[Editor’s Note] The full text of the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases in the Supreme People’s Court (2017) is about 70,000 words, and it is now published in summary. The full text of the report will be published by China Legal Publishing House in the near future.
In 2017, the Supreme People’s Court thoroughly studied and implemented the spirit of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, deepened the reform in the field of intellectual property adjudication, conscientiously fulfilled the top priority of law enforcement and case handling, strictly implemented the judicial responsibility system, gave full play to the leading role of judicial protection of intellectual property rights, continuously promoted the modernization of the intellectual property adjudication system and judicial capacity, and continuously enhanced the judicial credibility and international influence in the field of intellectual property rights, making positive contributions to building an intellectual property power and a world science and technology power.
In 2017, the Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Court received a total of 897 new intellectual property cases. Among the newly accepted cases, according to the trial procedures, there are 15 cases of second instance, 56 cases of arraignment, 796 cases of application for retrial, 29 cases of request for instructions and 1 case of reconsideration of judicial sanctions. According to the types of objects involved, there are 336 patent cases, 9 new plant varieties cases, 395 trademark cases, 29 copyright cases, 1 integrated circuit layout design case, 4 monopoly cases, 11 trade secret cases, 14 other unfair competition cases, 57 intellectual property contract cases and 41 other cases (mainly involving intellectual property trial management affairs). According to the nature of cases, there are 390 administrative cases, including 68 patent administrative cases, 308 trademark administrative cases, 9 administrative requests and 5 other administrative cases. 501 civil cases; 5 cases of criminal instructions; One case of judicial sanction reconsideration.
In the whole year, 910 intellectual property cases were concluded, including 13 cases of second instance, 58 cases of arraignment, 808 cases of application for retrial, 30 cases of request for instructions and 1 case of reconsideration of judicial sanctions. Among the 808 applications for retrial concluded, there were 366 administrative applications for retrial and 442 civil applications for retrial; It ruled that 615 applications for retrial were rejected, 98 cases were brought for trial, 66 cases were ordered for retrial, 22 cases were dismissed, and 7 cases were handled in other ways.
The basic laws and characteristics of intellectual property rights and competition cases handled in the Supreme People’s Court in 2017 are: patent and trademark cases still account for the largest proportion of all accepted cases, patent civil cases have increased greatly, and trademark administrative cases continue to maintain a rapid growth. There are many controversial issues in patent civil cases, such as the division of technical characteristics and the interpretation of claims, and there are many related cases involving disputes over the reward and remuneration of inventors of service inventions. The focus of controversy in administrative cases of patent authorization and confirmation is still on the evaluation of novelty and creativity, and the proportion of cases involving procedural issues has increased. Patent administrative law enforcement cases involve many procedural violations, and the function of judicial supervision over administrative law enforcement is constantly strengthened. In trademark civil cases, proper use, legal source and right of first use have become the common defenses. Trademark approximation, commodity similarity and prior rights protection are still the main focus of trademark administrative cases. The number of copyright cases has declined, and originality judgment is still the main focus and difficulty of cases. Disputes over infringement of trade secrets, unauthorized use of unique names of well-known commodities, and disputes over packaging and decoration are relatively large in competition cases, and the trial of competition cases plays a more prominent role in leading the market competition order. The number of monopoly cases is small, and how to identify the relevant market and whether the operators have a dominant market position are the difficulties in court hearing. The cases of new plant varieties have increased rapidly, mainly involving the identification of sales infringement and infringement comparison. In the dispute cases of technology contracts and franchise contracts, problems such as contract breach and contract termination are more prominent.
This annual report selects 33 typical cases (one related case with basically the same case facts and legal issues) from the intellectual property and competition cases concluded in the Supreme People’s Court in 2017. From this, we have summed up 42 legal application issues with certain guiding significance, which reflect the trial ideas and judgment methods of the Supreme People’s Court in dealing with new, difficult and complicated cases in the field of intellectual property rights and competition, and are hereby announced.
