Supreme Court Holds Special Symposium on Work of Intellectual Property Court Since its Establishment in 2019
Date: 1 July 2024
On 27 June, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) convened a special symposium to detail the Intellectual Property Court's role in bolstering technological innovation and nurturing advanced productivity. Since its launch on 1 January 2019, through 26 June of this year, the IP Court has processed a substantial caseload, accepting 20,338 cases and concluding 17,638.
The Court's docket reflects a pronounced focus on strategic emerging industries defined by the State Council, with over 30% of cases involving energy-saving technologies, new generation IT, biology, high-end equipment manufacturing, new energy, new materials and new energy automobiles. The invention patent cases experienced a noteworthy annual growth rate of 30.9%. There was a marked escalation in high-stakes litigation, cases in which compensation awarded exceeded RMB 100 million (approx. US$ 13.8 million), and those involving monopolistic practices. Additionally, the cases reflect a growing international dimension, with approximately 10% involving foreign parties, an average annual growth of 28.6%. In matters of invention patent authorization and validation, this figure rises to one-third, highlighting a trend of increasing global engagement. These trends underscore China's position as a preferred forum for patent litigation and its rising stature in the international intellectual property arena.
In terms of adjudication, the IP Court has streamlined appellate processes by centralizing the jurisdiction for appeals from first instance courts nationwide in technical intellectual property and monopoly cases This approach harmonizes the previously disparate standards of final judgment that existed across various high courts. Moreover, the Court has achieved notable improvements in the quality and efficiency of intellectual property trials. The rate at which second-instance decisions in technical intellectual property civil cases have been reversed stands at 19.4%, and the rate of cases resolved through mediation or withdrawal at 38.1%—both improvements over pre-reform figures. The Court's expedited handling of cases is also evident in the reduced average trial durations: 182.1 days for substantive cases and 29.9 days for jurisdictional cases, signifying a more agile judicial system following the reform.
Source: IP Court of SPC
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dzYo3Kg7cXiUED4_1GoHCw
最高人民法院知识产权法庭自成立以来已受理案件超2万件，审结案件超17600件
日期：2024-07-01
最高人民法院6月27日召开专题座谈会，介绍了最高人民法院知识产权法庭（下称“知识产权法庭”）服务保障科技创新、助力发展新质生产力的有关工作情况。在案件数量方面，自2019年1月1日成立以来到今年6月26日，知识产权法庭共受理案件20338件，审结17638件。
就受理案件的特点而言，知识产权法庭受理涉战略性新兴产业案件占比超三成，发明专利案件年均增长30.9%，判赔超亿元案件和认定构成垄断案件不断增多。同时，知识产权法庭涉外国当事人案件约占10%，年均增长28.6%，发明专利授权确权案件中涉外案件更高达三分之一，当事人均为外国主体的案件不断增多。数据显示，中国是世界上审理专利案件最多的国家，并日益成为国际知识产权诉讼优选地。
在案件裁判标准方面，知识产权法庭集中统一管辖全国各地法院一审的技术类知识产权和垄断案件的上诉，从体制上解决了过去由各地高级法院分别审理有关上诉案件存在的终审裁判标准不统一问题。同时，在知识产权案件审判质效方面，数据显示，自知识产权法庭成立以来，各项审判质效指标普遍明显趋优，其中技术类知识产权民事实体案件二审改判率19.4%、调解撤诉率38.1%，均高于改革前。而在案件审理周期方面，实体案件平均审理周期182.1天、管辖案件29.9天，均短于改革前。
来源：最高法知识产权法庭
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/dzYo3Kg7cXiUED4_1GoHCw
Beijing Internet Court Determines Beijing’s First AI ‘Face Replacement’ Case
Date: 20 June 2024
The Beijing Internet Court conducted its first-ever trial regarding personal information infringement resulting from AI ‘face-replacement’ software use. It ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant operated a ‘face-replacement’ app. The Plaintiffs, Mr. Liao and Mr. Wu, social media influencers with a large number of followers, uploaded Chinoiserie-style short videos to their accounts. Using the Defendant’s ‘face-replacement’ app, third parties were able to create videos substituting their faces for those of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant's Ai technology enabled the unauthorized use of their likenesses, replacing their faces with those of third parties, and that the Defendant had :monetized the altered videos as paid templates for app users. This constituted a violation of their portrait rights and personal information rights.
