|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary of the Adjudication Gist of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2019) | | 最高人民法院知识产权法庭裁判要旨（2019）摘要 |
| (April 16, 2020) | | （2020年4月16日） |
| On January 1, 2019, according to the decision and deployment of the central government, the Intellectual Property Court (“IPC”) of the Supreme People's Court (“SPC”) was officially set up to uniformly hear appeal cases of patent and other highly professional and technical intellectual property rights across China. The establishment of the IPC of the SPC is a major strategic decision and deployment made by the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core leader for building an intellectual property power and a science and technology power in the world, and a major reforming measure for comprehensively deepening judicial reform and promoting judicial justice. Over the year, the IPC of the SPC had concluded a large number of technology-related IP cases with great significance in accordance with the law, vigorously intensified the protection of IP, continuously promoted the unification of the adjudication standards for technology-related IP cases, and made important contributions to the strict protection of IP, service for the innovation-driven development strategy, and creation of a world-class business environment, through effectively strengthening the trial system and trial capacity building. | | 2019年1月1日，根据中央决策部署，最高人民法院知识产权法庭正式挂牌办公，统一审理全国范围内的专利等专业技术性较强的知识产权上诉案件。最高人民法院知识产权法庭的成立，是以习近平同志为核心的党中央从建设知识产权强国和世界科技强国的战略高度作出的重大决策部署，是全面深化司法改革、推进公正司法的重大改革举措。一年来，最高人民法院知识产权法庭通过切实加强审判体系和审判能力建设，依法审结一大批具有重要影响的技术类知识产权案件，大力提高知识产权保护力度，不断推进技术类知识产权案件裁判尺度统一，为严格保护知识产权、服务创新驱动发展战略、营造国际一流营商环境作出了重要贡献。 |
| In 2019, the IPC of the SPC accepted 1,945 various technology-related IP cases, including 962 civil appeal cases, 241 administrative appeal cases, 481 appeal cases of objection to jurisdiction, and 261 other types of cases. Among the civil appeal cases, there were 454 cases of infringement upon utility model patent rights, 234 cases of infringement upon patents for inventions, eight cases of disputes over confirmation of non-infringement, 40 cases of disputes over patent agency and licensing contracts, nine cases of disputes over patent application rights, seven cases of disputes over remuneration to service inventors, 20 cases of disputes over new plant varieties, one case of disputes over integrated circuit layout design, 12 cases of disputes over technical secrets, 142 cases of disputes over computer software, nine cases of disputes over monopoly, and 26 cases of disputes over technical contracts. Among the administrative appeal cases, there were 80 cases of administrative disputes over invalidation of patents for inventions, 57 cases of administrative disputes over invalidation of utility model patent rights, 13 cases of administrative disputes over invalidation of design patent rights, 71 cases of administrative disputes over refusal to review applications for patents for inventions, nine cases of administrative disputes over refusal to review applications for utility model patents, and 11 cases of other administrative disputes. | | 最高人民法院知识产权法庭2019年全年受理各类技术类知识产权案件1945件，其中民事二审案件962件、行政二审案件241件、管辖权异议上诉案件481件、其他类型案件261件。民事二审案件中，侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案件454件，侵害发明专利权纠纷案件234件，确认不侵权纠纷案件8件，专利代理及许可合同纠纷案件40件，专利申请权纠纷案件9件，职务发明发明人报酬纠纷案件7件，植物新品种纠纷案件20件，集成电路布图设计纠纷案件1件，技术秘密纠纷案件12件，计算机软件纠纷案件142件，垄断纠纷案件9件，技术合同纠纷案件26件。行政二审案件中，发明专利权无效行政纠纷案件80件，实用新型专利权无效行政纠纷案件57件，外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷案件13件，发明专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷案件71件，实用新型专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷案件9件，其他行政纠纷案件11件。 |