I. Trial of patent cases
(1) Trial of patent civil cases
1. The reference function of the opinions made by the parties in the process of authorization and confirmation of other patents that enjoy common priority with the patents involved.
In the case of the dispute between the retrial applicant Dyson Technology Co., Ltd. and the respondent Suzhou Suo Generator Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Application No.1461], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when determining the meaning of the terms in the claim, if the same patent applicant or patentee has made a clear statement on the same terms in the authorization confirmation procedure of other patents that share the same priority with the patents involved, you can refer to the above statement.
2. Restrictive conditions for the application of estoppel principle in patent infringement cases
In the case of retrial applicants Cao Guilan, Hu Meiling, Jiang Li and Jiang Haotian and the respondent chongqing lifan Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Application No.1826], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when the people’s court applied the principle of estoppel in patent infringement cases, To judge whether the opinion statement made by the obligee conforms to the "clear negation" stipulated in Article 13 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (II), we should make an objective and comprehensive judgment on the examination of the technical characteristics in the patent authorization and confirmation stage, focusing on whether the restrictive statement made by the obligee on the technical scheme is finally recognized by the referee, and whether the patent application is authorized or the patent right is maintained as a result.
3. The division standard of the technical features of the claim in the judgment of patent infringement
In the case of retrial applicant Liu Zonggui and respondent Taizhou Fenglilai Plastic Co., Ltd. infringing on the patent right of utility model [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.3802], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that properly dividing the technical features of patent claims is the basis for infringement comparison. The division of technical features should be combined with the overall technical scheme of the invention, and smaller technical units that can realize certain technical functions and produce relatively independent technical effects should be considered.
4. Parts with only technical functions do not constitute design infringement.
In the case of retrial applicant Ou Jieren and respondent Taizhou Jinshen Household Products Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.2649], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if the product infringing the patent right of design is used as a component to manufacture another product and sell it, if the component only has technical function in another product, this behavior does not constitute infringement.
5. Determination of manufacturing behavior in patent infringement cases
In the case of the retrial applicant Shenyang China Railway Safety Equipment Co., Ltd. and the respondent Harbin Railway Bureau Retarder Speed Control System Research Center, Ningbo China Railway Safety Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and the defendant Harbin Railway Bureau in the first instance [(2017) Supreme People’s Republic of China No.122], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that although the accused infringer did not directly manufacture the accused infringing product, it can be inferred from factors such as his control of others’ manufacturing behavior, the accused infringer’s enterprise name and exclusive product model marked on the final product.
6. The technical features of non-shape structure of utility model patent shall not be considered in principle when the defense of existing technology is recognized.
In the case of the dispute between Tan Xining, the retrial applicant, and Hengda Silicone Co., Ltd., the respondent in Zhenjiang New Area [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.3712], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the protection object of the utility model patent is the technical scheme composed of shape, structure and their combination, so the technical features of non-shape structure in the claim do not contribute to the novelty and creativity of the claim. Therefore, in the case of utility model patent infringement, the determination of the defense of existing technology does not consider whether the existing technology discloses the technical characteristics of non-shape structure recorded in the claim in principle.
(2) Trial of patent administrative cases
7. Identification and treatment of procedural violations in patent administrative law enforcement
In the case of administrative handling of patent infringement disputes between the retrial applicant Xixia Longcheng Special Materials Co., Ltd. and the respondent Yulin Intellectual Property Office and Shaanxi Coal Industry Chemical Group Shenmu Tianyuan Chemical Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme Law Firm No.84], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the members of the collegiate bench who have been explicitly changed have signed the sued administrative decision, which is essentially equal to "the adjudicator has not made a ruling, and the adjudicator has not tried it", which constitutes a serious violation of legal procedures. In principle, the collegiate bench that makes the sued administrative decision shall be composed of the staff of the administrative organ with patent administrative law enforcement qualifications. Even if law enforcement personnel are deployed in different places, formal and complete official document procedures should be performed.
