>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History 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。
(10) If the same product infringes different patents, compensations shall be computed separately 10.同一产品侵害不同专利客体,赔偿数额应当分别计算
In retrial petitioner Shandong Jinluo Xinfuchang Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd. v. respondent Shandong Dingfeng Door Industry Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (No. 4148 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that when a patentee sued for infringement with respect to the same alleged infringing product on the grounds of its utility-model patent and design patent, as the infringement was of two different natures, the separate determination of damages by the people's court was not double counting. 在再审申请人山东金锣新福昌铝业有限公司与被申请人山东鼎锋门业有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申4148号】中,最高人民法院指出,专利权人以实用新型专利和外观设计专利对同一被诉侵权产品提起侵权诉讼,属于两种不同性质的侵权行为,人民法院分别确定损害赔偿数额,并不属于重复计算。
(11) Effects of brief descriptions and use reference drawings on the scope of design protection 11.简要说明和使用状态参考图对外观设计保护范围的影响
In retrial petitioner Beijing Huajiesheng Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. respondent Dingsheng Door Control Technology Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a design patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute over infringement of a design patent for electric folding gates) (No. 8 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that the brief description of a design had an explanatory effect on the scope of protection of the design patent. As the non-consideration of the effects of use reference drawings on the scope of protection of the design patent would manifestly conflict with the brief description of the design, the people's court should take into account the use reference drawings when determining the scope of protection of the design patent. 在再审申请人北京华捷盛机电设备有限公司与被申请人鼎盛门控科技有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案(以下简称“电动收缩门”外观设计专利侵权案)【(2018)最高法民再8号】中,最高人民法院指出,外观设计的简要说明对于外观设计专利权的保护范围具有解释作用。在不考虑使用状态参考图对外观设计专利权保护范围的影响,会与外观设计的简要说明发生明显抵触的情况下,人民法院在确定外观设计专利权的保护范围时应当考虑使用状态参考图。
(12) Conditions for presuming the design features of infringing product based on partial views 12.依据部分视图推定被诉侵权产品设计特征的条件
In the dispute over infringement of a design patent for electric folding gates above, the Supreme People's Court stated that if a patentee failed to provide the alleged infringing product, but provided evidence of the partial views of the alleged infringing product, the people's court might reasonably presume the design features of the alleged infringing product in other views based on the characteristics of the product, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 在前述“电动收缩门”外观设计专利侵权案中,最高人民法院指出,专利权人未能提供被诉侵权产品实物,但权利人提供的证据能够证明被诉侵权产品的部分视图的,在无相反证据的情况下,人民法院可以基于该类产品的特点,合理推定被诉侵权产品其他视图中的设计特征。
2. Patent administrative cases (二)专利行政案件审判
(13) Claims shall be interpreted taking into account the purpose of the patent invention 13.权利要求解释要考虑专利的发明目的
In retrial petitioner Qingdao Meijialong Packaging Machinery Co., Ltd. v. respondent the Qingdao Intellectual Property Office (third party in original trial Wang Chengjun) (a dispute over administrative processing of infringement of a patent) (No. 1545 [2018], Petition, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that claims should be interpreted taking into account the statement of the purpose of the patent invention in the description, even if a certain feature was not clearly qualified in the claims, but if the alleged infringing technical solution achieved the purpose of the patent invention by manifestly different technical means, infringement should not be determined. 在再审申请人青岛美嘉隆包装机械有限公司与被申请人青岛市知识产权局、一审第三人王承君专利侵权行政处理纠纷案【(2018)最高法行申1545号】中,最高人民法院指出,权利要求的解释要考虑说明书中有关本专利发明目的的说明,即便权利要求中对某一特征没有进行明确限定,但被诉侵权技术方案明显采用了与实现本专利发明目的不同的技术手段的,不应认定构成侵权。
(14) Failure to determine a technical problem to actually be solved does not necessarily affect the judgment of inventive step. 14.未对实际所要解决的技术问题作出认定并不必然影响创造性的判断