| In 2019, a total of 1,433 IP cases were concluded, including 586 civil appeal cases, 142 administrative appeal cases, 446 appeal cases of objection to jurisdiction, and 259 other types of cases. The average trial period for substantive cases was 73 days, and 29.4 days for cases of objection to jurisdiction. Among the 586 civil appeal cases concluded, 236 cases were concluded with the judgment of the first instance being maintained, 213 cases were concluded with appeals being withdrawn, 71 cases were concluded through mediation, and 66 cases were concluded by being sent back for retrial or reversal. Among the 142 administrative appeal cases concluded, 126 cases were concluded with the judgment of the first instance being maintained, 11 cases were concluded with appeals being withdrawn, and 5 cases were concluded by reverse of judgment. Among the 446 appeal cases of objection to jurisdiction concluded, 369 cases were concluded with the judgment of the first instance being maintained, 56 cases were concluded with appeals being withdrawn, and 21 cases were concluded by being sent back for retrial or reversal. | | 2019年全年共审结各类知识产权案件1433件，其中民事二审案件586件，行政二审案件142件，管辖权异议上诉案件446件，其他类型案件259件。实体案件的平均审理周期为73天，管辖权异议案件的平均审理周期为29.4天。在审结的586件民事二审案件中，以维持原审裁判方式结案的有236件，以撤诉方式结案的有213件，以调解方式结案的有71件，以发改方式结案的有66件。在审结的142件行政二审案件中，以维持原审裁判方式结案的有126件，以撤诉方式结案的有11件，以改判方式结案的有5件。在审结的446件管辖权异议上诉案件中，以维持原审裁判方式结案的有369件，以撤诉方式结案的有56件，以发改方式结案的有21件。 |
| The main features of the trial of technology-related IP cases of the IPC of the SPC in 2019 were: First, claim interpretation in civil patent cases was the core issue, application of equivalent infringement was an important focus of dispute, prior art defense, prior right defense and legitimate source defense were the most common causes of defense, and the guidance for intensifying judicial protection of patents was more prominent. Second, judgment on creativity in administrative cases of patents was the core problem and judicial supervision over administration was gradually strengthened. Third, the legal issues arising from cases of new plant varieties were increasingly diversified, and the identification of technical facts and determination of infringement nature constituted the difficulties in the trial of such cases. Fourth, the procedural rules of technical secret cases were further clarified, and the difficulty in substantive trial was relatively large based on the non-publicity of technical secrets and concealment of alternative methods. Fifth, the focus of disputes in computer software cases was concentrated, and difference in the difficulty of the trial of individual cases varied due to relatively large difference in the degree of specificity of the contract agreement and the difficulty in finding out the technical facts. Sixth, assertion of default facts in technical contract cases involving technical issues constituted the key points and difficulties of the trial of cases. Seventh, there were a large number of various jurisdiction cases and other procedural cases. The IPC of the SPC sufficiently maximized the institutional advantages and function, rationally allocated trial resources, and fully guaranteed the prominent direction of policies for safeguarding the lawful rights of rights holders. | | 最高人民法院知识产权法庭2019年技术类知识产权审判工作的主要特点为：一是专利民事案件中权利要求解释是核心问题，等同侵权的适用是重要争点，现有技术抗辩、先用权抗辩和合法来源抗辩是最常见的抗辩事由，加大专利司法保护力度的导向更加突出；二是专利行政案件中创造性判断是核心问题，司法对行政的监督职能进一步强化；三是植物新品种案件中涌现的法律问题愈发多元，技术事实的查明和侵权性质的认定构成该类案件审理中的难点；四是技术秘密案件程序性规则得到进一步澄清，基于技术秘密的非公示性和侵权方式的隐蔽性，实体审理难度较大；五是计算机软件案件争议焦点集中，由于合同约定明确程度和技术事实查明难度存在较大差异，个案审理难度差异较大；六是技术合同案件中涉及技术问题的违约事实查明构成案件审理的重点和难点；七是管辖等程序性案件数量大、类型多，最高人民法院知识产权法庭充分发挥制度优势和职能作用，合理调度审判资源，充分保障权利人维权的政策导向凸显。 |
