On February 23, 2024, in honor of the firth anniversary of the establishment of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of China’s Supreme People’s Court (IPC), released a list of Top Ten Influential Cases. The Cases cover various technologies and areas of law including trade secret misappropriation, plant variety infringement, patent linkage and invention patent infringement.

As explained by the IPC:

1. “Melamine” invention patent and technical secret infringement case [disputes over infringement of invention patent rights and technical secrets between Sichuan Jin Chemical Company, Beijing Ye Technology Company and Shandong Hua Chemical Company]

[Case No.] （2020）最高法知民终1559号、（2022）最高法知民终541号

[Basic case facts] Sichuan Jin Chemical Company and Beijing Ye Technology Company are the patentees of the invention patent with patent number 201110108644.9 and titled “Energy-saving and cost-saving vapor phase quenching melamine production system and its process.” Sichuan Jin is the right holder of the technical secrets of a melamine production system with an annual output of 50,000 tons using the pressurized gas phase quenching method. The two companies filed patent infringement lawsuits and technical secret infringement lawsuits with the court, claiming that Shandong Hua Chemical Company, Ningbo An Engineering Design Company, Ningbo Hou Consulting Company, as well as one of the inventors of the patent involved and involved in the research and development of the technical secret involved has infringed the patent rights and technical secrets involved in the case, constituting joint infringement and making huge profits from the infringement. They requested the court to order the accused infringers to stop the infringement and jointly and severally compensate Sichuan Jin Chemical Company and Beijing Ye Technology for the infringement of patent rights for 120 million RMB. Sichuan Jin equested the defendants jointly compensate Sichuan Jin chemical company for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of 98 million RMB for infringement of technical secrets.

The court of first instance of the patent case ruled that Shandong Hua Chemical Company, Ningbo An Engineering Design Company, and Ningbo Hou Consulting Company immediately stop manufacturing the infringing production system, and Shandong Hua Chemical Company should stop using the infringing production system and stopped using the patented method involved in the case, and stop selling melamine products directly obtained according to this method; Shandong Hua Chemical Company should compensate Sichuan Jin Chemical Company and Beijing Ye Technology Company for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of 80 million RMB, and Ningbo An Engineering Design Company and Ningbo Hou Consulting Company We shall be jointly and severally liable for 40 million RMB of this amount. The first-instance judgment did not support the lawsuit request of Sichuan Jin Chemical Company and Beijing Ye Technology Company to stop promising to sell melamine products and destroy the infringing production system, nor did it support the lawsuit request that Yin XX be jointly and severally liable for compensation. Sichuan Jin Chemical Company, Beijing Ye Technology Company, Shandong Hua Chemical Company, Ningbo An Engineering Design Company, and Ningbo Hou Consulting Company were all dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal.

The court of first instance of the technical secret case ruled that the defendants immediately stop disclosing, using, and allowing others to use the technical secrets involved in the case, and destroy the materials holding the technical secrets involved in their respective possessions. Shandong Hua Chemical Company should compensate Sichuan Jin Chemical Company for economic losses and rights protection and reasonable expenses of50 million RMB, of which Yin XX was jointly and severally liable for 1.2 million RMB, and Ningbo An Engineering Design Company and Ningbo Hou Mou Consulting Company were jointly and severally liable for 5 million RMB of it. The first-instance judgment did not support Sichuan Jin’s chemical company’s request for Shandong Hua’s chemical company to stop selling melamine products obtained using the technical secrets involved in the case and to destroy the infringing production system and the materials holding the technical secrets involved in the case held by it. Sichuan Jin Chemical Company, Shandong Hua Chemical Company, Ningbo An Engineering Design Company, Ningbo Hou Consulting Company, and Yin XX were all dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal.

After hearing the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court made final judgments on the two cases respectively, supporting the right holder’s request for joint compensation of economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses from the relevant infringers in the two cases, totaling 218 million RMB, and Shandong Hua should destroy the production system and the materials detailing the technical secrets involved in the case and stop selling melamine products produced using the technical secrets involved in the case. After the second instance verdict of the two cases, Shandong Hua was dissatisfied and applied for a retrial. After review, the Supreme People’s Court ruled to reject the retrial application. Because the judgments in the above two cases were made against the early implementation of the alleged infringement of the first phase of the project, after the two cases were pronounced, the rights holders filed new lawsuits regarding the subsequent phases of the project and the newly added second phase of the project. The parties reached a comprehensive settlement on the effective judgments and new litigation in the two cases and the rights holder was finally compensated 658 million RMB, and Shandong Hua also obtained a license to use it.