In retrial petitioner Aiyi (Langfang) Electronic Engineering Co., Ltd. v. respondents Wang He, Yao Peng, and the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (an administrative dispute over invalidity of a utility-model patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "administrative dispute over invalidity of a seat belt reminder sensor patent") (No. 33 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that on the basis of correctly determining and distinguishing technical features, even if the alleged decision or the court of first instance failed to determine, or erroneously determined, the technical problem actually solved by the case-related patent, such failure or determination did not necessarily affect that the court of second instance correctly determined whether the claims involved inventive step. 在再审申请人埃意(廊坊)电子工程有限公司与被申请人王贺、姚鹏、国家知识产权局专利复审委员会实用新型专利无效行政纠纷案(以下简称“安全带提醒传感器”专利无效行政纠纷案)【(2018)最高法行再33号】中,最高人民法院指出,在正确认定区别技术特征的基础上,即使被诉决定或一审法院对涉案专利实际解决的技术问题未作认定,或者认定错误,亦不必然影响二审法院对权利要求是否具有创造性作出正确的认定。
(15) Determination of technical motivation in the judgment of inventive step 15.创造性判断中技术启示的认定
In the administrative dispute over invalidity of a seat belt reminder sensor patent above, the Supreme People's Court stated that on the basis of determining the role, functions and technical effects of the distinguishing technical features in the technical solution of claims, if the prior art generally gave technical motivation for applying the distinguishing technical features to the technical solution of the claims, and the person skilled in the art was able to recognize that such application could achieve the same or substantially the same roles, functions, and technical effects, it might be determined that the prior art generally gave technical motivation. 在前述“安全带提醒传感器”专利无效行政纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,对区别技术特征在权利要求技术方案中的作用、功能、技术效果作出认定的基础上,如果现有技术整体上给出了将区别技术特征应用于权利要求技术方案的技术启示,并且本领域技术人员能够认识到此种应用可实现相同或者实质相同的作用、功能、技术效果的,则可以据此认定现有技术整体上给出了技术启示。
(16) The inventive step involved by coordinate technical solutions in the same claims shall be judged separately 16.同一权利要求中并列技术方案的创造性应当分别评判
In retrial petitioner Strix Limited v. the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (an administrative dispute over review of rejection of application for an invention patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute over review of rejection of application for an invention patent for heaters") (No. 131 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that for more than one coordinate technical solution qualified in the same claim by "or" or otherwise, if their scopes of protection were independent of each other, their technical features distinguishing from the closest prior art, technical problems actually solved, and inventive step should be separately determined. 在再审申请人施特里克斯有限公司与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(以下简称“加热器”发明专利驳回复审案)【(2018)最高法行再131号】中,最高人民法院指出,对于同一项权利要求中以“或者”等方式限定的多个并列的技术方案,如果其保护范围相互独立,则应当对其与最接近的现有技术的区别技术特征、实际解决的技术问题以及创造性分别作出认定。
(17) Determination of functions and technical effects that distinguishing technical features are capable of achieving 17.区别技术特征能够实现的功能和技术效果的认定
In the dispute over review of rejection of application for an invention patent for heaters above, the Supreme People's Court stated that in determining the inventive step involved in claims, the functions and technical effects of distinguishing technical features were the fundamental basis for determining the technical problems actually solved by the claims. When their functions and technical effects are determined, attention should be paid to whether the technical solutions qualified by the claims corresponded to those with specific functions and technical effects described in the description. If they substantially differed, the functions and technical effects that could be achieved by distinguishing technical features should be determined accordingly, based on the specific circumstances of the technical solutions qualified by the claims. 在前述“加热器”发明专利驳回复审案中,最高人民法院指出,在认定权利要求的创造性时,区别技术特征的功能和技术效果是认定该权利要求实际解决的技术问题的根本依据。在认定其功能和技术效果时,应注意权利要求限定的技术方案是否与说明书中记载的具有特定功能、技术效果的技术方案具有对应性。如果二者存在实质性差异,则需要根据权利要求限定的技术方案的具体情形,相应确定区别技术特征能够实现的功能、技术效果。
(18) Inventive step shall be judged taking into account all the functions and technical effects of distinguishing technical features 18.创造性判断应当考虑区别技术特征的全部功能和技术效果
