2024 Jiangsu Courts

Sup Intellectual Property Casesporting and Safeguarding the Development of New Quality Productive Forces

Ten Representative

Contents

1. Promoting “Bundle” Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents for Semiconductor Memory Interfaces

  — Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patents between Jiang Electronics Hong Kong Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jiang Electronics Co., Ltd., and Star Co.

2. Determining the Asserted Technical Solution without Physical Infringing Product Comparison

  — Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent between TestCo and HaiCo

3. Recognizing Human Inventors Who Made Substantive Contributions to a Medical-Use Invention

  — Dispute over Inventorship and Right to Signature between Guo, Zhou, and KaiCo

4. Malicious Litigation Obstructing a Sci-Tech Enterprise’s IPO Leads to Liability for Damages

  — Dispute between JinCo and LingCo over Malicious IP Litigation

5. Ultimate Controller Held Jointly Liable with Company for Infringing Plant Variety Rights

  — Dispute over Infringement of Plant Variety Rights between JinSeed Co., DiCo, Zhao, and ZhaoBao

6. Unauthorized Release of New-Version Game Test Content Constitutes Trade-Secret Misappropriation

  — Dispute over Misappropriation of Trade Secrets between Shanghai TechCo and Chen

7. Malicious Counterfeiting of Another’s Famous Drug Trademark Results in High Damages

  — Dispute over Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition between GanPharma and DongPharma et al.

8. Unauthorized Use of a “Wake-Word” Similar to Another’s Well-Known Voice Command Constitutes Unfair Competition

  — Dispute over Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition between TechCo and Huang et al.

9. Providing Fee-Based “Store-Copying” Relocation Software Constitutes Online Unfair Competition

  — Unfair Competition Dispute between TaoCo, TianCo and FengCo, TaoCo; and Administrative Penalty Annulment between FengCo, TaoCo and Zhenjiang Market Supervision Bureau

10. Especially Serious “Hotlinking” of Audiovisual Works Warrants Heavy Punishment

   — Copyright Infringement Criminal Case of Defendants Zhang and Sun

---

Case 1: Promoting “Bundle” Licensing of Standard-Essential Patents for Semiconductor Memory Interfaces

Dispute: Jiang Electronics Hong Kong Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Jiang Electronics Co., Ltd. vs. Star Co.

Basic Facts

Jiang Electronics Hong Kong Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Jiang Electronics Co., Ltd. (together, “Jiang Electronics”) and Star Co. are all high-tech enterprises integrating R\&D, manufacturing, and sales in semiconductor memory. Jiang Electronics owns invention patents No. 200480018\.\ and 200680051\.\, covering memory-card interface technology. These are standard-essential patents (SEPs) widely applied in smartphones, smart speakers, tablets, etc. Jiang Electronics claimed Star Co. implemented the patented technology in its products but refused to negotiate a license under FRAND terms. Jiang Electronics sued to stop infringement and sought damages and reasonable enforcement costs.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that, unlike traditional patent infringement disputes, SEPs cannot be enjoined outright; implementers must pay a reasonable license fee. Since both parties needed clarity on the essential technical facts and wished to realize the patents’ market value, the court convened multiple pretrial conferences to clarify the foundation technology and actively encouraged negotiations under FRAND principles. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a “bundle” license covering 171 semiconductor-memory patents, including the two in dispute. The court issued a civil mediation confirmation, and both parties voluntarily performed the settlement.

Significance

As a strategic, foundational, leading industry, semiconductors underpin economic development and national security. Here, the court proactively mediated under IP trial mechanisms to incentivize high-quality innovation and technology transfer. By incorporating additional related patents into mediation, it achieved China’s first SEP licensing agreement among mainstream memory-card producers in a single package. This resolution efficiently facilitated technology circulation and conversion of results, promoting innovation in the semiconductor industry and demonstrating the judiciary’s commitment to supporting the development of new quality productive forces.

---

Case 2: Determining the Asserted Technical Solution without Physical Infringing Product Comparison

Dispute: TestCo vs. HaiCo over Invention Patent Infringement

Basic Facts

TestCo owns a patent titled “V-BY-ONE Signal Processing Method and Apparatus.” It alleged that HaiCo manufactured and sold devices using the identical signal-processing method, infringing its patent and damaging its market share. HaiCo’s two signal-detection systems employed the same method and module structure as claimed. Because these are custom TOB (enterprise-oriented) devices, TestCo could not purchase samples from the market. HaiCo contended that without physical samples, TestCo’s technical comparisons were mere speculation and that its systems lacked the patent’s features.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that fixing the accused technical solution does not require seized physical products alone. TestCo had, via notarized on-site testing, photos, videos, user manuals, quality-system specifications, and HaiCo’s own patent filings for the same models, sufficiently demonstrated the accused solution. With no contrary evidence from HaiCo, the court held that HaiCo’s systems embodied all claimed features and fell within the patent’s scope.

Regarding damages, because the patented technology was integral to the entire detection system’s market appeal and worked collaboratively with other components, the court applied the entire-market-value rule. It determined the patent’s contribution rate (55%) based on the proportion of V-BY-ONE signals and adjusted for innovation level and patent term under the comprehensive-factor method. HaiCo was ordered to cease infringement, destroy inventory, and pay TestCo RMB 6,397,706 in losses plus RMB 268,200 in enforcement costs.

Significance

New-display technology is a key emerging industry. The court flexibly applied evidence rules, allocated burdens sensibly, and solved the “no samples” dilemma in TOB equipment disputes, clearing a major enforcement obstacle. By accurately quantifying the patent’s profit contribution, it precisely determined damages, stimulating R\&D vitality upstream. This ruling protects critical display-detection technology, guides innovation-factor aggregation, and advances China’s new-display industry development.