8. Determination of the starting point of the prosecution period in administrative litigation
In the case of retrial applicants Beijing Tailong Automation Equipment Co., Ltd., Wang Yu and the respondent Henan Intellectual Property Office [(2017) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.2778], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the prosecution period of administrative litigation is calculated from the date when the specific administrative act is known or should be known, or the date when the specific administrative act is made, not from the date when the specific administrative act is known or should be known.
9. The specification is clear and complete.
In the administrative dispute between the retrial applicant Stoebly-Faweiri Company and the respondent Changshu Textile Machinery Factory Co., Ltd., the defendant in the first instance and the appellee in the second instance, the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office [(2016) Supreme Law Firm No.95], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that whether the patent specification is clear and complete should be judged by whether the technicians in this field understand the technical scheme and can realize it. If the technical personnel in this field can understand, find and correct the errors when reading the contents disclosed in the specification, and this understanding and correction will not lead to changes in the technical scheme of the claim, they should be allowed to correct and understand the errors existing in the patent specification.
10. Whether the claim is based on the specification.
In the administrative dispute between the retrial applicant Sensor Electronics Co., Ltd. and the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the respondent and the third party of the first instance, Ningbo Xunqiang Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent right of "electronic goods monitoring marker") [(2016) Supreme Law Firm No.19], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the obligee has the right to write the claim in a reasonable and general way on the basis of the specific implementation methods and other contents fully disclosed in the manual, so as to obtain it. The scope of protection defined in the claims shall be compatible with the technical contribution of the patent involved and the full disclosure of the specification.
11. Determination of technical problems to be solved by the patent involved when determining whether the claim is based on the specification.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute case of invalid invention patent right of electronic goods monitoring marker, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when determining whether the claim is based on the specification, the technology to be solved for the patent involved can be combined with the background technology and its existing defects recorded in the specification, the technical problems to be solved in the invention content, and the contents related to the technical problems and beneficial effects in the specific implementation. According to the difference between the claim and the closest existing technology, the "actually solved technical problem" redefined may be different from the technical problem to be solved by the patent involved, and cannot be directly used as the basis for determining whether the claim is based on the specification.
12. The relationship between whether the claim is based on the specification and whether the claim is creative.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent right of "electronic goods monitoring marker", the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that even if the claim is creative, it is still necessary to determine whether the technical features recorded in it, including the distinctive technical features, are summarized properly and whether the technical scheme defined in the claim is summarized properly as a whole, according to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 26 of the Patent Law.
13. Nature of Markush’s claim
In the administrative dispute between the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, the retrial applicant, and Beijing Wansheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., the respondent, and No.13 Co., Ltd., the third party in the first instance (hereinafter referred to as "Markush Claim" patent invalidation administrative dispute case) [(2016) Supreme Law Firm No.41], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the compound claim written in Markush way should be understood as a general technical scheme rather than a collection of many compounds.
14. The principle of modification of Markush’s claim in invalid procedure.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute case of patent invalidation of Markush’s claim, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the principle of allowing the modification of Markush’s claim should be that no class or single compound with new properties and functions can be produced due to the modification, but at the same time, the case factors should be fully considered.
15. The creative judgment method of Markush’s claim.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute case of invalid patent of Markush claim, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the creative judgment of compound claim written in Markush way should follow the basic method of creative judgment, that is, the "three-step method" stipulated in the patent examination guide. Unexpected technical effect is an auxiliary factor in creative judgment, and it is usually not appropriate to judge whether a patent application is creative by directly applying unexpected technical effect across the "three-step method".