| In the Adjudication Gist of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2019), 36 typical cases were selected from technology-related IP cases concluded by the IPC of the SPC in 2019 and 40 adjudication rules were summarized, reflecting the judicial philosophy, trial ideas and adjudication methods of the IPC of the SPC in handling new difficult and complex cases in the technology-related IP field, which are hereby issued. | | 《最高人民法院知识产权法庭裁判要旨（2019）》从最高人民法院知识产权法庭2019年审结的技术类知识产权案件中精选36个典型案件，提炼40条裁判规则，反映了最高人民法院知识产权法庭在技术类知识产权领域处理新型、疑难、复杂案件的司法理念、审理思路和裁判方法，现予公布。 |
| I. Trial of civil patent cases | | 一、专利民事案件审判 |
| 1. Determination of functional features | | 1.功能性特征的认定 |
| In the case of appellants Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. v. appellee VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE and defendant Chen Shaoqiang in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “wiper connector”) [No. 2 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If a technical feature in the claim of a patent has defined or implied the specific structure, components, steps, and conditions or the relationships among them, even though the technical feature has also defined the function or effect that it realizes, such technical feature is not the functional feature specified in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases. | | 在上诉人厦门卢卡斯汽车配件有限公司、厦门富可汽车配件有限公司与被上诉人瓦莱奥清洗系统公司、原审被告陈少强侵害发明专利权纠纷案（以下简称“刮水器连接器”专利侵权纠纷案）【（2019）最高法知民终2号】中，最高人民法院指出，如果专利权利要求的某个技术特征已经限定或者隐含了特定结构、组分、步骤、条件或其相互之间的关系等，即使该技术特征同时还限定了其所实现的功能或者效果，亦不属于《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释（二）》第八条所称的功能性特征。 |
| 2. Substantial limitation role of the effects and functions recorded in the subject name on claims | | 2.主题名称所记载效果、功能对权利要求的实质限定作用 |
| In the case of appellant Sun Xixian v. appellee Hunan Jingyi Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for invention) [No. 657 (2019), Final, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If the effects and functions recorded in the subject name of claims are the difference between the patented technical solution and the existing technical solution, other than the effects or functions that may be realized by the structure, components, steps, conditions, or relationships among them recorded in the features of the claims, the effects and functions recorded in the subject name of the claims have substantial limitation role on the protection scope of the claims. | | 在上诉人孙希贤与被上诉人湖南景怡生态科技股份有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【（2019）最高法知民终657号】中，最高人民法院指出，如果权利要求主题名称记载的效果、功能，不是该权利要求特征部分记载的结构、组分、步骤、条件或其之间的关系等能够实现的效果、功能，却是专利技术方案与现有技术方案的区别之所在，那么权利要求主题名称所记载的效果、功能对该权利要求的保护范围具有实质限定作用。 |
| 3. Judgment of infringement upon multi-actor method patent | | 3.多主体实施方法专利的侵权判定 |
| In the case of appellant Shenzhen Tengda Technology Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd., and defendants Jinan Lixia Hongkang Electronic Product Management Department and Jinan Lixia Haowei Electronic Product Management Department in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “Router”) [No. 147 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If the accused infringer fixes the essence of the patent method in the accused infringing product for the purpose of production and business operation, the act or the result of the act has played irreplaceable substantive role in the comprehensive coverage of the technical features claimed by the patent, and terminal users can naturally reproduce the process of the patent method in the normal use of the accused infringing product, it should be determined that the accused infringer has implemented the patent method and infringed upon the rights of the patentee. | | 在上诉人深圳市吉祥腾达科技有限公司与被上诉人深圳敦骏科技有限公司、原审被告济南历下弘康电子产品经营部、济南历下昊威电子产品经营部侵害发明专利权纠纷案（以下简称“路由器”专利侵权纠纷案）【（2019）最高法知民终147号】中，最高人民法院指出，如果被诉侵权行为人以生产经营为目的，将专利方法的实质内容固化在被诉侵权产品中，该行为或者行为结果对专利权利要求的技术特征被全面覆盖起到了不可替代的实质性作用，终端用户在正常使用该被诉侵权产品时就能自然再现该专利方法过程，则应认定被诉侵权行为人实施了该专利方法，侵害了专利权人的权利。 |
