Academic journal article Washington International Law Journal

Supreme People's Court Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2013) (China)

Academic journal article Washington International Law Journal

Supreme People's Court Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2013) (China)

Article excerpt

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2013, the Supreme People's Court of China accepted 594 new intellectual property ("IP) cases and issued 548 decisions. In comparison, in 2012, the Court accepted 359 IP cases and issued 366 decisions. The characteristics and trends that this report reflects include:

(1) The growth in IP cases resulted in an increase of 65.46% in the accepted number of cases by the Supreme People's Court of China.

(2) The increasing net worth and market value of patent technologies resulted in more complex cases.

(3) There has been an overall increase in administrative patent cases, and more specifically the proportion of pharmaceutical, electronics, and communication cases has grown.

(4) A large number of patent cases involved issues of claim interpretation.

(5) The proportion of trademark cases has remained stable, but there has been an increase in the number of cases involving the preemption of trademark registration.

(6) There has been a rapid increase in the number of cases involving disputes over the infringement of rights of new plant varieties.

(7) The number of copyright cases involving emerging fields, such as software, animation, and applied arts in cultural and creative industries, continues to increase, and many of these cases are correlated with one another.

(8) The number of unfair competition cases relating to network technology, new business model, and counterfeit action disputes has also increased.

(9) For the first time this year, the Supreme People's Court decided on cases dealing with monopolies.

THIS ANNUAL REPORT ADDRESSES 30 CASES AND 39 LEGAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO PATENT LAW, TRADEMARK LAW, COPYRIGHT LAW, UNFAIR COMPETITION, CONTRACTUAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, LIABILITY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.

II. PATENT CASES

A. Civil Patent Cases

1.Whether the Title of the Patent Limits the Scope of its Protection

In Harbin Industrial University Xinghe industrial Co. v. Jiang su Runde Pipe Industry Co.,2 which involved the alleged infringement of a sewer pipe patent, the Supreme People's Court provided that courts should consider the title of the patent when determining the scope of its protection. The impact of the patent title in limiting the scope of protection depends on its actual impact on the protected subject matter.

2.Determining the Scope of Patent Protection When a Parallel Patent Claim Cites to a Previous but Independent Patent Claim

In the aforementioned case dealing with the alleged infringement of a sewer pipe patent, the Supreme People's Court further clarified that, although a previously cited patent claim should be considered in determining the scope of protection of a parallel but independent claim, such previous claims do not necessarily limit the scope of protection on other parallel claims. Whether such previous claims limit the scope of other claims depends on whether the previous claim's features substantially affect the technical solution or the protected subject matter of the parallel patent claim at hand.

3.Infringement Judgment Regarding Closed Claims

In Hebei Xinyu Welding Co. v. Yichang Monkey King Welding Wire Co. ,3 the Supreme People's Court held that for closed claims, the alleged features of an infringing product or method shall be deemed to fall outside of the scope of the patent protection, so long as the features are not technical and are not clearly recorded in the patent claim.

4. Whether Adopting Reverse-Technical Solutions of Well-Defined Technical Methods Constitutes Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents

In Beijing Jerrat Spring Damper Technology Research Center v. Beijing JZTH Buffer Technology Co. ,4 the Supreme People's Court held that adopting reversetechnical solutions of well-defined technical methods of a patent does not constitute an infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents, so long as the reverse-technical solutions have a reverse technical effect and cannot achieve the purpose of the original invention. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.