[Significance] The two cases were awarded compensation of 218 million RMB, and the rights holder was finally compensated 658 million RMB, setting a new record for domestic intellectual property rights protection and being selected into the “Top Ten Cases in 2023 to Promote the Process of the Rule of Law in the New Era.” The rights holders in the two cases, Sichuan Jin Chemical Company and Beijing Ye Technology Company, are Sino-foreign joint ventures and high-tech private enterprises respectively. The defendant, Shandong Hua Chemical Company, is a listed company with state-owned assets. The judgments of the two cases not only fully reflect the judicial orientation of the People’s Court to effectively increase the judicial protection of intellectual property rights, but also demonstrate the judicial attitude of treating all types of enterprises equally. At the same time, the two cases reached a comprehensive settlement on all disputed items during the enforcement period, achieving a win-win effect of protecting intellectual property rights, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the successful parties, and ensuring the steady growth and development of enterprises.

2. “Jinjing 818” new rice plant variety infringement case [Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Jiangsu Jin’s Industry Company and Jiangsu Qin’s Agriculture Company]

[Case No.] （2021）最高法知民终816号

[Basic facts of the case] Jiangsu Jin Industrial Company is the exclusive licensee of the new rice variety right of “Jinjing 818.” It believed that an agricultural company in Jiangsu Province posted an “Agricultural Industry Chain Information Matching” message in a WeChat group without permission to look for potential traders, collected membership fees from potential traders, provided “Jinjing 818” rice seed trading information, and agreed on the deal. Jin believed that the price, quantity, delivery time, and arranging delivery and payment collection infringed upon the new plant variety rights involved. Therefore, the lawsuit requested an ruling to order Qin to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of 3 million RMB. The court of first instance held that the seeds packaged in the “white bags” involved in the infringement case were not directly sold by Qin, but rather assisted in the infringement. In the end, punitive damages were applied to support all the litigation claims of Jin. Qin was dissatisfied and appealed, arguing that its acts did not constitute infringement. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held that Qin is the organizer and decision-maker of the relevant seed transactions, and it should be determined that it directly carried out infringing sales behavior rather than assisting infringement; Qin is not a farmer, and its infringing sales scale is far beyond the reasonable scale of “farmers’ self-propagation and self-use.” Therefore, its non-infringement defense regarding “farmers’ self-propagation and self-use” cannot be established. Referring to the promotional materials of Qin and considering the circumstances of the infringement, it can be inferred that its infringement profits exceeded 1 million RMB; that the company did not obtain the seed production and business operation license, sold the infringing seeds in a “white bag”, refused to provide the relevant account books, and the circumstances were serious. Therefore, punitive compensation may be legally applied, the compensation amount shall be determined from a high level, and the claim of the right holder for compensation of 3 million RMB shall be fully supported.

[Significance] This case is a typical case to combat seed infringement and purify the seed industry market. The infringers use Internet information platforms to organize the sales of “white bags” of seeds, and cover up the infringement in the names of “farmers” and “large grain growers” and other business entities. Their behavior is concealed and their methods are innovative. The Supreme People’s Court accurately defined the nature of the platform’s business activities, transferred the burden of proof in a timely manner, made factual inferences in accordance with the law, uncovered the “farmer disguise” of the infringer, accurately identified the infringement and infringement profits, and applied punitive damages in accordance with the law to determine the amount of compensation at a higher level. This case was selected into the “Top Ten Cases in 2021 to Promote the Process of the Rule of Law in the New Era” and the “Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry by the People’s Court (First Batch)”.