| 4. Consideration of the invention points in the determination of prior art defense | | 4.现有技术抗辩认定中的发明点考量 |
| In the case of appellant Wang Yeci v. appellee Xuzhou Huasheng Industrial Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “motor casing of submersible pump”) [No. 89 (2019), Final, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: When a patent in dispute specifies the invention point of its technical solution and emphasizes that the technical features other than the invention point are general components, if the technical feature corresponding to the invention point has been disclosed for a prior technology, the remaining technical features are not disclosed by the prior technical feature, but the prior technology inevitably combines with the general components and forms an overall prior technical solution corresponding to the technical solution of the patent in dispute, it may be determined that the prior art defense is tenable. | | 在上诉人王业慈与被上诉人徐州华盛实业有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案（以下简称“潜水泵电机壳”专利侵权纠纷案）【（2019）最高法知民终89号】中，最高人民法院指出，涉案专利明确指出其技术方案的发明点，并强调发明点以外的技术特征均为通用部件时，如果该发明点对应的技术特征已经为一项现有技术公开，其余技术特征虽未被该现有技术公开，但该现有技术与通用部件必然结合形成与涉案专利技术方案相对应的整体现有技术方案，则可以认定现有技术抗辩成立。 |
| 5. Determination of “main technical drawings” in preemption defense | | 5.先用权抗辩中“主要技术图纸”的认定 |
| In the aforesaid case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “motor casing of submersible pump,” the SPC stated that: Design drawings are the fundamental basis for product processing and inspection in the field of machinery manufacturing. Under the circumstance that the accused infringer has designed the drawings of the key components of the accused infringing product and other components of the product are common ones, it may be determined that it has completed the main technical drawings required for the implementation of invention and has made necessary preparations for manufacturing the accused product, and its preemption defense is tenable. | | 在前述“潜水泵电机壳”专利侵权纠纷案中，最高人民法院指出，设计图纸是机械制造领域产品加工、检验的基本依据，在被诉侵权人已经设计出被诉侵权产品关键部件图纸且该产品的其他部件均为通用部件的情况下，可以认定其已经完成了实施发明创造所必需的主要技术图纸，为生产被诉侵权产品做好了必要准备，其先用权抗辩成立。 |
| 6. Examination of seller's legitimate source defense | | 6.销售者合法来源抗辩的审查 |
| In the case of appellant Baokou (Xiamen) Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. v. appellee Guantao County Peilong Plumbing Installation and Maintenance Store (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 118 [2019], Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: To be tenable, a seller's legitimate source defense should concurrently meet the objective condition that the alleged infringing product is acquired from a legitimate source and the subjective condition that the seller has no subjective fault. And the two essential elements are mutually connected. If the seller can prove that he complies with the legal and normal market trading rules, and obtains the products sold from clear source and legitimate channel at reasonable price, and his sales behavior follows the principle of good faith and conforms to transaction practice, he can be presumed to have no subjective fault. In this case, the right holder should provide the opposite evidence. Where the right holder fails to further provide any contrary evidence sufficient to overturn the aforesaid presumption, the seller's legitimate source defense should be determined to be tenable. | | 在上诉人宝蔻（厦门）卫浴有限公司与被上诉人馆陶县佩龙水暖安装维修门市侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【（2019）最高法知民终118号】中，最高人民法院指出，销售者合法来源抗辩的成立，需要同时满足被诉侵权产品具有合法来源这一客观要件和销售者无主观过错这一主观要件，两个要件相互联系。如果销售者能够证明其遵从合法、正常的市场交易规则，取得所售产品的来源清晰、渠道合法、价格合理，其销售行为符合诚信原则、合乎交易惯例，则可推定其无主观过错。此时，应由权利人提供相反证据。在权利人未进一步提供足以推翻上述推定的相反证据的情况下，应当认定销售者合法来源抗辩成立。 |
