In Brief

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

In Brief

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

SinoInsights

Image: mohamed mahmoud hassan, Lightbulb, Idea, Innovation, Publicdomainpictures.net

中国案例指导制度的发展如何可以推动该国的知识产权司法保护,协助达到《人民法院知识产权司法保护规划(2021–2025年)》所设定的目标?Read more

SinoInsights

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 115

Image: Anastasia Amstutz, Windshield Rain, Publicdomainpictures.net

2019年12月,中国最高人民法院发布了指导案例115号。四个月后,也就是2020年4月,该指导性案例所依据的二审判决被最高人民法院选定为“2019年中国法院10大知识产权案件”之一。为什么该案如此重要?这都与“行为保全”和发明的“功能性特征”的概念有关。Read more

Guiding Case 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 109

Image: Kevin Casper, San Jose Costa Rica, Publicdomainpictures.net

2019 年 2 月,中国最高人民法院发布了指导案例109 号和另外五个指导性案例,以说明中国法院如何处理与该国“一带一路”倡议相关的问题。指导案例 109 号具体展示了最高人民法院如何坚守法律规则和原则来保护独立保函“见索即付”的制度价值。Read more

Guiding Case 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 160

Image: Heru Purwanto, Pomelo On The Tree, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例 160 号解决了一个根本性问题:植物新品种权授予时,哪些属于其保护范围?根据中国立法,授予品种权的植物的繁殖材料受到明确保护。然而,什么是“繁殖材料”?可惜的是,中国立法对此并未明确规定。指导案例160号对此类判定作出标准,从而填补了该法律空白。Read more

Guiding Case 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

Plants

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 100

Image: Lilla Frerichs, Indian Corn 1, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例100号发布前,中国最高人民法院发布了指导案例92号,明确了这一原则:在侵害植物新品种权案件中,当相关的DNA指纹检测结果无法给出明确答案,被诉侵权人(即被告)有责任证明被诉侵权植物与授予品种权的植物不同。指导案例100 号显示了被告可以采取哪些措施来满足这一举证责任。Read more

Guiding Case 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

Plants

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 92

Image: Andrew Schmidt, Corn On The Cob, Publicdomainpictures.net

指导案例92号对侵害植物新品种权案件中经常遇到的一个重要问题提供指导:当相关的DNA指纹检测结果无法提供明确的答案,如何确定两植物是否属于同一品种?根据此指导性案例,发生这种情况时,被诉侵权人(即被告)有责任证明被诉侵权植物与授予品种权的植物不同。法院如何决定将责任转移至被告是合理的?Read more

Guiding Case 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