The Beijing Internet Court ruled that the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' rights to personal information for several clear reasons:
Source: Beijing Internet Court
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tSmtCARKjqg6mGHE70UDHw
北京互联网法院一审开庭宣判北京市首例“AI 换脸”软件侵权案
日期：2024年6月20日
北京互联网法院一审开庭宣判北京市首例“AI 换脸”软件侵权案件，认定使用他人视频“换脸”后制作模板再提供“换脸”服务的网络服务提供者侵害了他人的个人信息权益。两案原告廖某、吴某均系国风短视频模特，在全网拥有众多粉丝。被告是一款“换脸”App 的运营者。原告认为，被告的行为侵害了原告的肖像权，并且，被告将原告的人脸通过 AI 技术手段抠除并替换成第三方的脸，再将技术处理后的视频用作付费模板供涉案 App 的用户使用并以此获利，侵害了原告的个人信息权益。
北京互联网法院认为，被告的行为构成对原告个人信息权益的侵犯，原因如下：1.原告涉案出镜视频中有包括原告人脸信息的个人信息。原告涉案出镜视频动态呈现了原告的面部特征等个体化特征，可被数字化呈现。2. 被告实施了处理原告个人信息的行为，被告作为处理个人信息的责任主体，即便使用了外部技术服务，也应承担相应责任。换脸技术涉及收集和替换原告视频中的面部信息，使用人脸识别和图像融合技术，属于个人信息处理行为。3.被告的行为侵害了原告的个人信息权益，个人信息的处理应透明且需原告知情和同意，原告未授权任何软件使用其人脸信息，被告未经同意使用换脸技术进行商业利用，可能侵犯原告权益。被告未能证明已获得原告同意，因此可能构成对原告个人信息权益的侵害。
来源：北京互联网法院
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/tSmtCARKjqg6mGHE70UDHw
In a Landmark Ruling, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court Awards Record Compensation of RMB 649 million (approx. US$ 88 million) in Trade Secret Infringement Appeal
Date: 25 June 2024
The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) has resolved an appeal in a trade secret dispute over new energy vehicle chassis technology between two leading domestic automakers, Geely and WM Motor. Geely alleged that WM Motor had used its trade secrets and sought compensation of over RMB 2.1 billion (about US$ 289 million). In this landmark ruling, the SPC applied a punitive damages multiplier, ordering WM Motor to pay approximately RMB 640 million (approx. US$ 88 million) for economic loss and legitimate costs for rights protection, setting a new precedent for compensation in China's intellectual property litigation history.
The controversy began in 2016 when nearly 40 senior executives and technicians from a Geely subsidiary in Chengdu resigned to join WM Motor and its affiliates, with 30 immediately taking up new positions. In 2018, Geely discovered that WM Motor, along with its affiliates, had listed several of these former employees as inventors or co-inventors on 12 utility model patents relating to new energy vehicle chassis components. Concurrently, WM Motor and its related entities launched the WM EX series electric vehicles in a remarkably short timeframe, seemingly without any foundational technical expertise or a legitimate source of technology. Geely, suspecting an infringement of its trade secrets, initiated legal action, seeking an injunction to halt the infringement and claiming damages and costs totaling RMB 2.1 billion (approx.US$ 289 million).
Upon review, the SPC determined that this was a premeditated and systematic infringement, where WM Motor had aggressively recruited new energy vehicle technology professionals and resources through illicit means. The Court's findings indicated that the nearly 40 employees from Geely's Chengdu subsidiary had orchestrated their departure to join WM Motor and its affiliates, thereby granting WM Motor possible access to Geely's proprietary technology. Given WM Motor's lack of prior technological expertise or a legitimate source in the new energy vehicle sector, the Court concluded that WM Motor had not only unlawfully acquired Geely's trade secrets, but also illicitly applied for patents to disclose parts of these secrets, and utilized the complete set of secrets in the production of the WM EX series vehicle chassis and components.
In its final judgment, the SPC imposed punitive damages on WM Motor, ordering it to pay Geely approximately RMB 640 million (approx. US$ 88 million) for economic loss and reasonable expenses incurred in the defence of their rights. The Court's ruling further stipulated the steps WM Motor must take to rectify the infringement, which included ceasing the production and sale of chassis and parts that made use of the trade secrets; not utilising, licensing, transferring, or pledging the implicated utility models; and destroying all related technical materials within a defined timeframe.
