The IP Court of the SPC Clarifies Criteria for Considering Commercial Success when Determining Patent Validity
Date: 27 November 2024
The Intellectual Property Court (IPC) of the Supreme People's Court (SPC) concluded an appeal case involving the invalidation of a utility model patent. The disputed patent pertains to a ‘mobile phone pedometer.’ The CNIPA declared the patent invalid on the grounds of ‘lack of inventiveness.’ The patent holder, Bao, appealed, arguing that the subject matter of the patent contained certain feature addressing the technical problem of ‘assisting mobile phones in automatically counting steps’ and distinguished it from the closest prior art and resulted in massive sales and significant commercial success of the related product. The patent should be recognized as inventive.
In evaluating the inventiveness of the patent, the SPC focused on the recognition of commercial success. According to the Patent Examination Guidelines, the commercial success of an invention can serve as a supplementary consideration in determining its inventiveness. The SPC noted that for a technology solution to be considered inventive based on commercial success, two conditions must be met: first, the implementation of the technology solution must create significant social and economic value and promote socio-economic development; second, the commercial success must be directly attributable to the technology solution itself.
In this case, SPC ruled that although the disputed patent is titled ‘mobile phone pedometer,’ it actually describes ‘a device for automatically shaking a mobile phone.’ The use claimed by the patent holder—helping users manipulate step counts to deceitfully earn rewards—does not align with mainstream social norms. The related product's sales were driven by improper benefits, not by the technological solution itself. Therefore, the SPC concluded that the claim that the patent's commercial success proved its inventiveness was untenable, and ultimately rejected Bao's appeal.
Source: The IPC of the SPC
https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3720.html
最高院知识产权庭明确基于商业成功授予发明创造专利权的认定标准
日期：2024年11月27日
最高人民法院知识产权庭于11月审结一起实用新型专利权无效行政纠纷上诉案件。本案涉诉专利系一种“手机计步器”，国家知识产权局以“不得具备创造性为由”宣告该专利无效。专利权人包某主张该专利具有区别于最接近现有技术的区别特征、解决了“辅助手机自动计步”的技术问题，且相关产品销量巨大，“取得了巨大的商业成功”，应认定其具备创造性。
在考量专利是否具有创造性时，最高人民法院着重讨论了商业成功的认定。根据《专利审查指南》，一项发明创造在商业上获得成功可以作为判断创造性的辅助性考虑因素。最高法指出，基于商业成功认定要求保护的技术方案具备创造性，需要同时满足以下两个条件：一是技术方案的实施能够创造较高的社会经济价值、促进社会经济发展；二是商业成功是由技术方案本身直接导致。本案中，涉案专利虽名为“手机计步器”，实际上是一种“一种自动摇晃手机的装置”，专利权人所主张的用途实际上是虚构步数、帮助手机用户以欺骗手段获得奖励，不符合主流的社会规范，相关产品销量系由不当利益产生，并非技术方案本身导致，法院最终认定包某“涉案专利取得商业成功因此具备创造性”的主张不能成立，最终驳回了包某的上诉请求。
资料来源：最高人民法院知识产权庭
新闻链接：https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3720.html
National Copyright Administration (NCAC) Releases Top Ten Copyright Infringement and Piracy Cases of 2023
Date: 28 November 2024
The following are brief summaries of the top ten cases published by the NCAC:
Source: NCAC
https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ywxx/202411/t20241128_875416.html
国家版权局发布2023年度全国打击侵权盗版十大案件
日期：2024年11月28日
本次国家版权局发布的十大案件及对应案件要旨如下：
资料来源：国家版权局
新闻链接：https://www.ncac.gov.cn/xxfb/ywxx/202411/t20241128_875416.html
The Second Copyright Infringement Case involving AI generated artwork (AIGC) in China: Court Rules that AI-Generated Content, If It Reflects the Author's Unique Intellectual Effort in Element Selection and Composition, Constitutes a Work Under the Copyright Law
Date: 15 November 2024
In 2003, the Plaintiff, Lin, created an AIGC artwork titled ‘Banxin’ (an image of half a heart) using AI image generation software and Photoshop. On 7 April 2023, Lin obtained a copyright registration certificate for the image.
Without Lin's permission, Changshu Qin Hong Real Estate Development Company (‘Qin Hong’) commissioned Hangzhou Gauss Air Membrane Technology Co., Ltd. (‘Gauss’) to use ‘Banxin’ as the prototype for a half heart-shaped air membrane, which was exhibited on the lake near a compound in Changshu City, Jiangsu Province. Both companies simultaneously published the ‘Banxin’ image on their websites and social media platforms for advertising purposes. Lin subsequently filed a lawsuit against Gauss and Qin Hong in Changshu Primary People's Court, requesting the Defendants to cease the infringement, issue an apology, and compensate Lin for economic loss amounting to RMB 500,000 (approx. US$ 68,915).
