>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Summary of the Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases (2018) [Effective]
最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2018)摘要 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Summary of the Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases (2018) 

最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2018)摘要

(2019) (2019年)

In 2018, with a close focus on serving the innovation-driven development strategy, the Supreme People's Court maximized the leading role of judicial protection of intellectual property, increased the efforts to effect judicial protection of intellectual property, innovated and improved the litigation system for intellectual property, strengthened the construction of intellectual property right courts and tribunals, enhanced the building of the intellectual property adjudication team, continually improved the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication, terminated a large number of cases with important influences in accordance with the law, created a good rule-of-law environment for science and technology innovation and cultural prosperity. 2018年,最高人民法院紧紧围绕服务创新驱动发展战略,充分发挥知识产权司法保护主导作用,加大知识产权司法保护力度,创新完善知识产权诉讼制度,强化知识产权法院和法庭建设,加强知识产权审判队伍建设,不断提高知识产权审判质量效率,依法审结一大批具有重要影响的案件,为科技创新和文化繁荣营造了良好法治环境。
In 2018, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court received a total of 1,562 intellectual property cases of various types. Such cases as classified according to the case trial procedure included 24 appeal cases, 176 direct retrial cases, 1,335 retrial petition cases, 26 instruction motion case, and one judicial sanction case. The cases as classified according to the types of case-related objects included 684 patent cases, 711 trademark cases, 50 copyright cases, one monopoly case, 36 unfair competition cases, 15 new plant variety cases, 35 intellectual property contract cases, and 30 other cases (mainly related to administrative matters in intellectual property adjudication). The cases as classified according to the nature of the cases included 641 administrative cases comprising 120 patent administrative cases, 507 trademark administrative cases, and 14 other administrative cases; 913 civil cases; seven instruction motion criminal cases; and one judicial sanction case. 最高人民法院知识产权庭2018年全年共新收各类知识产权案件1562件。在新收案件中,按照案件审理程序划分,共有二审案件24件, 提审案件176件,申请再审案件1335件,请示案件26件,司法制裁案件1件。按照案件所涉客体类型划分,共有专利案件684件,商标案件711件,著作权案件50件,垄断案件1件,不正当竞争案件36件,植物新品种案件15件,知识产权合同案件35件,其他案件30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641件,其中专利行政案件120件,商标行政案件507件,其他行政案件14件;民事案件913件; 刑事请示案件7件;司法制裁案件1件。
Throughout the year, a total of 1,447 intellectual property cases were terminated, including 21 appeal cases, 154 direct retrial cases, 1,243 retrial petition cases, 28 instruction motion case, and one judicial sanction case. The 1,243 retrial petition cases terminated included 976 cases dismissed by a ruling, 190 cases directly retried by a ruling, 52 cases retried by order or designation according to a ruling, 18 cases withdrawn by a ruling, and seven cases otherwise disposed of. 全年共审结各类知识产权案件1447件,其中,二审案件21件,提审案件154件,申请再审案件1243件,请示案件28件,司法制裁案件1件。在审结的1243件申请再审案件中,裁定驳回再审申请976件,裁定提审190件,裁定指令或者指定再审52件,裁定撤诉18件,以其他方式处理7件。
The basic characteristics of intellectual property and competition cases tried by the Supreme People's Court in 2018 were the following: the number of civil, administrative and criminal cases received throughout the year reached 1,562, up 74.1% on a year-on-year basis, of which patent and trademark cases increased by a relatively large percentage, respectively 103.6% and 80% on a year-on-year basis, and it was expected that the number of cases would continue to grow rapidly in 2019; intellectual property cases related to patents and trademarks still accounted for the largest proportions of all cases accepted, respectively 43.8% and 45.5%; the claim interpretation standards were further clarified in patent civil cases, new types of cases related to standard-essential patents were continually increasing, and the determination of compensable amounts remained an issue and difficulty; the judgment of inventive step in patent administrative cases remained a core issue, and the judicial function of reviewing and supervising administrative law enforcement was further strengthened; the ratio of retrial of trademark civil cases was