| | 最高人民法院办公厅关于印发《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2016)》的通知 |
| Abstract of the Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court (2016) | | （2017年4月26日 法办〔2017〕74号） |
| (April 26, 2017) | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| In 2016, the Supreme People's Court proactively adapted itself of its own free will to the new changes in the international affairs and the new normal of economic development, effectively strengthened the conscientiousness of opportunity, responsibility, and innovation, thoroughly implemented the national intellectual property strategy and the innovation-driven development strategy, implemented the basic judicial policy of “judicial leading, strict protection, categorized implementation of policies, and harmonious proportions,” with the focus on strict protection, in-depth reform, improved system, and unified planning, constantly promoted the modernization of the intellectual property judicial system and judicial capacity, and provided strong judicial safeguard for the building of a strong intellectual property power and a technical power in the world. | | 为及时总结知识产权和竞争案件审判经验，加强审判指导，推进司法公开和提升司法公信，最高人民法院从2016年审结的知识产权和竞争案件中精选了27件典型案例，归纳出39个具有普遍指导意义的法律适用问题，形成了《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2016)》。该年度报告反映了最高人民法院处理新型、疑难、复杂知识产权和竞争案件的审判标准、裁判方法和司法导向，对于知识产权审判工作具有重要指导意义。 |
| In 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court accepted a total of 724 intellectual property cases. Among the newly-accepted cases that are categorized according to the procedures for the trial of cases, there are two protest cases, seven cases of second instance, 99 cases brought by way of certiorari, 601 cases of applying for retrial, three appellate cases, and 12 cases requesting for instructions. According to the categories of subjects involved in the cases, there are 227 patent cases, one case concerning new botanic varieties, 337 trademark cases, 64 copyright cases, two cases concerning integrated circuit layout design, two monopoly cases, 12 trade secret cases, 23 cases concerning other unfair competition, 38 cases concerning intellectual property contracts, and other 18 cases (mainly involving intellectual property trial management matters). According to the natures of cases, there are a total of 352 administrative cases, in which there are 84 administrative patent cases and 268 administrative trademark cases; and there are a total of 372 civil cases. In 2016, the Intellectual Property Tribunal concluded 735 intellectual property cases, in which there are two protest cases, 11 cases of second instance, 96 cases brought by way of certiorari, 614 cases of applying for retrial, and 12 cases requesting for instructions. Among 614 cases of applying for retrial that have been concluded, there are 283 administrative cases of applying for retrial and 331 civil cases of applying for retrial; the Intellectual Property Tribunal ruled to reject petitions for retrial in 454 cases, bring 76 cases by way of certiorari, instruct or assign the retrial of 31 cases, withdraw charges (including reconciliation) of 18 cases, and handle the other 35 cases by other means. | | 现将《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2016)》印发给你们，供在知识产权审判工作中参考借鉴。 |