The Changshu Primary People's Court, after trial, held that the AIGC artwork in question demonstrated the author's unique choices and arrangements in terms of scenes, environment, colours, lighting, angles, and their combinations, thus showcasing originality and qualifying it as a ‘fine art work’ under the Copyright Law. The work is therefore protected by copyright.
The Changshu Primary People's Court ultimately determined that both Defendants had infringed the Plaintiff's exclusive right to information network dissemination by using the ‘Banxin’ image online without authorisation, and failing to properly credit the creator. However, the Court concluded that the artistic installation itself did not constitute infringement of the right to reproduce and distribute the work.
As a result, the Court ordered Gauss to publicly apologize to Lin and both companies to jointly compensate Lin for economic loss and reasonable expenses related to the protection of his rights, totalling RMB 10,000 (approx. US$ 1,378).
Source: Yangtse Evening Post
https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2024-11-15/doc-incwcqvq0211411.shtml
全国第二起AIGC绘画侵权案件一审宣判，法院认定在元素选择、组合方面体现作者独特智力投入的AI生成内容构成作品
日期：2024年11月15日
本案原告林晨于2023年使用AI图片制作软件及Photoshop软件创作了AIGC绘画作品《伴心》，并于2023年4月7日获得图片版权登记证书。常熟市琴宏房地产开发公司（“琴宏公司”）未经林晨许可，委托杭州高斯气膜技术有限公司（“高斯公司”）以《伴心》图片为原型，制作了“伴心”形气膜，并在常熟琴湖溪里花园城附近湖面上进行展览。两公司在网站及自媒体平台上同时发布了《伴心》图片用于广告宣传。林晨遂将气膜装置的制作方高斯公司和展览方琴宏公司诉至常熟市人民法院，要求二被告停止侵权、道歉并赔偿原告经济损失50万元。
常熟市人民法院经审理认为，该AIGC作品在场景、环境、色彩、光影、角度及其排列组合等方面，体现了作者独特的选择与安排，具有独创性，构成《著作权法》意义上的美术作品，应受到《著作权法》保护。
常熟市人民法院最终认定，二被告未经原告许可，擅自通过互联网络向公众提供《伴心》图片，且未如实署名，侵犯了原告的信息网络传播权和署名权，但二被告制作的艺术装置并未构成侵权，因此并未侵犯《伴心》美术作品的复制权和发行权。据此，常熟市人民法院判决高斯气膜向林晨赔礼道歉，两家公司共同赔偿林晨经济损失及维权合理开支共1万元。
来源：扬子晚报
https://finance.sina.com.cn/jjxw/2024-11-15/doc-incwcqvq0211411.shtml
Guangdong High People's Court Releases Five Typical Criminal Cases on Intellectual Property, Involving Well-Known Brands Such as ‘ESTEE LAUDER’ and the ‘Maxim’ Mooncake brand
Date: 11 November 2024
The Guangdong High People’s Court has released data indicating that from January to September 2024, courts at all levels in Guangzhou handled a total of 61,000 intellectual property cases, including 1,097 criminal cases related to intellectual property, marking a year-on-year increase of 61.8%. Among these, the most common offenses were related to the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and the crime of selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, accounting for nearly 90% of the total cases. In addition, there were 81 cases involving the illegal manufacturing or sale of counterfeit registered trademark labels, as well as 46 cases each of copyright infringement, selling pirated copies, and the infringement of trade secrets.
The five typical intellectual property criminal cases released by the Guangdong High People’s Court are as follows:
In Case 1, Lu, Lin, and others, without authorization from the trademark owner, cooperated with Chen to affix counterfeit trademarks to cosmetics bearing the brands ‘DIOR’ and ‘ESTEE LAUDER,’ among others, and sold these products. The illegal business amounted to RMB 143 million (approx. US$ 19.7 million). Chen, Zhuang, and Zhang also participated in a similar operation, affixing counterfeit trademarks to cosmetics and selling them via a store on the Douyin platform, with the illegal business amounting to about RMB 560,000 (approx. US$ 77,033).
The Qingcheng District Primary People's Court, in the first trial, found that the Defendants, Lu, Lin, Chen, and Zhuang, had used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same goods without the trademark owner's permission and sold the goods, which constituted a particularly serious crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. They were sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to eight years, and fines ranging from RMB 320,000 (approx. US$ 44,019) to RMB 20 million (approx. US$ 2.76 million) were imposed on each Defendant. Additionally, the illegal profit of Lu, Lin, and Chen, totalling RMB 37 million (approx. US$ 5.1 million), was ordered to be confiscated. On appeal, the Qingyuan Intermediate People's Court upheld the original ruling.
