Delayed Justice
Image: Wright Studio/Lightspring/Shutterstock.com
Justice delayed is justice denied. The prompt delivery of judgments is particularly important in cases involving infringement of intellectual property rights, where holders of these rights need to minimize their losses by stopping the infringement swiftly. China does offer a solution. How does it work? Read more
改变游戏规则的新发展！⸺中国高级法院的再审令强化了指导性案例
Background image: xtock/Shutterstock.com
中国一家省级法院最近指令再审某纠纷，原因是处理该纠纷的下级法院在说理中没有讨论当事人所引述的与该纠纷类似的指导性案例。该裁定有望对该省使用指导性案例方面的司法实践带来积极的变化。为什么？对于中国其他地区而言，这项裁定也会是改变游戏规则的新发展吗？Read more
Guiding Cases Empowered by a Chinese High Court’s Retrial Order
Background image: xtock/Shutterstock.com
The highest court in a province in China recently ordered a retrial of a dispute because lower-level courts handling the dispute failed to discuss in their reasoning a relevant Guiding Case cited by a party as similar to the dispute. This ruling is expected to bring about positive changes to the judicial practice of using Guiding Cases in that province. Why? Will this ruling be a game changer for the rest of the country?Read more
Intellectual Property-Related Guiding Cases
Image: mohamed mahmoud hassan, Lightbulb, Idea, Innovation, Publicdomainpictures.net
How can the development of China’s Case Guidance System promote the country’s judicial protection of intellectual property rights, helping achieve the goals set forth in the Plan for the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in People’s Courts (2021-2025)?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
中国“一带一路”倡议与法律改革
这篇文章描述了2015年与“一带一路”倡议相关的典型案例的发布如何最终促使熊美英博士于2018年在中国政府举办的一个国际论坛上提出建议[…]。Read more
China’s Belt and Road Initiative & Legal Reform
This piece describes how the release of Typical Cases related to China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2015 ultimately led Dr. Mei Gechlik to make a suggestion at a 2018 international forum organized by the Chinese government […].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
中国越趋关注保护植物新品种权
Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
中国最高人民法院发布指导案例92号、100号和160号，明确该国立法和司法解释尚未解决的植物新品种权保护的基本问题。然而，本文分析指出，这三个指导性案例的指导原则已经被纳入最高人民法院最新的植物新品种司法解释。考虑到这一点，这些指导性案例是否基本上已经失去了重要性？熊美英博士解释了为什么答案是否定的并讨论了相关的含义。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
China’s Growing Focus on the Rights to New Plant Varieties
Image: George Hodan, Agriculture, Publicdomainpictures.net
The Supreme People’s Court of China released Guiding Case Nos. 92, 100, and 160 to clarify fundamental issues related to the protection of rights to new plant varieties that were left unanswered by the country’s legislation and judicial interpretations. Yet, have these three Guiding Cases essentially lost their significance, considering that their guiding principles, as analyzed in this article, have already been incorporated into the Supreme People’s Court’s latest judicial interpretation related to new plant varieties? Dr. Mei Gechlik explains why the answer is negative and discusses related implications. 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