In the dispute over review of rejection of application for an invention patent for heaters above, the Supreme People's Court stated that if the description clearly contained the functions and technical effects of a distinguishing technical feature in more than one aspect, all the actual functions and technical effects of the distinguishing technical feature shall be comprehensively considered at the time of determining the technical problems actually resolved by technical solutions qualified in the claims, whether other comparison documents disclose the distinguishing technical features, and whether the prior art gives technical motivation generally. 在前述“加热器”发明专利驳回复审案中,最高人民法院指出,如果说明书中明确记载了区别技术特征同时具有多个方面的功能和技术效果,那么在确定权利要求限定的技术方案实际解决的技术问题,以及其他对比文件是否公开该区别技术特征,现有技术整体上是否给出技术启示时,应当综合考虑该区别技术特征实际具有的所有功能和技术效果。
II. Trademark cases 二、商标案件审判
1. Trademark civil cases (一)商标民事案件审判
(19) Determination as to whether the use of a trademark is beyond the scope of approved commodities? 19.商标使用是否超出核定商品范围的认定
In retrial petitioners Aigo Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and Aigo Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. v. respondents Shenzhen Feixiang Future Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Longtong Technology Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of trademark rights) (No. 3270 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that the Table for Differentiating Similar Goods and Services was incapable of exhausting all types of commodities and services in the real world and that when the people's courts judged whether the use of a trademark exceeded the scope of approved commodities, they should consider the objective changes in the types of commodities in the market environment. 在再审申请人爱国者数码科技有限公司、爱国者电子科技有限公司与被申请人深圳市飞象未来科技有限公司、北京隆通科技有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申3270号】中,最高人民法院指出,《类似商品和服务区分表》无法穷尽现实生活中的所有商品和服务类型,人民法院在判断商标使用是否超出核定商品范围时,应当考虑市场环境下商品类型的客观变化情况。
(20) The acquisition in bad faith and exercise of trademark rights shall not be protected by law 20.恶意取得并行使商标权的行为不受法律保护
In retrial petitioner Uniqlo Trading Co., Ltd. v. respondents Guangzhou Compass Exhibition Service Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Zhongwei Enterprise Management Consulting Service Co., Ltd. (defendant Uniqlo Trading Co., Ltd. Global Harbor Store) (a dispute over infringement of trademark rights) (No. 396 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that the principle of good faith was the basic principle that all participants in market activities should follow. Any conduct of in violation of the principle of good faith, registering a trademark in bad faith and seeking illicit interests by the trademark right by taking advantage of judicial resources should not be protected according to the law. 在再审申请人优衣库商贸有限公司与被申请人广州市指南针会展服务有限公司、广州中唯企业管理咨询服务有限公司,一审被告优衣库商贸有限公司上海月星环球港店侵害商标权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民再396号】中,最高人民法院指出,诚实信用原则是一切市场活动参与者均应遵循的基本准则。对违反诚实信用原则,恶意注册商标,并借用司法资源以商标权谋取不正当利益的行为,依法不予保护。
2. Trademark administrative cases (二)商标行政案件审判
(21) Examination procedure and standards for application of law for international trademark applications at the country stage of China 21.商标国际申请进入中国国家阶段的审查程序与法律适用标准
In Christian Dior SE v. respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (an administrative dispute over review of rejection of a trademark application) (No. 26 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that as the applicant for international trademark registration had performed the international registration procedures for trademark applications under the provisions of the Madrid Agreement and its protocols and the statement and explanation obligations as provided in Article 13 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law, its application materials should be substantially complete. When the application materials only lacked partial views or other formal requirements as specified in the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law, the trademark administrative agency should, in the spirit of actively fulfilling obligations under international conventions, give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to make supplements and corrections. 在克里斯蒂昂迪奥尔香料公司与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷案【(2018)最高法行再26号】中,最高人民法院指出,商标国际注册申请人已经根据马德里协定及其议定书的规定,完成了申请商标的国际注册程序,以及商标法实施条例十三条规定的声明与说明义务,应当属于申请手续基本齐备的情形。在申请材料仅欠缺商标法实施条例规定的部分视图等形式要件的情况下,商标行政机关应当秉承积极履行国际公约义务的精神,给予申请人合理的补正机会。
(22) An overseas coexistence agreement does not affect the judgment of the similarity of trademarks 22.境外共存协议不影响商标近似性的判断