| The intellectual property and competition cases tried by the Supreme People's Court in 2016 have the following basic rules and characteristics: The intellectual property cases related to patents and trademarks still account for the largest portion in all cases accepted and the number of administrative cases concerning trademark authorization increased significantly; the focal disputes of administrative patent cases are still centralized on the evaluation of novelty and creativeness. Among cases in the fields of chemistry and medical biology, whether the specifications are fully disclosed and whether the claims are endorsed by the specifications are still prominent legal issues. The parties have misunderstandings on the position and role of the evaluation report of patent right, which is a common problem in civil patent cases. In addition, the role of the technical investigator system in the methods for finding technical facts is worth attention; the overall number of trademark cases continues to sway at high levels, the number of administrative trademark cases accounts for a high proportion, there is still dispute over such problems involving application of law as whether the trademark in dispute has any adverse effect and the protection requirements and scope of the prior right, and the adjudication criteria and scale should be further substantiated and unified. Through such flexible elements as trademark similarity, commodity similarity, and confusion, on the basis of taking the market actuality into full account, the adaptability between the strength in the protection of trademark rights and the distinctiveness and popularity of the trademark has been reflected, and the principle of “harmonious proportions” has been fully demonstrated in the trial of civil trademark cases; the number of copyright cases and the proportion thereof are basically stable, there are a large number of relevance cases involving Karaoke operators and other litigation subjects, and it is still common that the procedures for the parties to take evidence are not standardized and the standards for evidence verification are not unified; in competition cases, disputes over trade secrets account for a large proportion, and the focal disputes centered on the confidentiality of relevant information and whether confidentiality measures have been taken and other legal issues related to proving the foundation of rights. The number of monopoly cases increased, but the parties' capacity of action still requires accumulation and improvement. | | 最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2016）摘要 |
| This annual report selected 27 model cases (including one relevance case with basically identical case facts and legal issues) from the intellectual property and competition cases concluded by the Supreme People's Court in 2016 and the aforesaid 27 cases include the ten typical intellectual property cases and fifty model intellectual property cases tried by the people's courts in 2016. Thirty nine issues concerning the application of law with general guiding significance have been concluded to reflect the trial idea and adjudication methods of the Supreme People's Court in the handling of new-type, difficult, and complicated cases in the fields of intellectual property rights and competition and such 39 issues are hereby issued. | | 2016年，最高人民法院积极主动适应国际形势新变化和经济发展新常态，切实增强机遇意识、责任意识、创新意识，深入贯彻实施国家知识产权战略和创新驱动发展战略，贯彻“司法主导、严格保护、分类施策、比例协调”的基本司法政策，以严格保护、深化改革、完善制度、统一规则为着力点，不断推进知识产权司法体系和司法能力现代化，为建设知识产权强国和世界科技强国提供坚强有力的司法保障。 |
| | 最高人民法院知识产权庭2016年全年共新收各类知识产权案件724件。在新收案件中，按照案件审理程序划分，共有抗诉案件2件，二审案件7件，提审案件99件，申请再审案件601件，申诉案件3件，请示案件12件。按照案件所涉客体类型划分，共有专利案件227件，植物新品种案件1件，商标案件337件，著作权案件64件，集成电路布图设计案件2件，垄断案件2件，商业秘密案件12件，其他不正当竞争案件23件，知识产权合同案件38件，其他案件18件（主要涉及知识产权审判管理事务）。按照案件性质划分，共有行政案件352件，其中专利行政案件84件，商标行政案件268件；共有民事案件372件。全年共审结各类知识产权案件735件，其中抗诉案件2件，二审案件11件，提审案件96件，申请再审案件614件，请示案件12件。在审结的614件申请再审案件中，行政申请再审案件283件，民事申请再审案件331件；裁定驳回再审申请454件，裁定提审76件，裁定指令或者指定再审31件，裁定撤诉（包括和解撤诉）18件，以其他方式处理35件。 |