relatively high, and for issues such as suitability of subjects, identification of counterfeit commodities, and punitive compensation, the relevant standards were clarified; the judgment of the similarity of trademarks and commodities remained one of the main issues in trademark administrative cases, and the number of direct retrial cases arising from the disappearance of bars to rights remained large; copyright cases accounted for a relatively small proportion generally and related to legal issues such as originality, ownership of rights, double licensing, and copyright-related collective management; among unfair competition cases, trademark secret cases were of a small quantity but related to the confidentiality of bids, review of non-competition agreements and the contribution of secret points to products, causing high levels of difficulty in trials; there were a relatively small number of monopoly cases, parties' litigation capabilities needed improving, and new business models and technical models sprang out in the Internet environment and represented new challenges for anti-monopoly judicial adjudicative work; the determination of infringers and the nature of infringement remained difficult in the trial of new plant variety cases, and the relationship between the differences in varieties for propagation and the nature of conduct was worthy of further research and attention in judicial practice; in technical contract cases, the judgment of parties' performance usually included the determination of complex technical issues, and the fact-finding means for related professional issues had yet to be regulated; and the intellectual property criminal adjudication and the reform of the "three-in-one" adjudicative mechanisms were steadily advanced. 最高人民法院2018年审理的知识产权和竞争案件的基本特点是:全年新收民事、行政和刑事案件数量达到1562件,同比增长74.1%,其中专利和商标案件增长幅度较大,分别同比增长103.6%和80%,预计2019年案件数量将继续保持较快增长;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,分别占比43.8%和45.5%;专利民事案件中权利要求解释标准进一步明确,涉及标准必要专利的新类型案件不断增多,赔偿数额的确定仍是焦点和难点;专利行政案件中创造性判断依旧是核心问题,司法对行政执法行为的审查和监督职能进一步强化;商标民事案件中再审比率较高,对主体适格、假冒商品辨别、惩罚性赔偿等问题明确了相关标准;商标近似和商品类似的判断仍然是商标行政案件中的主要焦点问题之一,此外,因权利障碍消失导致的提审案件数量仍然较多;著作权案件总体占比较小,涉及独创性、权利归属、重复授权、涉著作权集体管理等法律问题;不正当竞争案件中,商标秘密案件数量不多,但涉及到标书的秘密性、竞业禁止协议的审查、秘密点对产品的贡献等问题,审理难度较大;垄断案件数量较少,当事人诉讼能力尚待提高,互联网环境下新商业模式和技术模式不断涌现,为反垄断司法审判工作提出新的挑战;侵权主体和侵权性质的认定仍然是植物新品种案件审理中的难点,繁殖品种的差异与行为性质之间的关系值得司法实践进一步研究与关注;技术合同案件中,双方履约行为的判断通常包含对复杂技术问题的认定,对有关专业问题的事实查明方式尚待规范;知识产权刑事审判工作及“三合一”审判机制改革工作稳步推进。
This Annual Report covers 28 model cases selected from intellectual property and competition cases terminated by the Supreme People's Court in 2018. We have summarized 37 issues on application of law that are of certain guiding significance and reflect the trial ideas and adjudicative methods of the Supreme People's Court in handling new, difficult and complicated cases in the fields of intellectual property and competition, which are hereby issued. 本年度报告从最高人民法院2018年审结的知识产权和竞争案件中精选了28件典型案件。我们从中归纳出37个具有一定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. Patent cases 一、专利案件审判
1. Patent civil cases (一)专利民事案件审判
(1) Determination of exceptions to functional features 1.功能性特征除外情形的认定
In retrial petitioner Shenzhen Huaze Xingye Technology Co., Ltd. v. respondent Guangzhou Tongming Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (No. 1018 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that for a technical feature including specific functions or effects, if an ordinary technician in the field might directly and unambiguously determine the specific work manners for implementing the functions or effects only by reading the claims, the technical feature was not a "functional feature." 在再审申请人深圳市华泽兴业科技有限公司与被申请人广州同明太阳能科技有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申1018号】中,最高人民法院指出,对于包含有特定功能、效果的技术特征,本领域普通技术人员仅通过阅读权利要求即可直接、明确地确定实现该功能或者效果的具体实施方式的,该技术特征不属于“功能性特征”。
(2) A technical feature qualified by both structure and functions is not a functional feature 2.同时使用结构与功能限定的技术特征不属于功能性特征