In retrial petitioner Lacoste S.A. v. respondents Cartelo Crocodile Pte Ltd. and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (an administrative dispute over a trademark dispute) (hereinafter referred to as the "administrative dispute over the trademark '鳄鱼'") (No. 134 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that whether a disputed trademark should be registered should be judged according to the provisions of the Trademark Law and its judicial interpretations and that an overseas coexistence agreement did not affect the judgment of the similarity of trademarks. 在再审申请人拉科斯特股份有限公司与被申请人卡帝乐鳄鱼私人有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标争议行政纠纷案(以下简称“鳄鱼”商标行政纠纷案)【(2018)最高法行再134号】中,最高人民法院指出,争议商标是否应予注册,应当根据商标法及其司法解释的规定进行判断,境外共存协议不影响商标近似性的判断。
(23) In principle the popularity of a later trademark does not affect the judgment of the similarity of trademarks. 23.在后商标的知名度原则上不影响商标近似性的判断
In retrial petitioner Luk Fook Holdings (International) Limited v. respondents Shenzhen Xiliufu Jewelry Co., Ltd. and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (an administrative dispute over a trademark dispute) (No. 100 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that in the judgment of the similarity of trademarks, in principle, it was not necessary to consider the popularity of the disputed trademark for which a later application was filed. 在再审申请人六福集团有限公司与被申请人深圳市禧六福珠宝有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标争议行政纠纷案【(2018)最高法行再100号】中,最高人民法院指出,商标近似性的判断,原则上不需要考虑在后申请争议商标的知名度。
(24) Similar product shall be judged taking into account objective changes in market transactions. 24.类似商品的判断应考虑市场交易情况的客观变化
In retrial petitioner Andy Company v. respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (third party in original trial Ningbo City Beilun Bofa Hairdressing Appliances Co., Ltd. (an administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition) (No. 22 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that with social and economic development, the conditions of market transactions constantly changed, and so did the relationship of similarity of commodities. The people's courts should examine and judge whether relevant commodities were similar, taking into account objective changes in market transactions. 在再审申请人安迪士公司与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、原审第三人宁波市北仑博发美发用品用具有限公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案【(2018)最高法行再22号】中,最高人民法院指出,随着社会经济发展,市场交易状况不断发生变化,商品的类似关系也会相应发生变化。人民法院审查判断相关商品是否类似,应考虑市场交易的客观变化。
(25) Test of registration by illicit means of a trademark in prior use by another person and having certain influence. 25.以不正当手段抢先注册他人在先使用并有一定影响商标的判断标准
In the administrative dispute over the trademark "鳄鱼" above, the Supreme People's Court stated that the application for registration of a disputed trademark constituted registration by illicit means of a trademark in prior use by another person and having certain influence if the following elements were met: the trademark in prior use had certain influence; the disputed trademark was registered by illicit means, to wit, the applicant for the disputed trademark was subjectively in bad faith, knew or should have known of the trademark in prior use and having certain influence, and conducted registration, unless the applicant produced evidence that it did not take advantage of the goodwill of a trademark in prior use; and the protection of a trademark in prior use and having certain influence was restricted to identical or similar commodities or services. 在前述“鳄鱼”商标行政纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,争议商标的申请注册构成以不正当手段抢先注册他人在先使用并有一定影响的商标,需要同时满足下列要件:在先使用商标具有一定影响;争议商标构成以不正当手段抢先注册,即争议商标申请人具有主观恶意,其明知或者应知在先使用并有一定影响的商标而予以抢注,但其举证证明没有利用在先使用商标商誉的除外;对在先使用并有一定影响的商标的保护限于相同或者类似商品或者服务。
(26) The legality of use shall affect the judgment of trademark popularity 26.使用行为的合法性影响商标知名度的判断
In retrial petitioners Guangzhou Sealy Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Jinan Qianbei Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. respondent Shanghai Poker City Network Technology Co., Ltd. (appellee Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce) (an administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition) (No. 96 [2016], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that if a trademark in prior use violated the industry regulatory system and administrative approval requirements, such circumstances should have an adverse effect on judging whether the prior use led to "certain influence." 在再审申请人广州市希力电子科技有限公司、济南千贝信息科技有限公司与被申请人上海波克城市网络科技股份有限公司、二审被上诉人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标异议复审行政纠纷案【(2016)最高法行再96号】中,最高人民法院指出,商标虽然具有在先使用行为,但违反行业监管制度、行政审批要求,上述情形对于判断在先使用行为是否产生了“一定影响”,具有消极作用。