3. Involving the “car wiper” invention patent infringement case [Dispute over invention patent infringement between a Valeo Systemes dEssuyage SAS and a Xiamen Lu automobile parts company]

[Case No.] （2019）最高法知民终2号

[Basic facts of the case] Valeo in France is the patentee of an invention patent with patent number 200610160549.2, titled “Motor vehicle wiper connector and corresponding connection device.” It believed that Xiamen Lu’s auto parts company and others’ manufacturing and selling of wiper products constituted an infringement of the patent rights involved in the case, and requested an ruling to order Xiamen Lu’s auto parts company and others to stop the infringement, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 6 million RMB. During the first-instance procedure, Valeo filed an application for preservation of conduct (injunction) during the lawsuit, requesting an ruling to order Xiamen Lu Auto Parts Company and others to immediately stop the infringement. The court of first instance made a partial judgment first, concluding that Xiamen Lu Auto Parts Company and others infringed and ordered them to stop the infringement, but did not process the application for preservation of relevant behaviors at the same time. Xiamen Lu Auto Parts Company and others were dissatisfied and filed an appeal; Valeo did not file an appeal but still insisted on its application for behavioral preservation during the lawsuit. The Supreme People’s Court held a public hearing 40 days after accepting the case and pronounced the verdict in court. On the basis of correcting the functional characteristics of the first-instance judgment, the Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. In the judgment, the Supreme People’s Court pointed out that the application for preservation of conduct in the action may be supported based on the circumstances of the case, so as to make up for the gap in legal effect of the judgment of the first instance during the appeal process.

[Significance] This case is the “first hammer” of the court hearing after the establishment of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court. It is the first public demonstration of the court’s judicial function of the appeal hearing mechanism for intellectual property cases at the national level. The judgment of this case reflects the clear orientation of strengthening intellectual property protection and makes useful explorations: in terms of entities, clarifying the criteria for identifying functional features, avoiding improper restrictions on the scope of patent protection, and ensuring that patentees receive benefits commensurate with their technical contributions. Matching scope of rights protection; in terms of procedures, the adjudication method of “prior judgment + temporary injunction” is advocated for timely and efficient relief of rights, so as to prevent the parties from “winning the case and losing the market.” This case is a guiding case of the Supreme People’s Court.

4. Case involving the invalidation of the invention patent for “Traditional Chinese Medicine dispensing machine” [administrative dispute over the invalidation of the invention patent between a Sichuan Xin pharmaceutical company and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and a Guangdong pharmaceutical company]

[Case No.] （2021）最高法知行终93号

[Basic Case Facts] Sichuan Xin Pharmaceutical Company is the patentee of the invention patent with patent number 03135523.4, titled “Automatic Dispensing and Measuring Device for Drugs.” A pharmaceutical company in Guangdong requested CNIPA to declare the patent invalid. After review, CNIPA found that the patent involved did not possess inventive step and therefore declared it invalid. Sichuan Xin pharmaceutical company was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court rejected its claim in the first instance judgment. Sichuan Xin pharmaceutical company was dissatisfied and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the prior art did not provide relevant technical inspiration, and the patent involved was inventive and the patent rights should be maintained valid. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court ruled to revoke the first instance judgment and CNIPA to make a new ruling.

[Significance] The patented technology solution involved in the case is one of the key technologies to realize the automation of traditional Chinese medicine dispensing, which can greatly improve the dispensing efficiency of traditional Chinese medicine pharmacies. Since 2020, traditional Chinese medicine dispensing machines using this patented technology have been widely used on the frontline of medical treatment in the fight against the new coronavirus epidemic, playing an important role in protecting people’s lives and health. The Supreme People’s Court correctly determined the inventiveness of the patent involved, which is of positive significance for the effective protection of technological innovation in the field of traditional Chinese medicine.

5. China’s first drug patent linkage lawsuit [a dispute between a Japanese company and a Wenzhou pharmaceutical company to confirm whether it falls within the scope of patent protection]

[Case No.]（2022）最高法知民终905号

[Basic case facts] A Japanese company (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd.) is the patentee of an invention patent with patent number 200580009877.6 entitled “ED-71 Preparation.” In accordance with Article 76, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, it filed a drug patent linkage lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting to confirm that a Wenzhou pharmaceutical company’s “idecalcitol soft capsule” generic drug technical solution falls within the scope of the claims of the patent rights involved. The court of first instance dismissed its claim. The Japanese company was dissatisfied and appealed. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held that the Wenzhou pharmaceutical company failed to make a statement regarding the claim with the largest scope of protection, and failed to promptly notify the marketing authorization holder of the generic drug of the statement and the basis for the statement. This behavior was inappropriate and should be criticized; regarding the judgment of whether the technical solution of a generic drug falls within the protection scope of the patent claims should, in principle, be based on the comparison and evaluation of the application materials of the generic drug applicant; after comparison, the technical solution of the generic drug involved does not fall within the protection scope of the patent claim involved, so the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance] This case is the first drug patent linkage litigation case in China. China’s drug patent linkage system was initially established and the judgment of this case made an exploratory legal application in line with the legislative purpose to the problems that arose in the early stages of the implementation of the drug patent linkage system. It has received attention and praise from the Chinese and foreign media and the pharmaceutical industry. This case was selected as the “Top Ten Nominated Cases in 2022 to Promote the Process of the Rule of Law in the New Era”.

6. “Vanillin” technical secret infringement case [Disputes over technical secret infringement between a chemical company in Jiaxing City, a new technology company in Shanghai, and a technology company in Ningbo ]

[Case No.] （2020）最高法知民终1667号

[Basic Case Facts] A chemical company in Jiaxing City and a new technology company in Shanghai owned the technical secret of “the process of preparing vanillin using the glyoxylic acid method.” Based on this process, a chemical company in Jiaxing City has become the world’s largest vanillin manufacturer, accounting for about 60% of the global market. Later, the Ningbo company and its legal representative illegally obtained the technical secret through the deputy director of the vanillin workshop of the chemical company in Jiaxing City, and then used the technical secret process to mass-produce vanillin products, resulting in fall in vanillin prices, and the market share of the chemical company in Jiaxing City has shrunk. The chemical company in Jiaxing City and the new technology company in Shanghai then filed lawsuits. The court of first instance determined that the Ningbo company and others committed technical secret infringement, ordered them to stop the infringement, and determined that they should be liable for damages of 3.5 million RMB based on the statutory upper limit of statutory compensation and reasonable rights protection expenses stipulated by the law at the time. At the same time, they made a behavioral preservation ruling and ordered the Ningbo company to immediately stop infringing on the technical secrets involved. After the first-instance judgment was made, the Ningbo Company and others ignored the conduct preservation ruling and continued to commit infringement. The chemical company in Jiaxing City and the new technology company in Shanghai believed that the first-instance judgment was wrong in that the compensation amount was too low and that the legal representative of the Ningbo Company was not ordered to bear joint and several liability; the Ningbo Company and others believed that the first-instance judgment erred in determining infringement of technical secrets and damages were excessive and therefore appealed. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held that the legal representative of the Ningbo Company was directly involved in the implementation of infringement and established an enterprise engaged in infringement. Therefore, he and the Ningbo Company and others constituted a joint infringement and should bear joint and several liability for compensation according to law; according to economic loss data provided by the right holder and taking into account factors such as the high commercial value of the technical secret involved, the egregious circumstances of the infringement, and the refusal of the accused infringer to implement the conduct preservation ruling of the People’s Court, the Ningbo Company and its legal representative were sentenced to joint and several compensation of 159 million RMB, and transferred suspected criminal evidence discovered during the case trial to the public security organs. Later, the two parties reached a settlement during the enforcement of the judgement.

[Significance] This case is a trade secret infringement case with a high compensation award. The Supreme People’s Court passed the judgment of this case to protect the company’s core technology in accordance with the law, and effectively strengthened the crackdown on malicious infringement. It also clarified the joint and several liability of the legal representative who directly committed the infringement, and transferred suspected criminal evidence to the public security organs in accordance with the law to promote the connection between civil infringement relief and criminal liability investigation, and demonstrates the clear judicial attitude of the people’s courts to strictly protect intellectual property rights in accordance with the law and severely crack down on malicious infringements. This case is a guiding case of the Supreme People’s Court and was selected as one of the “Top Ten People’s Court Cases of 2021”.