In retrial petitioner Linhai City Linong Machinery Factory v. respondent Lu Jie (appellees Wu Maofa, Li Chengren, and Zhang Tianhai) (a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute over infringement of a vegetable and fruit sorting device patent") (No. 1804 [2017], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that if in addition to functions or effects, a technical feature was qualified by structural feature corresponding to the functions or effects, and an ordinary technician in the field might directly and unambiguously determine the specific manners for implementing the structural feature only by reading the claims, in which the functions or effects might be implemented, the technical feature qualified by "structure" and "functions or effects" was not a technical feature. 在再审申请人临海市利农机械厂与被申请人陆杰,二审被上诉人吴茂法、李成任、张天海侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案(以下简称“蔬菜水果分选装置”专利侵权纠纷案)【(2017)最高法民申1804号】中,最高人民法院指出,如果技术特征中除了功能或者效果的限定之外,同时也限定了与该功能或者效果对应的结构特征,并且本领域技术人员仅通过阅读权利要求书,即可直接、明确地确定该结构特征的具体实现方式,并且该具体实现方式可以实现该功能或者效果的,则这种同时使用“结构”与“功能或者效果”限定的技术特征并不属于“功能性特征”。
(3) The difference between equivalence of ordinary technical features and that of functional features 3.普通技术特征等同与功能性特征等同的区别
In the dispute over infringement of a vegetable and fruit sorting device patent above, the Supreme People's Court stated that the determination of "equivalent feature" in Article 17 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases on Patent Disputes and that of "a corresponding technical feature... equivalent to the functional feature" in paragraph 2, Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Infringement of Patents (II) differed significantly in the subject of application, basis of comparison, and standards of determination and might not be confused. 在前述“蔬菜水果分选装置”专利侵权纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第十七条规定的“等同特征”与《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)》第八条第二款规定的“相应技术特征与功能性特征……等同”的认定在适用对象、对比基础以及认定标准方面存在重要区别,不可混淆。
(4) Test of joint infringement 4.共同侵权的判断标准
In retrial petitioner SMC Corporation v. respondents Yueqing City Zhongqi Pneumatic Technology Co., Ltd. and Ni Tiancai (a dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute over infringement of a solenoid valve patent) (No. 199 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that joint infringement should comprise the following elements: there were two or more authors of infringement; each author had common subjective intent; the conduct of each author used, cooperated in or support that of the other; and the consequences of damage caused by the conduct of each author were within the scope of their common intent. 在再审申请人SMC株式会社与被申请人乐清市中气气动科技有限公司、倪天才侵害发明专利权纠纷案(以下简称“电磁阀”专利侵权纠纷案)【(2018)最高法民再199号】中,最高人民法院指出,共同侵权应该具备以下要件:加害主体为两人或者两人以上;各加害人主观上具有共同意思;各加害人彼此的行为之间客观上存在相互利用、配合或者支持;各加害人行为造成的损害后果在其共同意思的范围内。
(5) Determination of aiding and abetting infringement within the meaning of the Patent Law   5.专利法意义上帮助侵权的认定
In the dispute over infringement of a solenoid valve patent above, the Supreme People's Court stated that aiding and abetting infringement within the meaning of the Patent Law did not generally refer to any form of aid, but specifically meant the conduct of without permission of the patentee providing anything for infringement use for another person to infringe a patent with the aim of production and operation. 在前述“电磁阀”专利侵权纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,专利法意义上的帮助侵权行为并非泛指任何形式的帮助行为,而是特指未经专利权人许可,为生产经营目的将侵权专用品提供给他人以实施侵犯专利权的行为。
(6) Whether the licensed use of drug patents included standards is governed by the principle of "fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination" 6.纳入标准的药品专利的许可使用是否适用“公平、合理、无歧视”原则
In retrial petitioner Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. respondent Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a patent) (No. 4107 [2017], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that neither law nor administrative regulation on drug administration and registration required a drug patentee to be committed to "fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination" in respect to the licensed use of drug patents when cooperating in the development of national compulsory drug standards. In the case, there was no evidence that the case-related drug patentee was so committed in respect of the licensed use of the case-related patent in the development of the national drug standards respecting the case-related patent. Therefore, the licensed use of the case-related drug patent was not governed by the principle of "fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination." 在再审申请人齐鲁制药有限公司与被申请人北京四环制药有限公司侵害专利权纠纷案【(2017)最高法民申4107号】中,最高人民法院指出,涉及药品管理和注册的现行法律、行政法规没有要求药品专利权人在配合制定国家强制性药品标准时对药品专利的许可使用作出“公平、合理、无歧视”承诺。本案也没有证据证明涉案药品专利权人在与涉案专利有关的国家药品标准的制订过程中,针对涉案专利的许可使用作出过“公平、合理、无歧视”承诺,因此,涉案药品专利的许可使用不适用“公平、合理、无歧视”原则。
(7) Burden of proving the applicability of the principle of estoppel 7.适用禁止反悔原则的举证责任分担
In retrial petitioner Zhejiang Friend Chemical Co., Ltd. v. respondent Tianjin Lianli Chemical Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (No. 387 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that if revised claims included any additional technical feature, and the alleged infringer claimed the applicability of the principle of estoppel, it should adduce evidence of the specific circumstances that the patentee made "qualification-based revision" and whether the alleged infringing technical solution was abandoned as a result. If the patentee claimed that its revision or statement "does not result in the abandonment of the technical solution" and that the principle of estoppel was not applicable, the patentee should have the burden of proof with respect to that "the qualification-based revision is explicitly denied." 在再审申请人浙江福瑞德化工有限公司与被申请人天津联力化工有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民再387号】中,最高人民法院指出,修改后的权利要求增加了技术特征,被诉侵权人主张适用禁止反悔原则的,应举证证明权利人“限缩性修改”的具体情形,以及是否因此导致放弃了被诉侵权技术方案。而权利人主张其修改或者陈述“未导致技术方案的放弃”,不适用禁止反悔原则的,则应由权利人就“限缩性修改被明确否定”承担举证责任。
(8) A patentee shall have the burden of proving "new product" under its method patent. 8.专利权人应承担方法专利中“新产品”的举证责任
In retrial petitioners Yiwu City Beige Plastic Products Co., Ltd. and Zhang Hailong v. respondent Shanghai Aierbei Packaging Technology Development Co., Ltd. (defendant Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd.) (a dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (No. 4149 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that when a patentee claims the application of shifting the burden of proving its new product manufacturing method patent, it should have the burden of proving that the product directly obtained by the method patent was new product. 在再审申请人义乌市贝格塑料制品有限公司、张海龙与被申请人上海艾尔贝包装科技发展有限公司、一审被告杭州阿里巴巴广告有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申4149号】中,最高人民法院指出,专利权人主张适用新产品制造方法专利举证责任倒置时,应当对方法专利直接获得的产品为新产品承担举证责任。
(9) Methods for computing damages for infringement of patents 9.专利侵权损害赔偿的计算方法
In retrial petitioners Wuxi Guowei Ceramics Appliances Co., Ltd. and Jiang Guoping v. respondents Changshu Linzhi Electric Heating Components Co., Ltd. and Suning.com Group Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (No. 111 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that when the infringer's proceeds of infringement were selected to compute damages for infringement of a patent according to the claims of the parties and the facts of the case, for alleged infringing product comprising more than one part or patent, it was inappropriate in principle to simply compute the proceeds of infringement by multiplying the total sales of the infringing product by the profit rate of the infringing product, but instead the contribution of the case-related patent to the profit of the infringing product should be taken into account, so that the proceeds of infringement were the total sales of the infringing product times its profit rate times the contribution of the patent technology to the value of the product. The contribution of the patent technology to the value of the product might be determined, taking into account factors such as the importance of the case-related patent to the product. In the case of divisible infringement, for the computation of damages for the infringement, if the infringement consisted of a part of the loss sustained by the patentee or the proceeds of the infringer that was susceptible to relatively accurate computation and the other part difficult to compute, damages for the former part should be computed according to the loss sustained by the patentee or the proceeds of the infringer, and the damages for the latter should be statutory compensations. The total damages shall be the sum of the damages for the two parts. 在再审申请人无锡国威陶瓷电器有限公司、蒋国屏与被申请人常熟市林芝电热器件有限公司、苏宁易购集团股份有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民再111号】中,最高人民法院指出,根据当事人的诉讼请求和案件事实,选择以侵权人因侵权获得的利益计算专利侵权损害赔偿数额时,对于多部件或者多专利的被诉侵权产品,原则上不宜简单采用侵权产品销售总金额乘以侵权产品利润率的方式计算侵权获利,而需要考虑涉案专利对于侵权产品利润的贡献度,以“侵权产品销售总金额×利润率×专利技术对产品价值的贡献度”的方法进行计算。对于专利技术对产品价值的贡献度,可以结合涉案专利对产品的重要性等因素酌定。在侵权行为可分的情况下,计算侵权损害赔偿时,如果既存在可以较为精确计算权利人损失或者侵权人获益的部分,又存在难以计算权利人损失或者侵权人获益的部分,可以对前者适用以权利人损失或者侵权人获益计算赔偿,对后者适用法定赔偿,以两者之和确定损害赔偿数额。
...... ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese