Digest

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—the (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2 Civil Judgment rendered by the Supreme People’s Court on March 27, 2019—was selected by the Supreme People’s Court as one of the “Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts in 2019”.

The facts of the case are simple: a French company sued two Chinese companies and an individual for infringing its patent rights.  The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court and the Supreme People’s Court, which were the first-instance court and the second-instance court, respectively, ruled in favor of the patentee.

“Essentially, the […] significance of [the] Judgment has been ‘entrenched’ by Guiding Case No. 115 because related principles have been articulated as the Guiding Case’s ‘Main Points of the Adjudication’ […].”

The factual simplicity of the case does not detract from its significance, which, as explained by the Supreme People’s Court, covers the following two major aspects:

1. “In the judgment of this case, the Supreme People’s Court […] discussed for the first time the relationship between the system of [rendering] a partial judgment to order the cessation of the infringement and the system of temporary restraining orders.  It clarified the value of a temporary restraining order when a partial judgment ordering the cessation of the infringement has not come into effect.  It advocated that people’s courts support patentees’ applications for act preservation to order the cessation of the infringement while making partial judgments.”

2. “Functional features are hot and difficult issues in patent cases.  The detailed elaboration of the criteria for determining functional features stated in the judgment of this case helps clear misconceptions in judicial practice.”

Essentially, the above significance of the (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2 Civil Judgment has been “entrenched” by Guiding Case No. 115 because related principles have been articulated as the Guiding Case’s “Main Points of the Adjudication”, which are de facto binding.¹

Keywords

Civil
Invention Patent Rights
Functional Feature
Render a [Partial] Judgment First
Act Preservation

Main Points of the Adjudication

1. If a certain technical feature of a claim of a patent defines or implies specific structures, components, steps, or conditions [of the technical solution of an invention-creation], or relationships among them, the technical feature is not a functional feature as stated in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Adjudicating Disputes over Infringement of Patent Rights, even if the technical feature also defines the functions or effects achieved by [the invention-creation].

2. […]

Related Legal Rule(s)

1. Article 59 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China

2. Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China

Basic Facts of the Case

[…]

Results of the Adjudication

[…]

Reasons for the Adjudication

[…]

“In patent infringement litigation proceedings, act preservation [measures] ordering the cessation of allegedly infringing acts have independent value.”

[…]

“A functional feature refers to a technical feature that does not directly define the structures, components, steps, or conditions of the technical solution of an invention[-creation], or relationships among them, […]”

[…]

Appendix 1

Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (2008 Version)

[…]

Appendix 2

Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 Version)

[…]

Appendix 3

Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Adjudicating Disputes over Infringement of Patent Rights (2016 Version)

[…]

Appendix 4

Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Reviewing Act Preservation Cases Arising from Intellectual Property Disputes

[…]

---

^† The citation of this piece is: The Editorial Board of SINOTALKS.COM, Guiding Case No. 115: Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage SASU v. Xiamen Lukasi Car Accessories Co., Ltd. et al., A Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights, SINOTALKS.COM, SinoRules&Cases™, Apr. 1, 2022, https://sinotalks.com/sinorulescases/guiding-case-115.  After being discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court, Guiding Case No. 115 was released on December 24, 2019. 

This translation of Guiding Case No. 115 was prepared by members of the Editorial Board of SINOTALKS.COM, and was finalized by Nathan Harpainter, Dimitri Phillips, and Dr. Mei Gechlik.  Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs and adding a few words included in square brackets, was done to make the piece more comprehensible to readers.  Unless stated otherwise, the Digest, any Appendix, and all footnotes have been added by SINOTALKS.COM.  The translated text is otherwise a direct translation of the original, Chinese text released by the Supreme People’s Court.

¹ For a discussion of the nature of Guiding Cases, see Dr. Mei Gechlik, Courts in China, AI, and Guiding Cases, SINOTALKS.COM, In Brief No. 2, Dec. 29, 2021, https://sinotalks.com/inbrief/week51-2021-english.

Related Articles

Other Publications