(27) Test of infringement of the earlier copyright of another person 27.损害他人在先著作权的认定标准
In retrial petitioner DSM IP Assets B.V. v. respondent Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (third parties Lou Yuebin, Lou Yuequn, Lou Zhaofa and Lai Junzhe) (an administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition) (No. 76 [2017], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that in judging whether an application for trademark registration was prejudicial to the earlier copyright of another person, it should be examined and judged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law whether the object claimed was a work, whether the earlier right holder was the copyright owner or an interested party, whether the trademark in question constituted infringement of the earlier copyright, and the like. 在再审申请人帝斯曼知识产权资产有限公司与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、第三人楼跃斌、楼跃群、楼照法、赖俊哲商标异议复审行政纠纷案【(2017)最高法行再76号】中,最高人民法院指出,判断申请商标注册是否损害他人的在先著作权,应当依照著作权法的相关规定,对所主张的客体是否构成作品、在先权利人是否为著作权人或者利害关系人,以及诉争商标是否构成对在先著作权的侵害等进行审查判断。
III. Copyright cases 三、著作权案件审判
(28) Whether the results of punctuating and emending ancient books are protected by the Copyright Law 28.古籍点校成果是否受到著作权法的保护
In retrial petitioner Ge Huaisheng v. respondent Li Zicheng (a dispute over infringement of copyright) (No. 175 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that the punctuating and emendation of ancient books were the results of intellectual work, different persons engaging in punctuating and emendation punctuated and emended original ancient books based on their own understanding of the books and often produced different results, and their punctuating and emendation might be treated as a special expression of original ideas, in which case a punctuated and emended copy was a work within the meaning of the Copyright Law. 在再审申请人葛怀圣与被申请人李子成侵害著作权纠纷案【(2016)最高法民再175号】中,最高人民法院指出,古籍点校属于智力劳动成果,如果不同的点校者是根据自己对古籍原本的理解进行点校,往往会产生不同的点校结果,其点校行为可视为一种特殊的具有独创性思维的表达,这种情况下的点校本构成著作权法意义上的作品。
(29) Contents and conditions qualifying works of applied art for the protection of the Copyright Law 29.实用艺术品获得著作权法保护的内容和条件
In retrial petitioner Beijing Zhongrong Hengsheng Wood Co., Ltd. v. respondent Crosplus Furnishing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (defendant and appellee Nanjing Mengyang Furniture Sales Center) (a dispute over infringement of copyright) (No. 6061 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that a work of applied art was itself practical and artistic. Its practical functions were within the ideological domain and should not be protected by the Copyright Law. A work of applied art was protected only for its artistic nature, to wit, the original designs and artistic patterns on the work of applied art were protected. A work of applied art protected as graphic work by the Copyright Law should meet the condition that its practical nature and artistic nature were separable from each other, in addition to the conditions for the general components of a work and the special components of a graphic work. 在再审申请人北京中融恒盛木业有限公司与被申请人左尚明舍家居用品(上海)有限公司,一审被告、二审被上诉人南京梦阳家具销售中心侵害著作权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申6061号】中,最高人民法院指出,实用艺术品本身既具有实用性,又具有艺术性。实用功能属于思想范畴不应受著作权法保护,作为实用艺术作品受到保护的仅仅在于其艺术性,即保护实用艺术作品上具有独创性的艺术造型或艺术图案。作为美术作品受著作权法保护的实用艺术作品,除同时满足关于作品的一般构成要件及美术作品的特殊构成条件外,还应满足实用性与艺术性可以相互分离的条件。
IV. Unfair competition case 四、不正当竞争案件审判
(30) A decrease in the minimum bid in a tender document shall be a trade secret. 30.投标文件中的标底降幅属于商业秘密
In retrial petitioner Karamay Golden Camel Transport Service Co., Ltd. v. respondents Karamay City Kailong Oilfield Technical Service Co., Ltd. and Tan Yong (a dispute over unfair competition) (No. 389 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that a decrease in the minimum bid in a tender document was business information in a trade secret and that because of the natural confidential nature of any tender, when its owner sealed it, the owner might be deemed to have taken appropriate confidentiality measures. 在再审申请人克拉玛依金驼运输服务有限公司与被申请人克拉玛依市凯隆油田技术服务有限公司、谭勇不正当竞争纠纷案【(2018)最高法民再389号】中,最高人民法院指出,投标文件中的标底降幅属于商业秘密中的经营信息,由于标书的天然秘密属性,标书所有人对标书进行封存即可视为其采取了相应保密措施。