Source: IP Court of SPC
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/OCnWUdSLx7MhzFaKaV_p_w
https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3092.html
最高法知识产权法庭审结一起创中国知识产权侵权诉讼赔偿额新高（6.4亿人民币）的技术秘密侵权纠纷上诉案
日期：2024年6月15日
最高人民法院知识产权法庭审结一起国内两家知名车企之间因大量员工“跳槽”引发的新能源汽车底盘技术秘密侵权纠纷上诉案。该案原告索赔额高达21亿元，最高人民法院二审适用2倍惩罚性赔偿判决侵权人赔偿经济损失及维权合理开支合计约6.4亿余元，创我国知识产权侵权诉讼判赔数额历史新高。
2016年起，浙江吉某控股集团（以下简称吉某集团）有限公司下属的成都高某公司近40名高级管理人员及技术人员先后离职赴威某汽车科技集团有限公司（以下简称威某集团）及其关联公司工作，其中30人于离职后即入职。2018年，吉某方发现威某集团及其关联公司以上述部分离职人员作为发明人或共同发明人，申请了12件新能源汽车底盘零部件相关的实用新型专利。同时，威某集团及其关联公司在没有任何技术积累或合法技术来源的情况下，在短期内即推出威某EX系列型号电动汽车。吉某方认为威某方涉嫌侵害涉案技术秘密，遂向审法院提起诉讼，请求判令威某方停止侵害并赔偿其经济损失及维权合理开支共21亿元。
二审中，最高人民法院发现，本案是一起有组织、有计划地以不正当手段大规模挖取新能源汽车技术人才及技术资源引发的侵害技术秘密案件。在分析判断被诉侵害技术秘密行为方面，最高人民法院认为吉某方的关联公司即成都高某公司近40名员工，在较短时间内有组织、有计划、大规模从原单位集中离职并入职威某方及其关联公司，威某方显然具有接触吉某方涉案技术秘密的渠道和机会。且威某方没有新能源汽车领域的技术积累或合法技术来源，结合在案证据，威某方不但实施了以不正当手段获取吉某方全部涉案技术秘密的行为，还实施了以申请专利的方式非法披露部分涉案技术秘密的行为，以及使用全部涉案技术秘密制造威某EX系列型号电动汽车底盘及底盘零部件的行为。最终，最高人民法院对威某集团适用惩罚性赔偿，裁判威某方应赔偿吉某方经济损失及维权合理开支约人民币6.4亿元。判决中，最高人民法院还详细规定了威某方停止侵权应当采取的措施，包括停止制造、销售使用涉案技术秘密制造的汽车底盘及底盘零部件产品，停止对涉案实用新型的实施、许可、转让、质押，同时在规定期限内销毁相关技术材料。
来源：最高法知识产权法庭
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/OCnWUdSLx7MhzFaKaV_p_w
https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3092.html
The State Administration for Market Regulation Issues a Warning to the Avanci Patent Pool Regarding Monopoly Risks
Date: 27 June 2024
The Anti-Monopoly Division head of the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), following the ‘Three Notices and One Letter’ system established by the State Council's Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Committee, met with Avanci's representatives and delivered a Reminder and Urging Letter. This letter alerted Avanci to the monopoly risks in its licensing of automotive wireless communication standard-essential patents and urged it to conduct a thorough risk assessment. Avanci is expected to take proactive measures to prevent or address these potential monopoly issues, enhance compliance, and ensure a fair and competitive market environment, fostering the industry's orderly and healthy growth.
The ‘Three Notices and One Letter’ system includes the Reminder and Urging Letter, Interview Notice, Case Filing Investigation Notice, and Administrative Penalty Decision/Suggestion Notice. These are progressively applied based on the severity of monopoly concerns. The Reminder and Urging Letter used in this instance targets the risk of potential monopoly agreements or market dominance abuse and serves as a preventive and flexible regulatory measure, not implying an inevitable investigation.
Founded in 2016, the Avanci patent pool, initiated by Nokia, Qualcomm, and other companies, specializes in patent licensing within the ICT sector. Avanci's Vehicle Platform service allows automakers to secure a one-time license for a broad range of patents from multiple companies, simplifying the licensing process. Moreover, for smart car applications, Avanci offers 4G and 5G services, providing essential patent licenses for cellular communication technology related to the IoV, the Internet of Vehicles.
Source: SMAR, Sohu
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/i1Tva-tz-ZL7MSWD3bTI-Q
https://www.sohu.com/a/790915031_120756317
市场监管总局对Avanci专利池垄断风险进行提醒敦促
日期： 2024-06-27
市场监管总局反垄断一司负责人根据《国务院反垄断反不正当竞争委员会办公室 市场监管总局关于建立反垄断“三书一函”制度的通知》规定（下简称“三书一函”制度），约见了Avanci专利池相关负责人，并当面递交《提醒敦促函》，对Avanci专利池在汽车无线通信标准必要专利许可过程中存在的垄断风险进行提醒，敦促Avanci专利池依据《中华人民共和国反垄断法》及相关法律法规规定，认真开展风险排查，切实采取有效措施，做好有关问题预防和整改工作，切实加强反垄断合规建设，预防和制止垄断风险，维护公平竞争市场秩序，促进行业规范健康发展。
所谓“三书一函”，即《提醒敦促函》和《约谈通知书》《立案调查通知书》《行政处罚决定书（经营主体）/行政建议书（行政机关）》，针对的具体涉嫌垄断情形的严重程度依次递增。此番适用的《提醒敦促函》主要针对“经营者存在从事垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位行为的风险”，仅为对潜在垄断行为的预防和柔性监管手段，更多是出于风险预防的目的，也不意味着必然导致后续的立案调查。
Avanci 专利池成立于2016年，是一家在信息和通信技术领域专为专利许可而成立的组织，最初由诺基亚和高通等公司发起成立。在和汽车相关的专利许可方面，Avanci提供Avanci 车辆平台服务，车辆制造商可以通过Avanci的一次性许可，获取涵盖众多不同公司的专利技术，而无需与单个许可方逐一获取许可。此外，针对智能汽车领域车联网的蜂窝通信技术，Avanci还提供Avanci 4G和Avanci 5G服务，向车企提供 “车联网” 相关的基本必要专利许可。
来源：市场监督总局、搜狐新闻
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/i1Tva-tz-ZL7MSWD3bTI-Q
https://www.sohu.com/a/790915031_120756317