16. Identification of distinguishing technical features in invalid cases of design patent right
In the administrative dispute between the retrial applicant YKK Co., Ltd. and the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the respondent, the third party in the first instance Ideality (Guangdong) Zipper Industry Co., Ltd. and Kaiyi (Guangdong) Garment Accessories Co., Ltd. [(2016) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.3687], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the features that are not reflected in the main view of the design patent and are not clearly displayed in the stereoscopic view do not constitute the design patent and the comparative design.
Second, the trial of trademark cases
(1) Trial of trademark civil cases
17. The relationship between the protection of registered trademarks and the trademark awareness of the accused infringing goods.
In the case of retrial applicant Cao Xiaodong and respondent Yunnan Xiaguan Tuocha (Group) Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Republic of China No.273], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that a registered trademark, as a symbolic civil right, the trademark owner not only has the right to prohibit others from using the registered trademark logo on the same similar goods, but also has the right to use its registered trademark logo to establish the connection between the registered trademark logo and the source of the goods among the relevant public. Whether the relevant public will confuse and mistake the goods using the accused infringement mark for the goods of the trademark owner or have some connection with the trademark owner, and also mistake the goods of the trademark owner for the goods of the accused infringer or mistake the trademark owner for having some connection with the accused infringer.
18. Considerations for the coexistence of trademarks and font sizes under special historical background
In the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between the complainant Taiyuan Daningtang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and the respondent Shanxi Medicinal Materials Company [(2015) Mintizi No.46], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that under the special historical background, whether using the same brand name as others’ trademarks constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition should be comprehensively considered from the aspects of historical inheritance, reality, legal application and social effect.
19. Identification of legal common names
In the case of trademark infringement dispute between the retrial applicant Fuzhou Rice Factory and the respondent wuchang city Jinfutai Agricultural Co., Ltd. and Fujian Xinhuadu General Department Store Co., Ltd. Fuzhou Jinshan Dajingcheng Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Daohuaxiang" infringement trademark dispute case) [(2016) Supreme People’s Republic of China No.374], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the common name stipulated in the crop variety examination and approval method is not exactly the same as the common name in the sense of trademark law, and it cannot be determined only on the basis of the variety name announced by examination and approval.
20. Identification of common names by convention
In the aforementioned dispute case of "Daohuaxiang" infringing on trademark rights, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the relevant market of the product is not limited to a specific region but involves the whole country, and whether it belongs to the established common name should be judged by the common understanding of the relevant public in the whole country.
21. Proper use of crop variety names
In the aforementioned dispute case of trademark infringement by "Daohuaxiang", the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the case of the prior registered trademark rights of others, the crop variety names announced after examination and approval can be standardized and used in the products processed from the planting harvest of this variety, but this use method is limited to indicating the source of crop varieties and shall not be highlighted.
22. Identification of fair use in trademark infringement cases
In the case of trademark infringement dispute between Feng Yin, the retrial applicant, and Xi ‘an Qujiang Yuejianglou Restaurant Entertainment Culture Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.4920], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the main purpose of the accused infringer’s use of relevant symbols in his enterprise name and other commercial activities is to objectively describe and indicate the characteristics of his service, and in the actual use process, he never used the same graphic combination form as the trademark involved. There is no evidence that the accused infringer’s use of relevant symbols and characters aims to cling to the commercial reputation of the trademark involved, so it can be concluded that the alleged infringement does not have the possibility of confusing the relevant public and thus does not constitute infringement of the trademark right involved.
(2) Trial of trademark administrative cases
23. Consideration factors of trademark similarity judgment
In the administrative dispute case of retrial applicant Sichuan Yibin Wuliangye Group Co., Ltd. vs. the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Gansu Binhe Food Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. [(2014) Zhixingzi No.37], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that judging whether the challenged trademark and the cited trademark constitute approximate trademarks used on the same or similar goods, Factors such as the constituent elements of the objected trademark and the cited trademark, the prior use status and popularity of the objected trademark should be comprehensively considered. If it will not lead to confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, it should be considered that the objected trademark and the cited trademark do not constitute similarity.
