In Brief

Image: Pixels Hunter/Shutterstock.com

在外国企业对疫情限制日益担忧的情况下,中国知识产权五年规划可能有助于增强信心。如果实施得当,该规划将帮助中国建立强而有力的知识产权保护机制,有利于中国疫情后的经济复苏。怎样才能很好地实施该规划?Read more

In Brief

Image: Pixels Hunter/Shutterstock.com

Amid foreign businesses’ growing concerns about COVID restrictions, China’s five-year intellectual property plan may help instill confidence. If implemented well, the plan will help China establish a strong intellectual property protection mechanism that will facilitate the country’s post-COVID economic recovery. How can the plan be implemented well?Read more

In Brief

Image: Wright Studio/Lightspring/Shutterstock.com

迟来的正义非正义。及时作出判决对侵害知识产权的案件尤为重要,这是由于知识产权权利人需要迅速制止侵权以尽量减少其损失。对此,中国提供了一个解决方案。 这方案如何运作?Read more

In Brief

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

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

In Brief

Image: Den Rise/Shutterstock.com

除了指导性案例,法律从业者、企业高管和其他利益相关者绝不能忘记典型案例。典型案例是另一类中国最高人民法院可以发布的有代表性的案例,以指导中国法院的审判。什么是典型案例?为什么它们很重要?Read more

In Brief

Image: Den Rise/Shutterstock.com

Apart from China’s Guiding Cases, legal practitioners, business executives, and other stakeholders must not forget about Typical Cases, another category of representative cases that the Supreme People’s Court of China can release to guide Chinese courts’ adjudication. What are Typical Cases? Why are they significant?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

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 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 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