Top 10 intellectual property cases of Chinese courts in 2020
Recently, the Supreme People's Court selected the following top 10 intellectual property cases of Chinese courts in 2020.
1. Administrative dispute between Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and the CNIPA and Shanghai Xiaoi Robot Technology Co.,Ltd. involving invalidation of an invention patent
Case result: The retrial of the Supreme People's Court maintained the validity of the patent of Shanghai Xiaoi Robot Technology Co.,Ltd.
[Typical significance] This case involves basic patents in the field of computer artificial intelligence in China. "Dsiclosure for protection" is the basic principle of the patent system. Determination of whether the technical solution of a patent application has been fully disclosed is not only a difficult issue in patent examination and litigation in the field of artificial intelligence, but also directly determines whether a patent applicant shall be entitled to the exclusive rights of such technical solution. The retrial judgment in this case clarified the criterion for the full disclosure of patent specifications involving computer programs.
2. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Terminal Co., Ltd., Huawei Software Technology Co., Ltd. Vs. Conversant Wireless Licensing S.à.r.l. on disputes over Non-infringement against patent rights and licensing of standard-essential patents
Case result: The Supreme People's Court ruled to reject Conversant 's request for reconsideration.
[Typical Significance] This case is the first act preservation ruling with an "anti-suit injunction" nature in an intellectual property litigation in China, which clarifies the necessity, degree of damage, adaptability, suitability, public interest and international comity factors that should be considered when taking act preservation measures that prohibit applications for enforcement of judgments by extraterritorial court, and for the first time explored the daily fines system, and initiated the judicial practice route of China's "anti-suit injunction".
3. Dispute over trademark ownership between Red Bull Vitamin Beverage Co., Ltd. and T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co, Ltd.
Case result: In its final judgment, the Supreme People's Court maintained that the trademark owner of the 17 "Red Bull" trademarks shall be T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co, Ltd.
[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case clarified the legal boundaries between trademark transfer and trademark licensing. The rules of judgment have exemplary significance for similar cases and release a positive signal of equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign companies.
4. Dispute over the infringement of the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design by Suzhou Saixin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Yusheng Technology Co., Ltd., Hu Caihuan, Huang Jiandong, and Huang Sailiang
Case result: The Supreme People's Court upheld the judgment that the layout design of the integrated circuit involved infringed the exclusive right of the layout design of Suzhou Saixin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
[Typical significance] This case is a typical dispute over the infringement of the exclusive rights of integrated circuit layout design. The judgment clarified the nature of the registration behavior of integrated circuit layout design, clarified the basic idea of the original judgment of integrated circuit layout design, and provided specific guidance on difficult issues in judicial practice.
5. Dispute over surplus distribution between Wuhan Atlantic Continuous Casting Equipment Engineering Co., Ltd. and Song Zuxing Company
Case result: The Supreme People's Court heard the case, and ruled that Song Zuxing violated the agreement and disclosed the company's business secrets and shall bear corresponding liabilities.
[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case fully demonstrates the judicial tendency of severely punishing acts of bad faith and maintaining fair competition in the market. Meanwhile, by clarifying the standards of fact determination and proof in criminal and civil cases involving intellectual property rights, the collaborative trial mechanism of criminal and civil cases has been promoted, which has important rule guiding significance for the trial of such cases.
6. OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch vs. Sharp Co., Ltd. and Sain Beiji Japan Co., Ltd. on disputes over Standard Essential Patent Licensing
Case result: The court issued a global "anti-suit injunction" to OPPO.
[Typical significance] The issuance of the global "anti-suit injunction" and the successful resolution of the "anti-suit injunction" in this case demonstrate the clear attitude of the Chinese judiciary and provide powerful judicial guarantees for companies to participate in international market competition fairly.
7. Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Jigan Technology Co., Ltd., and 4399 Network Co., Ltd. on disputes over copyright infringement
Case results: The court ruled that Jigan Company committed infringement and shall compensate RMB 5 million for losses and reasonable expenses.
[Typical Significance] This case involves the determination of infringement of mobile games against the right of adaptation of written works. For the first time, the game software resource library was decompiled, and the extracted content was compared with the content of the textual works to determine the proportion of infringing on original content of other people's works by game companies, which improved the efficiency of the trial.
8. Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Vs. Zhejiang Soudao Network Technology Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Juketong Technology Co., Ltd. on unfair competition dispute
Case result: The court ruled that Zhejiang Soudao Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Juketong Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition and were ordered to compensate Tencent with a total of RMB 2.6 million.
[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case involving the judgment of the attribution of data rights and the legitimacy of data capture behavior. The judgment in this case has balanced the interests of all relevant parties and reasonably divided the ownership and boundaries of various data rights and interests.
9. Case of monopoly dispute between Huizhou Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. and China Audiovisual Copyright Collective Management Association
Case result: The court ruled that the China Audiovisual Copyright Collective Management Association did not constitute a monopoly behavior that abused its dominant market position.
[Typical Significance] The judgment of this case clarified that copyright collective management organizations are still subject to anti-monopoly regulations, clarified the behavioral nature of copyright collective management organizations, and responded to the practical needs of anti-monopoly law enforcement in a timely manner.
10. Copyright infringement crimes by Li Haipeng and other 8
Case result: The court ruled that Li Haipeng and others copied Lego’s assembling building block toy products and sold them, which constituted crime of copyright infringement, and sentenced the principal culprit to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of RMB 90 million.
[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of intensifying criminal crackdowns on intellectual property rights. It fully embodies the judicial orientation of the People's Court to strengthen criminal protection and severely crack down and deter criminal crimes infringing intellectual property rights.
Part of the public information from our website is from the internet. Reposting of such is intended to spread more information and promote network sharing. They do not represent the opinions or any other suggestions of our website and we are not responsible for their authenticity. Part of the works of our website, which we just edit and upload, are from voluntary contributors. Our website only serves as a communicational platform for such works and therefore bears no responsibility for any copyright issues involved. In case you find any works violating your intellectual property rights, please contact us, so that we may change or remove them in time.
All information provided is for reference only. We do not guarantee the accuracy, validity, timeliness and integrity of the information. Our website and our employees are not directly or indirectly responsible to the users or any other people in any way, for any faults, inaccuracy or errors in delivering any information. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, our website claims that we do not assume liability for any direct, indirect, collateral, consequential, special, punitive or exemplary damages of any user or any other person, incurred by using or failing to use any information or links provided by this website.
- The first Patent Pre-examination Application Standard in Zhejiang Province of China was issued [2022-11-24 10:46]
- Sanyou held a webinar on ‘Coexistence of Trademarks in China’ [2022-04-24 10:35]
- International patent applications in Chinese universities and research institutes in 2021 [2022-03-23 10:34]
- Chines lunar year is coming, Sanyou IP wish you a Happy New Year! [2022-01-29 09:12]
- Patent Infringement Dispute Litigation of Split Type Current Transformer [2021-12-02 10:29]