In Case 2, the Defendant Ma was involved in the sale of counterfeit ‘Maxim’ brand mooncakes. An investigation revealed that 2,335 boxes of counterfeit mooncakes, with a retail value of approximately RMB 204,000 (approx. US$ 28,062), had not yet been sold, while the value of the counterfeit mooncakes sold amounted to over RMB 1.39 million (approx. US$ 191,207), with a profit margin between RMB 238,000 (approx. US$ 32,739) and 254,000 (approx. US$ 34,940). The trademark owner of ‘Maxim,’ a food company, filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for economic loss of over RMB 1.695 million (approx. US$ 233,163) and requested the application of triple punitive damages based on this amount.
The Luohu District Primary People's Court, at first instance, determined that Ma's actions of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks constituted a violation of the trademark owner’s exclusive rights, and, due to the large volume of sales, constituted the crime of selling counterfeit registered trademark goods. Ma was sentenced to two years in prison and fined RMB 600,000 (approx. US$ 82,535).
Given Ma’s clear intent to infringe and the seriousness of the violation, civil punitive damages were applicable. The Court confirmed that the illegal profit was RMB 254,000 (approx. US$ 34,940) based on Ma’s own admission of profit margin, and decided to apply a punitive damages multiplier of one, ordering Ma to pay punitive damages of RMB 254,000 (approx. US$ 34,940) to the food company.
Source: Guangdong High People's Court
https://news.qq.com/rain/a/20241111A07QEE00
广东高院发布5件知识产权刑事典型案例，涉及“ESTEE LAUDER”和“美心”等知名商标
日期：2024年11月11日
广东高院发布的数据显示，今年1至9月，广州省各级法院审结各类知识产权案件共6.1万件，审结知识产权一审刑事案件1097件，同比增长61.8%。其中，假冒注册商标罪、销售假冒注册商标的商品罪案件数量最多，分别为496件及474件，占比近九成。此外，非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪共81件，侵犯著作权罪、销售侵权复制品罪、侵犯商业秘密罪共46件。
本次广东高院发布的5件知识产权刑事典型案例分别为：
在案例1中，卢某某、林某某未经商标人授权，与陈某合作，对假冒“DIOR” “ESTEE LAUDER”等国际知名大牌的化妆品进行贴标后进行销售，非法经营数额高达1.43亿元；陈某、庄某某还伙同张某某，同样对假冒国际知名大牌的化妆品进行贴标并在抖音平台网店进行销售，非法经营数额约56万元。
清远市清城区人民法院一审认为，被告卢某某、林某某、陈某、庄某某的行为未经注册商标权利人许可，在同一商品上使用与涉案注册商标相同的商标，并对外进行销售，情节特别严重，均构成假冒注册商标罪，按各被告人在共同犯罪中的作用大小、犯罪情节、悔罪表现等，分别判处四人八年、六年、五年、三年的有期徒刑，并分别处两千万、一千五百万、五百万、三百二十万元的罚金，并追缴被告人卢某某、林某某、陈某的违法所得三千七百万元。清远市中级人民法院二审裁定驳回上诉，维持原判。
案例2中，被告马某某从事销售假冒美心品牌月饼经营活动。经核查，未售出假冒月饼2335盒，参照实际销售价格计算货值为20.4万余元，已售出的假冒月饼货值139万余元，毛利约在23.8万元至25.4万元区间。涉案“美心”注册商标权利人某食品公司向法院提起附带民事诉讼，请求法院判令被告人马某某赔偿其经济损失169.5万余元，并以该经济损失为基数适用三倍惩罚性赔偿。
深圳市罗湖区人民法院一审认为，被告销售明知是假冒注册商标的商品的行为侵害了涉案注册商标的专用权，且销售数额巨大，构成销售假冒注册商标的商品罪，判决马某某有期徒刑二年，并处罚金六十万元。被告人马某某侵权故意明显，侵权情节严重，依法可适用惩罚性赔偿。侵权获利按照被告人马某某自认的毛利润范围就高确认为25.4万余元，并以该侵权获利数额作为适用惩罚性赔偿的基数，考虑到马某某仅为销售者而非源头生产者，且已预缴罚金，酌情确定惩罚性赔偿的倍数为一倍，马某某应向某食品公司支付惩罚性赔偿金额25.4万余元。
资料来源：广东高院