Protecting IP Rights, Innovation

In 2016, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court accepted a patent infringement dispute involving a microorganism gene patent (the Shanghai Finc Bio Tech Inc. invention patent infringement dispute). This was the first case involving the issue of gene sequences to be accepted by the Shanghai IP Court since its establishment. It was particularly complex, such as in terms of determining the scope of patent protection, reaching a finding after comparing with other infringement cases, and in the trial of prior art defense.

Issues regarding determining the scope of protection included whether the product patent rules or method patent rules should apply; how affiliated patented inventions should be differentiated; the appropriate method for comparing gene sequences; how the criteria for determining identity or equivalence should be assessed; and whether the same rules of determination could be used in a prior art defense examination for both a gene patent and the product patent corresponding to the gene patent. The case has a high demonstrative value for trials of similar cases in future.

3.  Can you describe SIPO's latest amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines?

The latest amendments by the State Intellectual Property Office touch upon hot topics of concern to many parties. For instance, they offer active encouragement and appropriate protection for technical solutions in business model innovation, such as by expressly stating the multiple ways of composition permitted for computer program inventions. Among them, Item (2) of Section 4.2 of Part One of Division Two of the Guidelines specifies that if the claims in an application for an invention patent that is realized through the use of computer and/or network technology and involves business information contain technical features, they will not be precluded by being deemed to constitute “rules and methods for intellectual activities”. Against the current “Internet+” age in which the delineation between technical and non-technical fields as well as technical and non-technical features becomes unclear, the revision explicitly provides that the success of applications for patents that involve business fields should not be directly precluded on the basis of the object to be protected. However, the latest amendments do not specifically address the details of examining “creativity”, which will need to be in subsequent revisions of the Guidelines.

4.  How effective have the specialized IP courts been in handling complex cases? 

In 2016, the Shanghai IP Court accepted 1,877 cases of various types, an increase of 14.38% from the previous year. Among them were 904 first instance and 973 appeal cases. 1,877 cases were concluded, up 79.27% from 2015—a reflection of the courts' increasing efficiency. In terms of adjudication professionalism, the “four-in-one” technical fact ascertainment system—consisting of technical investigation, technical consulting, expert jurors, and technical evaluation—has allowed courts to handle difficult cases with higher efficiency and accuracy. In August 2016, the Shanghai IP Court simultaneously appointed technical investigators and expert jurors for the first time to take part in the trial of a case involving the infringement of a certain telecommunications method invention in which Co-effort Law Firm LLP acted as counsel and solved key issues in the technical fact ascertainment stage of the case, which resulted in an efficient settlement.

5. Is the regulation and protection of trade secrets improving?

The PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law (Draft Amendments) fleshes out the provisions on trade secret protection. The second paragraph of Article 9 slightly modifies the definition of a “trade secret”, unifying the previously used criteria of economic value and practicability into “having commercial value”, while leaving the criteria of non-public nature and confidentiality unchanged. The standard of “value” is not only more consistent with current judicial trial practice but is also more easily grasped by judges in actual cases. Furthermore, the second paragraph of Article 22 specifies the circumstance under which the burden of proof shifts onto the defendant in a trade secret infringement case: if the rights holder has shown that the information used by the defendant is substantially similar to its trade secret and that the defendant had the means to access it, the burden of proving that the information being used was lawfully sourced lies with the defendant.

6. Can you describe one ground-breaking internet-related IP case from the past year?

One significant internet IP case is dianping.com (Hantao) v. Baidu, in which the search engine company Baidu allegedly copied large quantities of dianping.com commentary information and reproduced it without permission on Baidu Maps and Baidu Zhidao, directly replacing dianping.com in providing the content to users. The court held that Baidu was not only a search service provider, but also a content provider that targeted the same online users as dianping.com, making the two competitors. The act was deemed to be of unfair competition since Baidu, by extracting commentary information from dianping.com and other websites and inserting it into Baidu Maps and Baidu Zhidao, effectively replaced dianping.com as the information provider to online users and caused harm to Hantao.

