Guiding Case No. 196
Image: Mohamed Mahmoud Hassan, Contract Signature, Publicdomainpictures.net
In December 2022, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 196 to provide significant guiding principles regarding the validity of an arbitration clause even though the contract that contains the clause has not been formed. These principles will have a considerable impact on legal practice.Read more
Guiding Case No. 60
Image: Marina Pershina, Olive Oil, Publicdomainpictures.net
In May 2016, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 60 to provide guiding principles regarding, inter alia, the interpretation of certain food safety standards. This SinoRules&CasesTM piece explains why these principles still have guiding value even though the food safety standards involved in this case are no longer effective.Read more
Guiding Case No. 177
Image: Linnaea Mallette, Giant Clam Under The Sea, Publicdomainpictures.net
In December 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 177. The Guiding Case illustrates how China performs its obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora to protect marine biodiversity.Read more
Guiding Case No. 115
Image: Anastasia Amstutz, Windshield Rain, Publicdomainpictures.net
In December 2019, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 115. Four months later, in April 2020, the second-instance judgment upon which this Guiding Case is based was selected by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2019”. Why is this case so important? It is all related to the concepts of “act preservation” and “functional features” of inventions.Read more
Guiding Case No. 109
Image: Kevin Casper, San Jose Costa Rica, Publicdomainpictures.net
In February 2019, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 109 and five other Guiding Cases to illustrate how Chinese courts handled issues related to the country’s Belt and Road Initiative. Guiding Case No. 109 specifically shows the Supreme People’s Court’s firm adherence to legal rules and principles that protect the value of the “payment on demand” system of independent guarantees.Read more
Guiding Case No. 160
Image: Heru Purwanto, Pomelo On The Tree, Publicdomainpictures.net
Guiding Case No. 160 addresses a fundamental issue: when rights to a new plant variety are granted, what falls within the scope of protection? According to China’s legislation, propagation materials of the plant for which variety rights have been granted are clearly protected. Yet, what are “propagation materials”? Unfortunately, no definition can be found in China’s legislation. Guiding Case No. 160 fills the legal gap by setting the criteria for such determination.Read more
Guiding Case No. 100
Image: Lilla Frerichs, Indian Corn 1, Publicdomainpictures.net
Before the release of Guiding Case No. 100, the Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case No. 92 to establish this principle: in a case involving infringement of rights to a new plant variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. Guiding Case No. 100 shows what the defendant can do to meet this burden of proof.Read more
Guiding Case No. 92
Image: Andrew Schmidt, Corn On The Cob, Publicdomainpictures.net
Guiding Case No. 92 provides guidance on an important issue frequently encountered in cases involving infringement of rights to new plant varieties: how to determine whether two plants are of the same variety, when the related DNA fingerprinting test result cannot provide a clear answer. According to this Guiding Case, when this happens, the allegedly infringing party, i.e., the defendant, has the burden to prove that the allegedly infringing plant is different from the plant for which variety rights have been granted. How did the court justify the shifting of the burden to the defendant?Read more