7. “Rubber antioxidant” technical secret infringement case [dispute between ShengXX Chemical Technology Company and Chen XX and Yuncheng XX Chemical Technology Company for infringement of technical secrets]

[Case No.] （2022）最高法知民终816号

[Basic facts of the case] ShengXX Chemical Technology Company is the technical secret rights holder of the “nitrobenzene synthesis process of RT base” and the “utilization of RT base to produce rubber antioxidant 4020 process.” ShengXX Chemical Technology Company claimed that Chen XX, the legal representative and actual controller of Shanxi XX Chemical Company, who was not involved in the case, instructed two employees of the company to induce technical personnel of ShengXX Chemical Technology Company to steal the technical secrets involved in the case for construction and use. The production equipment involved in the case seriously infringed on its technical secrets; Shanxi Xiang Chemical Company filed for bankruptcy liquidation after being judged in another case to have committed the crime of infringement of trade secrets. However, it established a separate Yuncheng XX Chemical Technology Company to replace Shanxi XX Chemical Company and continue to carry out the infringement. Then a lawsuit was filed against Chen XX and Yuncheng Jin Chemical Technology Company, requesting a judgment to stop the infringement, destroy the production equipment involved, and jointly and severally pay compensation of more than 200 million RMB. The court of first instance fully supported the litigation request of ShengXX Chemical Technology Company and made a preservation ruling to stop the infringement. Yuncheng XX Chemical Technology Company and others refused to implement it. Chen XX and Yuncheng XX Chemical Technology Company were dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The second-instance judgment of the Supreme People’s Court upheld the first-instance judgment regarding the cessation of infringement and compensation of more than 200 million RMB; in view of the fact that a company outside the case claimed that it was the owner of the production equipment involved, and considering that the rights of outsiders may be involved, the first-instance judgment regarding the destruction of the equipment was revoked. Regarding the judgment on the production equipment involved in the case, this part will be sent back to the court of first instance for retrial and additional persons outside the case will be required to participate in the litigation during the retrial; at the same time, companies and their actual controllers who refuse to implement the conduct preservation ruling of the court of first instance will be subject to maximum judicial penalties.

[Significance] This case is a trade secret infringement case with a high compensation award. This case was a useful exploration of the second-instance adjudication method. It adopted a preliminary partial judgment to deal with the characterization of infringement and damage compensation. The issue of whether to destroy the production equipment involved in the case was remanded for retrial to protect the procedural interests of outsiders. Actors who refused to implement the behavioral preservation ruling were punished. The extreme judicial punishment demonstrates the people’s court’s determination and strength to resolutely protect intellectual property rights.

8. “Kabo” technical secret infringement case [disputes over technical secret infringement between Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company, Jiujiang XX High-tech Materials Company, and Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company]

[Case No.] （2019）最高法知民终562号

[Basic Case Facts] Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company and Jiujiang XX High-tech Materials Company are the technical secret rights holders for the production of “Kabo,” the raw material for hand sanitizer. While working at Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company from 2012 to 2013, Hua violated the company’s management system many times by copying technical data related to the Kabo production process from the office computer to external storage media, and by taking advantage as the person in charge of Kabo product research and development, he asked Li XX, director of the production workshop of Jiujiang XX High-tech Materials Company, a subsidiary of Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company, for equipment drawings related to Kabo’s production process technology. Hua successively sent the drawings and documents related to the Kabo production process that he illegally obtained to Liu, the legal representative of Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company, Zhu XX, Hu XX and others, and organized research and improvement. Afterwards, Hu revised the design drawings and purchased the relevant equipment, and finally Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company produced Kabo products and sold them at home and abroad. The court of first instance held that Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company, Hua, Liu, Zhu, and Hu had infringed upon the technical secrets of Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company and Jiujiang XX High-tech Materials Company, and ruled to stop the infringement and obtain compensation according to the infringement. The amount of compensation was determined at 2.5 times profit, and the Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company was ordered to compensate for economic losses of 30 million RMB. Hua, Liu, Zhu , and Hu bear joint and several liability. Guangzhou XX High-tech Materials Company, Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company, etc. appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held at the second instance that the first-instance judgment found correctly that Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company, Hua, Liu, Zhu, and Hu had infringed technical secrets; but the contribution of the infringed technical secrets to the product profits was not taken into account in the determination of the amount of profits from the infringement, so it was determined that the profits from the infringement were 6 million RMB if the contribution was 50%. Considering that Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company itself had infringed, and its former legal representative continued production after being convicted of the criminal offense of infringing upon the technical secret involved in the case, and sold it to more than 20 countries and regions, which was obvious intention of infringement and serious circumstances of infringement, the multiple of punitive compensation was raised to the statutory maximum multiple of 5. Considering that Liu, as the former legal representative of Anhui XX Fine Chemical Company, played an obvious role in the process of infringement, Liu was sentenced to assume joint and several liability for the compensation for the whole case. Therefore, Liu, Hua, Zhu and Hu should assume joint and several liability for the aforesaid compensation within the scope of 30 million yuan, 5 million RMB, 1 million RMB and 1 million RMB respectively.

[Significance] This case is the first intellectual property infringement case decided by the Supreme People’s Court in which punitive damages are legally applicable. It explores the correspondence between the severity of the infringement and the multiple of punitive damages, and gives full play to the role of the punitive damages system. It plays a role in effectively protecting rights holders, deterring and curbing infringement, and warning potential infringers. It is important for promoting the implementation of the punitive compensation system for intellectual property infringement, increasing the intensity of intellectual property protection, encouraging the innovative development of private enterprises, and stimulating social innovation. Vitality has a positive meaning. This case is a guiding case of the Supreme People’s Court and was selected into the “Typical Cases of People’s Courts Giving Full Play to Their Trial Functions to Protect Property Rights and the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Entrepreneurs (Third Batch)” and “Application of Punitive Damages in Civil Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement” issued by the Supreme People’s Court Typical Case”.

9. “Brick and Tile Association” horizontal monopoly agreement case [Monopoly dispute between Zhang XX and a certain city’s Brick and Tile Association]

[Case No.] （2020）最高法知民终1382号

     

 [Basic Case Facts] The Brick and Tile Association of a certain city has extensively signed "production suspension and rectification contracts" with brick and tile enterprises, causing some to halt production, reducing the supply of bricks and tiles, increasing prices, and profiting from the monopoly. They provide "production suspension compensation" to the halted enterprises. Zhang, an operator of a suspended enterprise, sued the Brick and Tile Association of the city for failing to provide compensation as agreed, causing economic losses, and demanded compensation from the Association and the remaining producing enterprises. The first-instance court supported Zhang's compensation claim. The Brick and Tile Association and others disagreed and appealed. In the second-instance court of the Supreme People's Court, it was held that Zhang voluntarily participated in the horizontal monopoly agreement and was one of its implementers. His claim for compensation from other implementers of the horizontal monopoly agreement for alleged economic losses caused by its implementation was essentially a request to share monopoly profits, which are not protected by anti-monopoly laws. Therefore, the first-instance judgment was revoked, and Zhang's entire lawsuit was dismissed.

 

       [Significance] This case elucidates the purpose and direction of anti-monopoly civil relief, clarifying that voluntary enforcers of horizontal monopoly agreements are not intended beneficiaries of anti-monopoly law. It serves as a guide for legally combating horizontal monopoly practices and upholding fair competition order. This case is a guiding case of the Supreme People's Court.

10. “Cordless vacuum cleaner” invention patent infringement case [Dispute between a British technology company and a Suzhou company infringing invention patent rights]

[Case No.] （2022）最高法知民终189号

[Basic Case Facts] A British technology company (Dyson) and a Suzhou company are both influential companies in the global home appliance industry. The British technology company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the technical solutions used in two cordless vacuum cleaner products produced and sold by the Suzhou company fell within the scope of its invention patent number 200780027328.0, named “Handheld Cleaning Equipment,” requesting the court to order the Suzhou company to stop infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of 1 million RMB. The court of first instance ruled to reject the lawsuit filed by the British technology company. The British technology company was dissatisfied and appealed. During the second instance at the Supreme People’s Court, the Court learned that the two parties had long-standing intellectual property disputes. After comprehensively sorting out a series of disputes between the two parties, it established a dialogue platform to ease the conflicts between the two parties. After repeated communication, the two parties finally reached a reconciliation and worldwide settlement involving more than 20 intellectual property disputes, including this case. Both parties have sent letters of thanks for this.

[Significance] This case has enabled Chinese and foreign parties to reach a global dispute package settlement and substantively resolve transnational disputes by “Eastern experience,” which is a vivid embodiment of the dynamic judicial concept in a new era in which the people’s courts implement the principle of “grasping the front end, treating the outstanding diseases,” “win-win, win-win” and effectively help create a first-class business environment characterized by marketization, rule of law and internationalization.

Source: CHINA IP Law Update