| I. Trial of Patent Cases | | 最高人民法院2016年审理的知识产权和竞争案件的基本规律和特点是：与专利和商标有关的知识产权案件仍在全部受理案件中占有最大比重，商标授权确权类行政案件增幅明显；专利行政案件的争议焦点问题仍集中于新颖性和创造性的评价，在化学和医药生物领域的案件中，说明书是否充分公开、权利要求书是否得到了说明书的支持，仍然是较为突出的法律问题。当事人对专利权评价报告的地位和作用存在认识误区，是专利民事案件中普遍存在的一个问题。此外，技术调查官制度在技术事实查明方面发挥的作用值得关注；商标案件继续保持整体数量上的高位运行，商标行政案件占比较大，诉争商标是否具有不良影响及在先权利的保护条件和范围等法律适用问题仍存争议，裁判标准和尺度有待明确和统一。通过运用商标近似、商品类似、混淆等弹性因素，在充分考虑市场实际的基础上，体现商标权保护的强度与商标的显著程度、知名度相适应，“比例协调”原则在商标民事案件的审理中得到了较为充分的体现；著作权案件的数量和所占比例基本平稳，涉及卡拉OK经营者等诉讼主体的关联性案件较多，当事人取证程序不规范以及证据认定标准不一的情况仍然比较普遍；竞争案件中的商业秘密纠纷占比较大，争议焦点多集中于相关信息的秘密性，以及是否采取了保密措施等与权利基础的证明有关的法律问题，垄断案件的数量有所上升，但当事人的诉讼能力尚需积累和提升。 |
| | 本年度报告从最高人民法院2016年审结的知识产权和竞争案件中精选了27件（案件事实和法律问题基本相同的关联案件计为1件）典型案件，上述案件涵盖了已经入选2016年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例的全部案件。我们从中归纳出39个具有普遍指导意义的法律适用问题，反映了最高人民法院在知识产权和竞争领域处理新型、疑难、复杂案件的审理思路和裁判方法，现予公布。 |
| (I) Trial of civil patent cases | | |
| | 一、专利案件审判 |
| 1. Finding of preparation techniques for the alleged infringing drugs in dispute over infringement upon patented drug preparation methods | | （一）专利民事案件审判 |
| In the dispute over infringement upon patent for invention between appellant Eli Lilly and Company and appellee Changzhou Watson Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (No. 1 [2015], Final, Civil Division 3, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that: In the dispute over patent infringement upon drug preparation methods, if there is no contrary evidence, it shall be presumed that the preparation techniques for the alleged infringing drug recorded with the drug administration are the actual preparation techniques; where there is evidence proving that the preparation techniques for the alleged infringing drug are untrue, such evidence as the technological sources, production procedures, batch production records, and recordation documents of the alleged infringing drug shall be fully examined and the actual preparation techniques for the alleged infringing drug shall be determined according to law. Due to the technical fact that the preparation techniques for the alleged infringing drug are complicated, it may be ascertained by comprehensively using such approaches as technical investigators, expert assistants, judicial identification, and consultancy with science and technology experts. | | 1.药品制备方法专利侵权纠纷中被诉侵权药品制备工艺的查明 |
| | 在上诉人礼来公司与上诉人常州华生制药有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【（2015）民三终字第1号】中，最高人民法院指出，药品制备方法专利侵权纠纷中，在无其他相反证据的情形下，应当推定被诉侵权药品在药监部门的备案工艺为其实际的制备工艺；有证据证明被诉侵权药品备案工艺不真实的，应当充分审查被诉侵权药品的技术来源、生产规程、批生产记录、备案文件等证据，依法确定被诉侵权药品的实际制备工艺。对于被诉侵权药品制备工艺等复杂的技术事实，可以综合运用技术调查官、专家辅助人、司法鉴定以及科技专家咨询等多种途径进行查明。 |
| 2. Whether the product specifications are publications in the sense of the Patent Law | | 2.产品说明书是否属于专利法意义上的公开出版物 |
| In the case concerning disputes over infringement upon the patent for invention between the retrial petitioner Thyssen Krupp Escalators (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. and respondents China International Marine Container (Group) Ltd., Shenzhen CIMC Tianda Airport Equipment Co., Ltd., and defendant of the first instance Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport Co., Ltd. (No. 179 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that: The product operation and maintenance specifications are delivered to users with the sold products. Neither the user nor those in contact with the product has the duty of confidentiality. In addition, they are available to the unspecific public and are publications in the sense of the Patent Law. The technical schemes recorded in the specifications shall be governed by the disclosure time when the specifications are delivered to users. | | 在再审申请人蒂森克虏伯机场系统（中山）有限公司与被申请人中国国际海运集装箱（集团）股份有限公司、深圳中集天达空港设备有限公司、一审被告广州市白云国际机场股份有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【（2016）最高法民再179号】中，最高人民法院指出，产品操作和维护说明书随产品销售而交付使用者，使用者及接触者均没有保密义务，且其能够为不特定公众所获取，属于专利法意义上的公开出版物。其中记载的技术方案，以交付给使用者的时间作为公开时间。 |
| | 3.对专利法第四十七条第二款中“追溯力”的理解 |