In this case, with respect to competitive relationships in the online environment, the court's finding parallels the development of business models: competitive relationships that are regulated by the Anti-unfair Competition Law are not restricted to those among operators in the same business, but also cover competitive relationships arising from efforts to seize trading opportunities for oneself or others, as well as those from undermining the competitive advantages of others. It also pointed out that online users often rely on valid comments to make a decision, so partial copying will also cause substantial harm and confusion. While applying the provisions of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, the court also carried out a detailed analysis taking into account the realities from both a commercial and consumer standpoint.

7. What are the biggest takeaways from the Supreme People's Court's 2016 Annual IP Report?

The Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases (2016) (Annual IP Report) released by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) selects 27 typical IP cases it concluded in 2016 and clarifies 39 legal application issues that bear general guiding significance. The typical cases show that patent and trademark cases still account for the largest percentage, the number of administrative cases for the grant and confirmation of trademark rights has markedly increased, and the percentage of copyright cases has remained essentially unchanged.

The focus of administrative patent disputes continued to be on assessing novelty and inventiveness, and attention was drawn to the technical investigator's role in ascertaining technical facts.

Administrative trademark cases accounted for a relatively large percentage. Disputes involving the application of the law to determine whether a disputed trademark has an adverse effect as well as those relating to the conditions and scope of protection of prior right remained constant, while adjudication criteria and benchmarks require further clarification and unification, according to the Annual IP Report.

As for copyright, disputes involving karaoke operators were relatively numerous, and instances in which parties obtained evidence in an inappropriate manner and inconsistent criteria for verifying evidence were applied remained common.

Trade secret litigation accounted for much of the competition cases, with the focus mainly on legal issues relating to substantiation of the basis of rights, such as the secrecy of the relevant information and whether confidentiality steps were taken. The Annual IP Report also points to a rise in anti-monopoly cases and provides an interpretation for determining whether a business operator has a dominant market position and for “tie-in sales” in cases of abuse of dominance.

8. Can you describe the progress of the legal battle against online counterfeits?  How are e-commerce platforms adapting?

At the end of 2015, Alibaba established a platform governance department tasked with handling matters including IP protection. Data show that, in 2016, Alibaba assisted public security authorities in uncovering 469 cases, assisted the police in capturing 880 criminal suspects, and smashing 1,419 counterfeit bases. The total amount involved was approximately Rmb3.067 billion. Alibaba has established a 2,000-member professional counterfeit crackdown team, outlays in excess of Rmb1 billion per year, and uses technology and data models to actively guard against the manufacture and sale of counterfeits.

A court decision in China's first online shopping platform counterfeiting case was rendered on July 20, 2017. The plaintiff, Taobao (operated by Alibaba), instituted a legal action and claimed Rmb2.65 million in damages against a member for selling adulterated brand cat food on the Taobao website, breaching the service contract that serves as the basic legal relationship between the platform and merchant, namely “the user may not sell merchandise that infringes another's intellectual property or other lawful rights and interests on the Taobao platform” and “if an act by the user causes Taobao, an affiliate thereof or Alipay to incur a loss, the user shall compensate for all of the aforementioned losses incurred by Taobao or its affiliate”. The People's Court of Fengxian District, Shanghai, at first instance, ordered the defendant to compensate for economic losses in the amount of Rmb100,000 and reasonable expenses of Rmb20,000. This was the first anti-counterfeiting case in China arising from an online shopping platform, and demonstrates the determination of e-commerce enterprises to bear social responsibility and actively crack down on counterfeiting.

9. What is your advice for foreign brand owners on managing their IP portfolio in China?

1. File timely applications for trademarks, including devices, English names, official translated Chinese names, abbreviations, and popular appellations, and defensive trademarks constituting alternative translations of names.
2. When commissioning production to a domestic processing enterprise, pay attention to details of the authorization, geographical scope, time, quality standards, and confidentiality clauses.
3. Keep abreast of trademark registration and examination obligations relating to original equipment manufacturing (OEM) processing.
4. Protect against patent infringement and analyze the IP risks that could arise from importation.
5. In view of “Internet+”, pay attention to trademark use and classes for which trademarks are registered.
6. File reports with the administrative authorities, and actively utilize administrative law enforcement means to safeguard rights.
7. Cooperate with a professional IP legal service team in China.

10.  Are there any unique features of IP litigation that foreign companies should keep in mind in 2018?

The typical cases of 2016 highlight the efforts made by Chinese courts in terms of the amount of damages awarded and the application of injunctions. Taking the Shanghai IP Court as an example, wherever the conditions for evidence preservation, property preservation, and act preservation are satisfied, action is promptly taken, giving rise to the new preservation model of “judge + enforcement personnel + technical experts + technical investigators” to carry out evidence preservation. In 2016, a total of 30 cases involving applications for pre-trial act preservation and pre-trial evidence preservation were handled, an 114.28% increase from the previous year. Moreover there were 186 cases in which property preservation, evidence preservation, or act preservation rulings were rendered while the procedure was pending, up 77% from 2015. Foreign enterprises may explore and take advantage of these features in litigation proceedings to safeguard their IP rights.

Xiaoqing Zhu, Partner

Co-effort Law Firm

Xiaoqing Zhu serves as a legal advisor for the Publicity Department of the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China, the Shanghai Municipal Press and Publication Bureau, and the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of Kunshan City.

Mr. Zhu focuses on the practice and research of handling corporate legal matters and is particularly adept at providing contentious and noncontentious legal services in the fields of company law and intellectual property protection. He has regularly advised entities such as the Shanghai Pudong New Area Education Bureau, various kindergartens and primary schools in Pudong New Area, Jinwin Investment, Xinhua Distribution Group, Shanghai Art Fair, and Howard Johnson Caida Plaza Hotel.

Mr. Zhu has acted as counsel in several renowned cases, including representing HP in its patent infringement suit against a Shanghai-based company (the Shanghai IP Court's first case), Nokia in its trademark litigation against a Wuxi company (one of the Quality Brands Protection Committee's top 10 cases of 2011), Benesse Corporation in its “Qiao Hu” copyright dispute with a Guangdong company (one of the Shanghai courts' 10 major typical IP cases of 2014), and Sino Legend in its trade secret litigation against a U.S. company (one of the PRC courts' 10 major IP cases in 2013).

1. 去年有哪些突破性的商标案件和法规？

中国好声音诉前禁令案，乔丹系列商标行政争议案件，盖璞内衣商标行政争议案，大润发商标侵权及不正当竞争案等都是去年比较经典的案件。

在立法方面，2016年国务院常务会议通过的《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法（修订草案）》，完善充实了对不正当竞争行为的法律界定，补充了打击商业贿赂、加强商业秘密保护和互联网领域反不正当竞争等规定，对互联网环境下完善商标的综合保护有一定的补充作用。

2 . 专利争议方面，有那些最重大的法规动向？去年有哪些最重要的专利案件？

2016年上海知识产权法院受理了一起涉及微生物基因专利的专利侵权纠纷案（上海丰科生物科技股份有限公司起诉侵害发明专利权纠纷）。该案是上海知产法院成立以来受理的第一起涉及基因序列问题的案件，在专利保护范围确定、侵权比对认定、现有技术抗辩审理等方面均较为疑难复杂。

问题包括保护范围确定适用产品专利规则还是方法专利规则，与关联专利发明在保护范围确定上如何区分，基因序列比对采用何种比对方法，相同或等同的判断标准如何把握，基因专利与基因专利所对应的产品专利在现有专利抗辩审查中是否可采用相同的认定规则等。对于今后类似案件的审理也具有较强的示范效应和指导价值。

