
2. After the completion of the layout design, it is necessary to conduct testing and verification of performance through tape-out. However, if the number and quantities of chips containing the layout design manufactured significantly exceed the amount needed for tape-out, the claim of the right holder that the layout design has not been put into commercial use will not be supported in the absence of contrary evidence.

VII. Intellectual Property Litigation Procedure and Evidence

42. Transfer of jurisdiction should be subject to the limitation of response jurisdiction

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法民辖152号

[Judgment Summary]

Except for violations of hierarchical jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, if the parties do not raise any objection to jurisdiction and respond to the lawsuit, even if the court believes that it has no jurisdiction, it should not transfer the case.

43. Conditions for Issuance of an Anti-injunction (Enforcement) Order

【Case Number】

（2024）最高法知民终914、915号

[Judgment Summary]

If a standards implementer applies to a foreign court for an injunction (enforcement) order against a patent infringement lawsuit filed by a standard essential patent owner in a Chinese court, and the standard essential patent owner files an application for a counter-injunction (enforcement) order with the Chinese court hearing the patent infringement lawsuit, and the People’s Court, after preliminary review, finds that the standard essential patent owner has fulfilled its fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing commitments in the licensing negotiations, and that the standard implementer has obvious faults in the licensing negotiations and intends to improperly hinder the standard essential patent owner from exercising its due process rights to promote case trial and judgment enforcement in the Chinese court, the application for a counter-injunction (enforcement) order filed by the standard essential patent owner may be approved in accordance with the law.