V. New plant variety case 五、植物新品种案件审判
(31) Determination of "production" and "propagation" infringing rights in a new plant variety 31.侵害植物新品种权的“生产”“繁殖”行为的认定
In retrial petitioner Hebei Provincial Expressway Hengda Management Office v. respondent Hebei Farun Forestry Technology Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of rights in a new plant variety) (No. 247 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that for a variety of vegetative propagation, the use of the variety without cutting, grafting or other propagation was neither "production" or "propagation" in Article 28 of the Seed Law nor infringement of the rights in the new plant variety of another person. 在再审申请人河北省高速公路衡大管理处与被申请人河北法润林业科技有限责任公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民再247号】中,最高人民法院指出,对于无性繁殖品种,在无扦插、嫁接等扩繁行为的情况下,对该品种的使用不属于种子法二十八条规定的“生产”“繁殖”行为,未侵害他人的植物新品种权。
VI. Monopoly cases 六、垄断案件审判
(32) The purpose and method of defining the relevant market 32.相关市场界定的目的与方法
In retrial petitioner Xu Shuqing v. respondents Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (a dispute over abuse of a dominant position in the market) (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute over abuse of a dominant position in the market relating to an Internet emoji icon pack") (No. 4955 [2017], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that the purpose of the definition of the relevant market was to determine the scope of the market in which the sued business competed with other businesses and the competition constraints they faced. The scope of the market was determined by the close relationship of substitution between the services provided by various competitors which were often not limited to a specific type of services. In principle, the definition of the relevant service market should be analyzed based on services within a relatively small scope directly affected by the alleged monopolistic conduct, by the method of hypothetical monopolist testing. In general, demand substitution should be analyzed mainly from the perspective of demanders; and in certain cases, if the supply substitution had competition restraint on the sued business not less than the demand substitution, the supply substitution should also be considered in determining the relevant scope of services. 在再审申请人徐书青与被申请人深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司、腾讯科技(深圳)有限公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷案(以下简称“互联网表情包”滥用市场支配地位纠纷案)【(2017)最高法民申4955号】中,最高人民法院指出,相关市场界定的目的,是确定被诉经营者与其他经营者之间进行竞争的市场范围及其面对的竞争约束。该市场范围由各个竞争者提供的服务之间的紧密替代关系所决定,往往不限于某种具体的服务。相关服务市场的界定,原则上应从受到被诉垄断行为直接影响的范围较小的服务出发,运用假定垄断者测试的方法进行分析。一般主要从需求者角度进行需求替代分析;在某些情况下,如果供给替代对被诉经营者产生的竞争约束不亚于需求替代时,在确定相关服务范围时还应该考虑供给替代。
(33) Determination of the abuse of a dominant position in the market by denying trading 33.拒绝交易的滥用市场支配地位行为的认定
In the dispute over abuse of a dominant position in the market relating to an Internet emoji icon pack above, the Supreme People's Court stated that when it was judged whether the alleged monopolistic conduct was a denial of trading prohibited by the Anti-monopoly Law, in addition to first analyzing whether the sued monopolistic actor was in a dominant position in the market, the following factors should be comprehensively analyzed: whether the monopolistic actor could trade under appropriate market trading conditions but nevertheless denied trading; whether the denial of trading substantially restricted or excluded competition in the relevant market and invaded the interests of consumers; and the denial of trading was not for reasonable reasons. The measures to deny trading that a platform operator took, in order to meet the need of reasonably regulating the conduct of platform users, preventing the occurrence and spread of misconduct of individual users causing negative externalities to the platform as a whole, and enhancing the interests of the platform operator and the long-term interests of platform users, according to the appropriate management and punitive measures of the platform should be considered justified. 在前述“互联网表情包”滥用市场支配地位纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,判断被诉垄断行为是否属于反垄断法所禁止的拒绝交易行为,除首先需要分析被诉垄断行为人是否在相关市场上具有支配地位外,还可以综合分析如下因素:垄断行为人是否在适当的市场交易条件下能够进行交易却仍然拒绝交易;拒绝交易是否实质性地限制或者排除了相关市场的竞争并损害了消费者利益;拒绝交易缺乏合理理由。平台经营者为合理规制平台使用者的行为、防止个别使用者的对平台整体具有负外部性的不当行为发生和蔓延、提升平台经营者的利益和平台用户的长远利益的需要,根据适当的平台管理和惩戒规则采取的拒绝交易措施,应认为具有正当理由。