| 3. Comprehension of “retroactivity” in paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Patent Law | | 在再审申请人上海优周电子科技有限公司与被申请人深圳市精华隆安防设备有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【（2016）最高法民再384号】中，最高人民法院指出，在专利权被宣告无效前，人民法院作出侵权认定的判决已经执行完毕，宣告专利权无效的决定对上述判决内容不具有追溯力。但专利权被无效后，有关技术方案即进入公有领域，任何单位和个人均可自由实施，专利权人无权予以制止。 |
| In the case concerning dispute over infringement upon a patent of utility model between the retrial petitioner Shanghai Youzhou Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and the respondent Shenzhen Jinghualong Security Products Co., Ltd. (No. 384 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that: Where, before a patent is announced invalid, the judgment on the identification of infringement rendered by the people's court has been enforced, the decision on declaring the invalidity of patent rights has no retroactivity to the aforesaid judgment. However, after the patent rights are invalidated, the relevant technical schemes enter into the public domain. Any entity or individual may freely implement them and the patentee has no right to stop them. | | （二）专利行政案件审判 |
| | 4.发明专利申请是否具备实用性的判断 |
| (II) Trial of Administrative Patent Cases | | 在再审申请人顾庆良、彭安玲与被申请人国家知识产权局专利复审委员会发明专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷案（简称“磁悬浮磁能动力机”发明专利权驳回复审案）【（2016）最高法行申789号】中，最高人民法院指出，发明专利申请具备实用性，是指该技术方案本身符合自然规律，可实际应用并能够工业化再现。 |
| | 5.专利法关于“能够制造或者使用”与“能够实现”之间的关系 |
| 4. Judgment of whether an application for patent for invention has utility | | 在前述“磁悬浮磁能动力机”发明专利权驳回复审案中，最高人民法院指出，专利法第二十二条第四款规定的“能够制造或者使用”是指发明或者实用新型的技术方案具有在产业中被制造或使用的可能性。专利法第二十六条第三款规定的“能够实现”是指本领域技术人员根据说明书的内容能否实现该发明或实用新型。两者判断标准不同，之间没有必然联系。 |
| In a case concerning administrative dispute over reexamination of rejection of an application for patent for invention between retrial petitioners Gu Qingliang and Peng Anling and respondent Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (No. 789 [2016], Administrative Petition, SPC) (hereinafter referred to as the case concerning rejection of reexamination of the patent for invention “maglev magnetic energy machine”), the Supreme People's Court stated that: The utility of an application for patent for invention means that the technical scheme conforms to the natural law and can be used in actual application and achieve industrial reproduction. | | 6.化学产品专利申请充分公开的要求 |
| | 在再审申请人田边三菱制药株式会社与被申请人国家知识产权局专利复审委员会发明专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷案【（2015）知行字第352号】中，最高人民法院指出，对于化学产品的专利申请，应当完整公开该产品的用途和/或使用效果。如果所属技术领域的技术人员无法根据现有技术预测发明能够实现所述用途和/或使用效果，则说明书中还应当记载对于本领域技术人员来说，足以证明发明的技术方案可以实现所述用途和/或达到预期效果的定性或定量实验数据。 |
| 5. Relationship between “can be made or used” and “can be realized” in the Patent Law | | 7.化合物新颖性判断中现有技术公开内容的认定标准 |
| In the aforesaid case concerning rejection of reexamination of the patent for invention “maglev magnetic energy engine,” the Supreme People's Court stated that: the requirement “can be made or used” as prescribed in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Patent Law means that the technical solution of the invention or utility model can be made or used in the industry. “Can be realized” as prescribed in paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Patent Law means that technicians in the field can realize the invention or utility model according to the specifications. The judgment criteria are different and there is no necessary connection. | | 在基因技术股份有限公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会发明专利驳回复审行政纠纷案【（2015）知行字第356号】中，最高人民法院指出，在涉及化合物专利是否具有新颖性的判断过程中，对于现有技术文献是否已公开了该化合物，应以所属领域的普通技术人员根据该文献的启示，能否制造或分离出该化合物为标准。 |
| | 8.使用同源性加上来源和功能限定方式的生物序列权利要求得到说明书支持的判断
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1000.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |