Page 80 - 2015_WhitePaper_web
P. 80
5 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
enough, of the nineteen cases that were disposed of, fourteen Major Intellectual Property Cases from 2013
cases were reversed. to 2014
Criminal Trials e Supreme Court published ten major intellectual prop-
With regard to criminal cases involving intellectual prop- erty cases handled by courts in China in 2013 on April 21st
erty, they declined in number in 2013. Local courts accepted 2014. We shall summarize some of the cases below.
only 9,331 cases of rst instance, a decrease of 28.79% com-
pared to 2012, more than half of which were criminal in- New Material Technology Field Cases Regarded as Patent
fringement actions, primarily trademarks. Infringement Cases
In general in 2013, there was an overall slowdown in ac-
celeration of civil cases involving intellectual property, as well Hunan Corun New Energy Co., Ltd. (“Corun”), has an
as a slowdown in administrative and criminal cases, but the invention patent to make spongy foam nickel. e patent
rate of disposition of cases accelerated substantially. For ex- applicant during the application for registration provided
ample, 85.95% of civil cases that were accepted were disposed information on the technological conditions for magnetron
of in the Basic Level courts. Similarly 87.04% of administra- sputtering and merged that claim with its original claim.
tive intellectual property cases were disposed of in the Basic Corun sued Alantum AdvancedTechnology Materials (Dalian)
Level courts. Co., Ltd (“Alantum”) and Hunan Kaifeg New Energy Co.,
Mediation prospered in China and resulted in a total of Ltd (“Kaifeng”) for infringement of their invention patent.
68.45% of its civil IP cases that were mediated. Additionally,
the decisions of many more cases were publically disseminated e Changsha Intermediate Court held that the method of
and in 2013 61368 judgments of courts at all levels were Alantum’s production was the same as those described in the
publically withdrawn. patent and awarded Corun RMB 29 million for its losses.
New Judicial Interpretations e High Court of Hunan Province sustained the original
judgment. Alantum applied to the Supreme Court for retrial
e revision of the Trademark Law itself was approved by and the Supreme Court ordered the High Court of Jiangsu
the Standing Committee of the National Peoples’ Congress Province to retry the case. Jiangsu Province High Court held
on 30th August 2013. For the purpose of handling trade- that the base vacuum pressure and working vacuum pressure
mark cases correctly, the Supreme People’s Court formulated of the patent and that of Alantum were very di erent, and
and promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s therefore the results may be di erent. However, the vacuum
Court on the Jurisdiction and Application of Law Concerning pressures adopted by Alantum were technical speci cations
Trademark Cases after the Decision on Revision of Trademark that any ordinary technical personnel in the eld could obtain
Law Takes E ect (legal interpretation No. [2014] 4, “Inter- without any creative work. erefore, the characteristic of
pretation”), which clari ed and con rmed the issues concern- the “base vacuum pressure and working vacuum pressure” of
ing jurisdiction and application of law of trademark cases ac- the accused infringing technical plan are neither same as nor
cepted by the court. equivalent to those listed in the claims of the patent at issue
and thus the accused infringing technical plan does not fall
e Interpretation added three categories of trademark within the scope of patent protection of the patent at issue.
disputes to be accepted by the people’s courts, namely “dis-
putes concerning con rmation of non-infringement of the ex- erefore, the claims made by Corun were rejected by the
clusive right to use registered trademarks”,“contract disputes Court.
with a trademark agency” and “disputes concerning liability
for damages arising from applications to cease infringement is case turned on the scope of application of the equiva-
of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks”. erefore lence principle, where the patent itself speci ed limits on
there are now thirteen categories of trademark disputes which vacuum pressure and the alleged infringers’ actions were sub-
courts will accept in China. stantially outside those limits. e equivalence principle is to
be strictly restricted in the case of patents of technical plans
As to jurisdiction, appeals from administrative cases from according to this case.
the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board or the Trade-
mark O ce, shall be heard by an Intermediate Court in Bei- Trademark Infringement by “Weiji” Soy Source and
jing. Civil and administrative cases concerning the protection Unfair Competition
of famous marks shall be heard by intermediate courts in the
locality where the dispute arises. Foshan Haitian Flavoring & Food Co., Ltd. ( “Haitian”)
is the owner of the registered trademark “”, which was
80 registered on 28th February 1994 for products such as soy
sauce. Foshan Gaoming Weiji Flavoring & Food Co., Ltd.