VII. Procedures and evidence relating to intellectual property litigation 七、关于知识产权诉讼程序与证据
(34) Legal standards for examination of jurisdictional objections 34.管辖权异议案件审查的法律标准
In appellants Apple Electronics Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. appellee Qualcomm Inc. (an objection to jurisdiction over a dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (No. 77 [2018], Final, Jurisdiction, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that in a jurisdictional objection case, it was necessary in principle only to find facts related to the establishment of the jurisdictional connection points of the case. If such facts involved the disputed merits of the case, it was necessary only to examine whether the prima facie evidence in the case was capable of establishing an arguable jurisdictional connection point, and generally, it was unnecessary to determine the disputed merits of the case. 在上诉人苹果电子产品商贸(北京)有限公司、苹果电脑贸易(上海)有限公司、苹果贸易(上海)有限公司与被上诉人高通股份有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷管辖权异议案【(2018)最高法民辖终77号】中,最高人民法院指出,在管辖权异议案件中,原则上只需审理与建立案件管辖连接点相关的事实。如果与建立管辖连接点相关的事实同时涉及案件实体争议内容的,只需审查案件初步证据是否能够证成一个可争辩的管辖连接点事实即可,一般不对案件实体争议内容作出明确认定。
(35) Determination of places of sale in the Internet environment 35.网络环境下销售行为地的确定
In appellant Ningbo Aux Air Conditioning Co., Ltd. v. appellee Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai (defendant Guangzhou Jingdong Trading Co., Ltd.) (an objection to jurisdiction over a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (hereinafter referred to as the "objection to jurisdiction over a dispute over infringement of an Aux Air Conditioning patent") (No. 93 [2018], Final, Jurisdiction, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that in the Internet environment, the place of sale in an intellectual property infringement case might in principle be the primary place of business of the online seller that was not relocated by the will of the online buyer, the place where the alleged infringing product was stored, the place of making delivery, the place of seizure or impoundment, or the like, but the place of taking delivery in online sale that an online buyer might choose at will was generally not suitable as a place of online sale. 在上诉人宁波奥克斯空调有限公司与被上诉人珠海格力电器股份有限公司、一审被告广州晶东贸易有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷管辖权异议案(以下简称“奥克斯空调”专利侵权纠纷管辖权异议案)【(2018)最高法民辖终93号】中,最高人民法院指出,在网络环境下,知识产权侵权案件中的销售行为地原则上包括不以网络购买者的意志为转移的网络销售商主要经营地、被诉侵权产品储藏地、发货地或者查封扣押地等,但网络购买方可以随意选择的网络购物收货地通常不宜作为网络销售行为地。
(36) Whether a seller and a producer could be sued as co-defendants in the court in the place the infringing product is sold 36.能否以销售者和制作者为共同被告在侵权产品销售地法院起诉
In the objection to jurisdiction over a dispute over infringement of an Aux Air Conditioning patent above, the Supreme People's Court stated that in a patent infringement case, if the patentee sued the manufacturer and the seller of the alleged infringing product as co-defendants, the action constituted a special necessary joint action, for reasons such as the consistency of the subject matter of action, preventing conflicts of judgment, protecting the interests of the parties, and other policies. 在前述“奥克斯空调”专利侵权纠纷管辖权异议案中,最高人民法院指出,在专利侵权案件中,如果专利权人将被诉侵权产品的制造商和销售商作为共同被告提起诉讼,基于诉讼标的的同一性以及防止判决冲突、保护当事人利益等政策原因,该诉讼构成一种特殊的必要共同诉讼。
(37) The determination of the validity of a patent in an effective administrative judgment shall serve as the basis for the trial of infringement cases 37.生效行政判决对于专利权效力的认定应当作为侵权案件的审理依据
In retrial petitioner Shandong Zhonghe Chengyuan Power Equipment Co., Ltd. and Huadian Laizhou Power Generation Co., Ltd. v. respondent Shenzhen Bozhong Energy Conservation Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. (a dispute over infringement of a utility-model patent) (No. 4543 [2018], Petition, Civil Division, SPC), the Supreme People's Court stated that as determined by an effective administrative judgment, the case-related patent should have been annulled, and the people's court might determine on that basis whether the infringement of the patent was committed in a civil action without awaiting a new decision of the Patent Reexamination Board. 在再审申请人山东众合成源电力设备有限公司、华电莱州发电有限公司与被申请人深圳市博众节能工程技术有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申4543号】中,最高人民法院指出,涉案专利已被生效行政判决认定应当被宣告无效,人民法院可以据此在民事诉讼中对是否构成专利侵权作出认定,而无需等待专利复审委员会作出新的决定。
     
     
【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