24. Proof of the qualified subject who claims prior copyright.
In the administrative dispute between Wenzhou Yijiuliang Optical Co., Ltd., the retrial applicant, Dama Co., Ltd., the respondent and the appellee of the second instance, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce [(2017) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.7174], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that both the copyright owner and the interested party of the copyright can claim the prior copyright according to Article 31 of the Trademark Law. The copyright registration certificate after the trademark application date can not be used as the ownership evidence of the prior copyright alone. Although the trademark registration certificate before the trademark application date can not be used as evidence of copyright ownership, it can be used as preliminary evidence to determine that the trademark owner is an interested party who has the right to claim the copyright of the trademark mark.
25. Examination and determination of whether others enjoy prior copyright.
In the administrative dispute case of retrial applicant Jiejie Co., Ltd. against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the third party of first instance Jinhua Baizi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme Law Firm No.35], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that it is necessary to comprehensively consider relevant evidence to determine whether the parties enjoy prior copyright. When the certificate of copyright registration is later than the application date of the trademark in dispute, the parties concerned can be deemed to have prior copyright in the trademark mark by combining the trademark registration certificate, the website page containing the trademark mark, the newspaper content recording the creation process of the work, the product in kind, the certificate of copyright transfer and other evidence, and when it is confirmed that the relevant evidence confirms each other and has formed a complete chain of evidence.
26. "Portrait" as a prior right protection should be identifiable.
In the administrative dispute case between retrial applicant michael jeffrey jordan and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the third party of the first instance, Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. [(2015) Zhixingzi No.332], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the "portrait" protected by the right of portrait should be recognizable, which should include personal characteristics enough for the public to identify the corresponding right subject, that is, the specific natural person, so as to clearly refer to the specific right subject.
Third, the trial of copyright cases
27. Identification criteria of model works
In the case of the retrial applicant Shenzhen Feipengda Boutique Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and the respondent Beijing Zhonghang Zhicheng Technology Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Republic of China No.353], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when judging whether it constitutes a model work protected by the copyright law, the provisions of Article 4 (13) of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law cannot be applied separately from those of Article 2. In the case of only meeting the provisions of Item (13) of Article 4 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law, it cannot be considered as a model work protected by the Copyright Law.
28. Calculation of infringement damages when using other people’s works as trademarks
In the case of Li Yanxia, the retrial applicant, and Jilin Yongpeng Agricultural Products Development Co., Ltd., the respondent, and Benyuan Design Studio of Nanguan District, the third person in the first instance [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.2348], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if someone uses another person’s work as a trademark without permission, which constitutes infringement of another person’s copyright, damages should not be calculated based on the loss of the obligee or the benefit of the infringer, but should mainly consider the copyright license fee. The trademark design fee of the accused infringer can be used as a reference to determine the copyright license fee.
Iv. trial of unfair competition cases
29. The "commodity" and "packaging and decoration" in the unique packaging and decoration of well-known commodities should have a specific pointing relationship.
In the two cases of the appellant Guangdong Jiaduobao Beverage & Food Co., Ltd. and the appellees Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Wanglaoji Dajian Health Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "red can" unique packaging and decoration dispute case) [(2015) Minsanzhongzi No.2 and No.3], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that there is a difference between "well-known goods" and "unique packaging and decoration" as stipulated in Item 2 of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Abstract commodity names or commodity concepts without definite connotation are divorced from the specific commodities to which packaging and decoration are attached, and lack of practical use behavior for evaluation, which does not have the significance of evaluation according to the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
30. Factors for determining the ownership of the unique packaging and decoration rights of well-known commodities
In the above-mentioned dispute case about the unique packaging and decoration of "Red Cans", the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that when determining the ownership of the rights and interests of unique packaging and decoration, it is necessary to encourage honest labor under the premise of following the principle of honesty and credit, and also to respect consumers’ objective cognition of the relationship between commodity sources and directions based on the distinctive features of packaging and decoration itself.