3 . 请您介绍一下国家知识产权局对《专利审查指南》的最新修订？

此次修改涉及多方关注的热点问题，如对商业模式创新中的技术方案给予积极鼓励和恰当保护、明确对涉及计算机程序发明允许的多种撰写方式等。其中《指南》第二部分第一章第4.2节第（2）项明确了利用计算机和/或网络技术实现的、涉及商业内容的发明专利申请，如果其权利要求含有技术特征，不认为其属于“智力活动的规则和方法”而予以排除。在当前“互联网+”时代，技术领域与非技术领域、技术性与非技术性特征的界限开始变得模糊的背景下，该处修改明确了涉及商业领域的专利申请不宜从保护客体上直接排除其获得专利权的可能性的观点。但此次修改并未具体涉及“创造性”审查内容，未来在《指南》修改工作中，还需要进一步深入论证。

4. 在处理复杂案件方面，知识产权法院有多有效？

2016年，上海知产法院受理各类知识产权案件1877件，同比上升14.38%。其中，一审案件904件，二审案件973件。审结1877件，同比上升79.27%。大幅度的审结率可以看出知识产权法院在效率方面的提升。在审判专业度方面，技术调查、技术咨询、专家陪审和技术鉴定“四位一体”的技术事实查明体系有利于精准高效处理疑难案件。2016年8月，在协力律师事务所代理的电信类某方法发明侵权案件中，上海知识产权法院首次同时指派了技术调查官和专家陪审员参与庭审，高效处理了该案中技术事实查明的关键问题，促成了该案高效和解。

5. 对商业秘密的监管和保护是否在改善中？

《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法（修订草案）》完善充实了商业秘密保护方面的规定。第9条第2款略微调整了“商业秘密”的定义，将原作为判断“商业秘密”标准的经济性和实用性统一修改为“具有商业价值性”，而非公知性和保密性继续保持不变。采用“价值性”这一标准不仅与现行的司法审判实践更为贴切，而且也更易于法官在具体案件中进行把握。此外，在第22条第2款明确了举证责任倒置情形的适用，使得在侵犯商业秘密案件中，在权利人能够证明被告使用的信息与其商业秘密实质相同且被告有获取商业秘密的条件时，由被告承担其使用的信息具有合法来源的举证责任。

6. 去年网络有关的知识产权案有什么突破性发展？

大众点评网（汉涛公司）诉百度案件。百度公司未经许可,在百度地图、百度知道中大量抄袭、复制大众点评网点评信息，直接替代了大众点评网向用户提供内容。法院审理认为：百度公司不仅是搜索服务提供商,还是内容提供商，与大众点评网针对的是相同的网络用户群体，存在竞争关系。百度公司通过技术手段，从大众点评网等网站获取点评信息，充实自己的百度地图和百度知道，此种使用方式，实质替代大众点评网向用户提供信息，对汉涛公司造成损害，构成不正当竞争。

在该案中，法院对互联网环境中的竞争关系进行了紧跟商业模式发展的认定：反不正当竞争法所调整的竞争关系不限于同业者之间的竞争关系,还包括为自己或者他人争取交易机会所产生的竞争关系以及因破坏他人竞争优势所产生的竞争关系，并合实际指出，网络用户通常依据部分有效点评作出决定，因此部分抄袭也会带来实质损害。本案对反不正当竞争法原则条款的适用进行了细致精辟、结合实际的分析。

7. 《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告（2016）》有哪些最重要的意见？

《报告》精选了27件2016年的案件作为典型案件，并从中归纳出39个具有普遍指导意义的法律适用问题。从这些典型案件中可以发现：专利和商标案件仍占有最大比重，商标授权确权类行政案件增幅明显，著作权案件所占比例基本平稳。