(“Weiji”) was established in 1998 and used “Weiji” as its
enough, of the nineteen cases that were disposed of, fourteen Major Intellectual Property Cases from 2013
cases were reversed. to 2014
Criminal Trials e Supreme Court published ten major intellectual prop-
With regard to criminal cases involving intellectual prop- erty cases handled by courts in China in 2013 on April 21st
erty, they declined in number in 2013. Local courts accepted 2014. We shall summarize some of the cases below.
only 9,331 cases of rst instance, a decrease of 28.79% com-
pared to 2012, more than half of which were criminal in- New Material Technology Field Cases Regarded as Patent
fringement actions, primarily trademarks. Infringement Cases
In general in 2013, there was an overall slowdown in ac-
celeration of civil cases involving intellectual property, as well Hunan Corun New Energy Co., Ltd. (“Corun”), has an
as a slowdown in administrative and criminal cases, but the invention patent to make spongy foam nickel. e patent
rate of disposition of cases accelerated substantially. For ex- applicant during the application for registration provided
ample, 85.95% of civil cases that were accepted were disposed information on the technological conditions for magnetron
of in the Basic Level courts. Similarly 87.04% of administra- sputtering and merged that claim with its original claim.
tive intellectual property cases were disposed of in the Basic Corun sued Alantum AdvancedTechnology Materials (Dalian)
Level courts. Co., Ltd (“Alantum”) and Hunan Kaifeg New Energy Co.,
Mediation prospered in China and resulted in a total of Ltd (“Kaifeng”) for infringement of their invention patent.
68.45% of its civil IP cases that were mediated. Additionally,
the decisions of many more cases were publically disseminated e Changsha Intermediate Court held that the method of
and in 2013 61368 judgments of courts at all levels were Alantum’s production was the same as those described in the
publically withdrawn. patent and awarded Corun RMB 29 million for its losses.
New Judicial Interpretations e High Court of Hunan Province sustained the original
judgment. Alantum applied to the Supreme Court for retrial
e revision of the Trademark Law itself was approved by and the Supreme Court ordered the High Court of Jiangsu
the Standing Committee of the National Peoples’ Congress Province to retry the case. Jiangsu Province High Court held
on 30th August 2013. For the purpose of handling trade- that the base vacuum pressure and working vacuum pressure
mark cases correctly, the Supreme People’s Court formulated of the patent and that of Alantum were very di erent, and
and promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s therefore the results may be di erent. However, the vacuum
Court on the Jurisdiction and Application of Law Concerning pressures adopted by Alantum were technical speci cations
Trademark Cases after the Decision on Revision of Trademark that any ordinary technical personnel in the eld could obtain
Law Takes E ect (legal interpretation No. [2014] 4, “Inter- without any creative work. erefore, the characteristic of
pretation”), which clari ed and con rmed the issues concern- the “base vacuum pressure and working vacuum pressure” of
ing jurisdiction and application of law of trademark cases ac- the accused infringing technical plan are neither same as nor
cepted by the court. equivalent to those listed in the claims of the patent at issue
and thus the accused infringing technical plan does not fall
e Interpretation added three categories of trademark within the scope of patent protection of the patent at issue.
disputes to be accepted by the people’s courts, namely “dis-
putes concerning con rmation of non-infringement of the ex- erefore, the claims made by Corun were rejected by the
clusive right to use registered trademarks”,“contract disputes Court.
with a trademark agency” and “disputes concerning liability
for damages arising from applications to cease infringement is case turned on the scope of application of the equiva-
of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks”. erefore lence principle, where the patent itself speci ed limits on
there are now thirteen categories of trademark disputes which vacuum pressure and the alleged infringers’ actions were sub-
courts will accept in China. stantially outside those limits. e equivalence principle is to
be strictly restricted in the case of patents of technical plans
As to jurisdiction, appeals from administrative cases from according to this case.
the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board or the Trade-
mark O ce, shall be heard by an Intermediate Court in Bei- Trademark Infringement by “Weiji” Soy Source and
jing. Civil and administrative cases concerning the protection Unfair Competition
of famous marks shall be heard by intermediate courts in the
locality where the dispute arises. Foshan Haitian Flavoring & Food Co., Ltd. ( “Haitian”)
is the owner of the registered trademark “”, which was
80 registered on 28th February 1994 for products such as soy
sauce. Foshan Gaoming Weiji Flavoring & Food Co., Ltd.
(“Weiji”) was established in 1998 and used “Weiji” as its