V. Trial of new plant varieties cases
31. The meaning of "sales" in Article 6 of the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties.
In the case of the dispute between the retrial applicant, Laizhou Yonghengguohuai Research Institute, and the respondent, Ge Yanjun [(2017) Supreme People’s Application No.4999], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the meaning of the word "sales" in Article 6 of the Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants should be understood in combination with the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1978), which China has joined. According to the principle of consistency of interpretation between international law and domestic law, the "sales" mentioned in Article 6 of the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties should include the promise of sales.
Vi. Trial of technical contract cases
32. Identification of the purpose of the contract in the technology industrialization contract
In the case of technical contract dispute between Shaanxi Tianbao Soybean Food Technology Research Institute, the retrial applicant, and Fenzhou Yuyuan Native Products Co., Ltd. [(2016) Supreme People’s Republic of China No.251], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that whether the products that meet the contract can be produced is not the same level as whether the products can be marketed, marketable and profitable. In a contract involving technological industrialization, if there is no clear agreement, the commercialization of products should not be regarded as the purpose of the contract.
VII. Proceedings and Evidence of Intellectual Property Rights
(1) Civil proceedings and evidence of intellectual property rights
33. The receiving place of online shopping should not be used as the place of infringement of intellectual property rights and unfair competition cases.
In the case of the appellants Guangdong marnell Clothing Co., Ltd., Zhou Lelun and the appellee New Balance Trade (China) Co., Ltd. and the defendant Nanjing Oriental Mall Co., Ltd. [(2016) Supreme People’s Jurisdiction No.107], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the case of infringement of intellectual property rights and unfair competition, the plaintiff should not apply the provisions of Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law to purchase the infringed products online.
34. Examination and determination of notarial evidence involving market statistical investigation
In the case of the retrial applicant Hebei Liuren Baked Beverage Co., Ltd. and the respondent Hebei Yangyuan Zhihui Beverage Co., Ltd. and the first-instance defendant Jinhua jindong district Ye Baosen Non-staple Food Store [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.3918], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the examination and determination of notarial evidence related to market statistical investigation should specifically examine the objectivity, scientificity and legality of the market statistical investigation, not just because the investigation was notarized.
35. In the retrial procedure, it is argued that the defense of existing technology should not be supported by new evidence.
In the case of the retrial applicant Tangshan Xianfeng Printing Machinery Co., Ltd. and the respondent Tianjin Changrong Printing Equipment Co., Ltd. and the defendant Changzhou Hengxin Packaging Color Printing Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Application No.768], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the patent infringement case, the defendant claimed the existing technology defense with new evidence in the retrial procedure, apparently applying for retrial on the grounds of new evidence, but in essence it was equivalent to proposing a new existing technology defense separately. If the accused infringer is allowed to put forward new prior art defenses without restriction in the retrial procedure, compared with the patentee’s claim that should be fixed before the end of the trial debate in the court of first instance, obviously unfair, the patentee, will be a lawsuit surprise, and the proceedings of the first and second instance will also be overhead.
36. The legal source defense shall provide relevant evidence that conforms to the trading habits.
In the case of the retrial applicant Ningbo Ou Lin Industrial Co., Ltd. and the respondent Ningbo Bosheng Valve Fittings Co., Ltd. and the second-instance appellant Ningbo Ou Lin Kitchenware Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme People’s Court No.1671], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the "statement" issued by one party about its production and providing the accused infringing products to other parties belongs to the statement of the parties. If the patentee does not recognize the statement and lacks other objective evidence, it should be proved.
(2) The procedures and evidence of administrative proceedings for intellectual property rights
37. Qualifications of the claimant who files a request for invalidation on the grounds that the patent right for design conflicts with the legal right previously obtained by others.