专利行政案件的争议焦点问题仍集中于新颖性和创造性的评价，此外，技术调查官制度在技术事实查明方面发挥的作用值得关注。

商标行政案件占比较大，诉争商标是否具有不良影响及在先权利的保护条件和范围等法律适用问题仍存争议，裁判标准和尺度有待明确和统一。

著作权案件中涉及卡拉OK经营者等诉讼主体的关联性案件较多，当事人取证程序不规范以及证据认定标准不一的情况仍然比较普遍。

竞争案件中的商业秘密纠纷占比较大，争议焦点多集中于相关信息的秘密性，以及是否采取了保密措施等与权利基础的证明有关的法律问题。《报告》还指出反垄断案件的数量有所上升，在经营者占有市场支配地位的认定和滥用市场支配地位案件中“搭售”行为的认定方面均做了具有指导意义的解释。

8. 请您描述一下打击网上侵权的法律举措。商务平台如何应对？

阿里巴巴在2015年底成立平台治理部，专职处理知产保护等事宜。数据显示，2016 年全年，阿里巴巴协助公安机关破获案件469起，共计协助警方抓获犯罪嫌疑人880名，捣毁涉假窝点1419个，破获案件涉案总金额约30.67 亿元。阿里巴巴已建立了2000人的专业打假队伍、每年投入超过10亿元、利用技术和数据模型对制假售假进行主动防控。

2017年7月20日，网购平台打假首案一审宣判。原告淘宝公司因会员在淘宝网上销售掺假的品牌猫粮，违反服务合同作为基础法律关系即“用户不得在淘宝平台上销售侵犯他人知识产权或其他合法权益的商品”及“用户的行为使淘宝或其关联公司、支付宝公司遭受损失，用户应赔偿淘宝或其关联公司上述全部损失”提起诉讼，索赔265万元。上海市奉贤区人民法院一审判决被告赔偿经济损失10万元及合理支出2万元。这是国内首起由网购平台发起的打假案，显示了电商企业承担社会责任、主动出击打假的决心。

9. 您对外国品牌所有人管理他们在华知识产权组合方面有什么建议？

1. 及时申请商标，包括图形、英文、中文正式译名、简称、俗称等，以及不同译名的防御商标。
2. 注意委托国内加工企业生产，授权的内容、地域范围、时间以及质量标准、保密条款等。
3. 了解涉及定牌加工的商标注册、审查义务。
4. 防范进口行为可能导致的专利侵权，以及分析平行进口的知识产权风险。
5.  “互联网+”形势下，注意商标使用、商标注册的类别。
6. 向行政机关举报，积极运用行政执法维权手段。
7. 与专业的中国知识产权法律服务团队合作。

10. 外企在2018年有没有要关注的独特知识产权诉讼现象？

从2016年的经典案例可以看出中国法院在提高判赔金额和禁令适用等方面所做的努力。以上海知识产权法院为例：凡是符合证据保全、财产保全、行为保全条件的，均及时采取有关措施，形成“法官+执行人员+技术专家+技术调查官”的保全新模式，高效实施证据保全。2016全年共办理申请诉前行为保全、诉前证据保全案件30件，同比上升114.28%；作出诉中财产保全、诉中证据保全、诉中行为保全裁定共计186件，同比上升77%。外国企业可以尽可能的尝试合理利用诉讼技巧和程序来维护权利。

祝筱青 合伙人

协力律师事务所

祝筱青律师受聘担任中共上海市委宣传部、上海市新闻出版局、昆山市国资委法律顾问。

祝律师主要致力于企业法律事务处理的实务与研究，尤其擅长公司法律、企业知识产权保护的诉讼与非诉讼法律服务。祝律师为上海市浦东新区教育局、浦东新区多家幼儿园及小学、精文投资、新华发行集团、上海艺博会、财大豪生大酒店等单位提供常年顾问服务。

祝律师曾代理过惠普公司诉上海某公司专利侵权纠纷 (上海知识产权法院第一案)、诺基亚公司诉无锡某公司商标侵权纠纷 (中国品保委2011年十大案例)、日本倍乐生公司诉广东某公司“巧虎”著作权侵权纠纷 (2014年上海法院十大知识产权经典案例)、华奇公司与美国某公司商业秘密侵权纠纷 (2013 年中国法院十大知识产权案件) 等知名案件。