| 7. Assumption of right holder's reasonable expenses for protection of rights when the seller's legitimate source defense is tenable | | 7.销售者合法来源抗辩成立时权利人维权合理开支的承担 |
| In the case of appellant Guangzhou Surui Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shenzhen Helitai Technology Co., Ltd., and defendant Guangdong Kuainv Biological Technology Co., Ltd. in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 25 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Legitimate source defense is only a defense exempting liability for compensation, other than non-infringement defense. The seller's legitimate source defense is tenable, which neither changes the infringement nature of the act of selling infringing products nor exempts from the liability for selling infringing products. The reasonable expenses paid by the right holder for obtaining the relief of ceasing infringement shall still be assumed. | | 在上诉人广州市速锐机械设备有限公司与被上诉人深圳市和力泰科技有限公司、原审被告广东快女生物技术有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【（2019）最高法知民终25号】中，最高人民法院指出，合法来源抗辩仅是免除赔偿责任的抗辩，而非不侵权抗辩；销售者的合法来源抗辩成立，既不改变销售侵权产品这一行为的侵权性质，也不免除停止销售侵权产品的责任，仍应承担权利人为获得停止侵害救济所支付的合理开支。 |
| 8. Calculation of compensation for damages when the accused infringer refuses to provide infringing account books without justified reasons | | 8.被诉侵权人无正当理由拒不提供侵权账簿资料时损害赔偿的计算 |
| In the aforesaid case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “router,” the SPC stated that: The patentee claims that the compensation for damages should be calculated on the basis of the benefits from infringement and has already completed preliminary evidence production for the scale and fact of infringement, but the accused infringer refuses to provide the corresponding evidence materials on the scale and basic facts of the infringement without justified reasons, making that the basic facts used for calculating the benefits from infringement are unable to be accurately determined. Its defense reasons such as degree of contribution of the patent in dispute to the benefits from infringement are not required to be considered. | | 在前述“路由器”专利侵权纠纷案中，最高人民法院指出，专利权人主张以侵权获利计算损害赔偿数额且对侵权规模事实已经完成初步举证，被诉侵权人无正当理由拒不提供有关侵权规模基础事实的相应证据材料，导致用于计算侵权获利的基础事实无法精准确定，对其提出的应考虑涉案专利对其侵权获利的贡献度等抗辩理由可不予考虑。 |
| 9. Scope and conditions of administrative complaints against infringement upon patent rights constituting infringement warnings | | 9.专利侵权行政投诉构成侵权警告的范围与条件 |
In the case of appellants VMI HOLLAND B.V. and Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd. v. appellee Safe-run Huachen Machinery (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (disputes over the confirmation of non-infringement upon patent rights) [No. 5 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Where the patent right holder only files a request for handling disputes over infringement upon patent rights with the patent administrative department against some manufacturers, sellers, and users of the accused infringing product, which makes the business operation of the manufacturers, sellers or users not participating in the administrative proceedings be in an uncertain status, it may be determined that the request for handling the disputes over infringement upon patent rights constitutes infringement warnings for the aforesaid manufacturers, sellers and users not participating in the administrative proceedings.
．．．．．． | | 在上诉人VMI荷兰公司、固铂（昆山）轮胎有限公司与被上诉人萨驰华辰机械（苏州）有限公司确认不侵害专利权纠纷案【（2019）最高法知民终5号】中，最高人民法院指出，专利权人仅针对被诉侵权产品的部分生产者、销售者、使用者向专利行政部门提起专利侵权纠纷处理请求，导致未参与该行政处理程序的生产者、销售者、使用者的经营处于不确定状态的，可以认定该专利侵权纠纷处理请求对于上述未参与行政处理程序的生产者、销售者、使用者构成侵权警告。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1100.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|