In the administrative dispute between the retrial applicant Staples Company and the respondent Luo Shikai, and the defendant of the first instance, the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as "Shredder") [(2017) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.8622], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the reasons for patent invalidation can be divided into two types: absolute invalid reasons and relative invalid reasons, and there are significant differences between them in the nature of the regulated object and the legislative purpose. The invalid reason for the conflict between the patent right of design and the prior legal right of others belongs to the relative invalid reason. When the provisions of Article 45 of the Patent Law on the subject scope of the claimant are applicable to the invalid reasons of the right conflict, based on the essential attributes of the relative invalid reasons, the legislative purpose and the legal order effect, the subject qualification of the claimant for invalidation should be restricted, and in principle, only the obligee of the prior legal right and its interested parties can claim it.
38. The principle of constancy of parties can be applied to the administrative procedure of patent invalidation.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute case of invalid patent right for design of "shredder", the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the administrative proceedings, after the people’s court accepted the relevant litigation, in order to ensure the stability of the litigation procedure and avoid the occurrence of litigation uncertainty, the subject qualification of the parties concerned was not lost due to the subsequent changes in the legal relationship of the subject matter of the litigation. The administrative procedure of patent invalidation belongs to quasi-judicial procedure, and the principle of constant parties also has reference significance for this procedure. For the claimant who meets the qualification conditions at the start of the administrative procedure for invalidation, even if the legal relationship about the subject matter of litigation changes later, it will not naturally lose the subject qualification.
39. Acceptable conditions for applying for retrial of new judgments caused by bringing administrative proceedings against administrative rulings that have been bound by earlier effective judgments.
In the administrative dispute over trademark revocation review of Zhejiang Xiangwang Technology Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.5093], the retrial applicant Suntory Holdings Co., Ltd. and the respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the third party in the original trial, If the parties file an administrative lawsuit against the administrative ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board based on the effective judgment of the court again, and the people’s court makes a judgment to maintain the administrative ruling based on the determination of the original effective judgment, whether the parties can apply for a retrial against the new judgment should be considered in combination with the legal nature of the sued administrative ruling, the content of the new judgment and the prevention of circular litigation as much as possible. If the accused administrative ruling is completely bound by the earlier effective judgment, the new judgment is made according to the facts and reasons determined by the earlier effective judgment, and the accused administrative ruling has not been tried in substance. In order to avoid circular litigation, the application for retrial should not be allowed for the new judgment.
40. The people’s court may make an ex officio determination on the important facts missed by the administrative department.
In the administrative dispute case [(2017) Supreme Law Firm No.10] between the retrial applicant Plana Life Art Co., Ltd. and the respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the applicant claimed priority when applying for trademark registration, and the administrative department missed the trial on whether the applied trademark enjoyed priority, which led to the wrong decision, and the people’s court should make a judgment according to law on the basis of finding out the relevant facts.
41. The people’s court may partially revoke the patent invalidation decision.
In the aforementioned administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent right of "electronic goods monitoring marker", the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that if the relevant determination of the invalidation decision of the accused patent can be handled separately, the people’s court may partially revoke the part of the invalidation decision that was wrongly determined.
42. It is not always necessary to provide a separate Chinese translation for foreign evidence in the invalidation procedure.
In the administrative dispute between ZTE Corporation, the retrial applicant, and the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of the respondent and a digital technology company in the United States [(2017) Supreme Law Firm Shen No.4798], the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that in the patent invalidation procedure, it is not always necessary to provide a separate Chinese translation for foreign language certification documents, and the the State Council patent administration department can decide whether it is necessary to require the parties to submit a Chinese translation according to the specific circumstances. The necessity of submitting Chinese translation usually needs to consider such factors as facilitating the Patent Reexamination Board and the opposing party to understand the contents of evidence, ensuring administrative efficiency, and ensuring and facilitating the parties to exercise their right to express their opinions. Under special circumstances, it is not necessary to provide a Chinese translation separately.