---

Case 3: Recognizing Human Inventors Who Made Substantive Contributions to a Medical-Use Invention

Dispute: Guo & Zhou vs. KaiCo over Inventorship and Right to Name

Basic Facts

Drs. Guo and Zhou, researchers at a Suzhou medical institute, in early 2020 explored treating a viral infection by inhibiting androgen pathways to control inflammation. They published preliminary results. Learning that KaiCo’s AR inhibitor “Procruamine” used for breast and late-stage prostate cancer might apply, they shared extensive clinical data without a formal contract. KaiCo partnered with another company in July 2020 to investigate Procruamine’s antiviral use, repeatedly consulting Guo and Zhou on target patient groups and co-publishing findings. KaiCo filed the patent on June 11, 2021; it was granted April 14, 2023, without naming Guo and Zhou. They sued for correction of inventorship and apology.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that Guo and Zhou fully participated in conceiving, verifying, and refining the invention. Since the core of the patent lay in the new medical use of a known compound, and KaiCo could not prove prior independent discovery, Guo and Zhou’s conceptual contributions were the invention’s starting point. Lacking any evidence of KaiCo’s independent development, the court recognized Guo and Zhou as inventors.

Significance

This case, in the life-sciences field, clarifies that those who propose the inventive concept, form concrete technical schemes, or substantially improve them deserve inventorship. It upholds scientific integrity, protects researchers’ rights, and encourages industry-academia collaboration and technology transfer.

---

Case 4: Malicious Litigation Obstructing a Sci-Tech Enterprise’s IPO Leads to Liability for Damages

Dispute: JinCo vs. LingCo in Malicious IP Litigation Damages Claim

Basic Facts

Competitors JinCo and LingCo both manufacture specialized equipment. In December 2022, LingCo’s Beijing Stock Exchange IPO application was accepted. In January 2023, JinCo sued LingCo for infringing its utility-model patents, seeking injunction and RMB 23 million plus RMB 80,000 in fees. LingCo counterclaimed that JinCo knew its patents lacked inventiveness and filed suit without sufficient evidence at the critical IPO review stage to obstruct LingCo’s listing, demanding RMB 2 million plus legal fees and a public apology. Prior PTAB evaluation had preliminarily found claims 1–5 inventive-deficient.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that LingCo’s products lacked the asserted features and did not infringe. JinCo had concealed the negative patent evaluation, filed at LingCo’s IPO crucial period, and sought excessive damages to hinder the listing—conduct violating good-faith principles and constituting malicious litigation. JinCo’s claims were dismissed; it was ordered to publish a statement eliminating the impact and pay LingCo RMB 400,000.

Significance

This landmark “patent sniping” case during a tech IPO demonstrates the judiciary’s swift and firm stance against abuse of litigation. The entire first instance—from complaint to judgment—took 100 days, and counterclaim resolution 42 days. LingCo resumed its IPO and succeeded. The efficient handling underscores courts’ responsibility to deliver “quick protection” of IP and support new-quality productive forces.

---

Case 5: Ultimate Controller Held Jointly Liable with Company for Infringing Plant Variety Rights

Dispute: JinSeed Co. vs. DiCo, Zhao, and ZhaoBao over Plant Variety-Rights Infringement

Basic Facts

JinSeed Co. held exclusive rights to the “Jingeng 818” rice variety. In May 2020, DiCo improperly sold “Jingeng 818” seeds in white bags and was ordered to stop infringement with punitive damages. Zhao, DiCo’s sole shareholder and legal representative, thereafter used a WeChat group to organize sales, sharing supplier contacts and conducting offline orders. A farmer purchased the infringing seeds in late 2021, paid ZhaoBao’s account, and later complained about germination issues. JinSeed sued to stop infringement and claim RMB 3 million in losses and enforcement costs. Seed testing confirmed the infringing seeds were essentially identical to “Jingeng 818.”

Court’s Ruling

After the first judgment, DiCo continued infringing via Zhao’s organized sales; ZhaoBao used a personal account to collect funds, aiding evasion of enforcement. The court found Zhao and ZhaoBao jointly liable as co-infringers. DiCo and Zhao must pay RMB 1.8 million; ZhaoBao is jointly liable for RMB 350,000.

Significance

Seeds are agricultural “chips” vital to food security. By holding the actual controller and accomplice jointly liable, the court raises infringement costs, curbs covert online sales, and rigorously enforces plant variety rights—demonstrating the judiciary’s firm protection of seed-industry innovation and legal rights.

---

Case 6: Unauthorized Release of New-Version Game Test Content Constitutes Trade-Secret Misappropriation

Dispute: Shanghai TechCo vs. Chen over Trade-Secret Infringement

Basic Facts

Shanghai TechCo operates an original role-playing game under continuous development. On April 6, 2023, its affiliate contracted Chen under a “Test-Service Agreement” for new-version game testing. In July, TechCo discovered online test‐version gameplay videos traced to Chen’s test account. TechCo claimed trade secrets were misappropriated and sought injunction, damages, and RMB 500,000 in costs.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that game characters, scenes, animations, etc., embody TechCo’s unique design, labor, and confidential business information, bringing competitive advantage and revenue. The information was unknown to the public, had commercial value, and was subject to confidentiality measures; thus it qualified as a trade secret. Chen’s unauthorized release amounted to unfair competition. Because the videos were deleted and version 4.0 publicly released, only damages were awarded: Chen must pay RMB 100,000.

Significance

This is the first case nationwide recognizing unreleased game-test content as a trade secret. In an industry plagued by pre-release “spoilers,” this ruling protects developers’ creative incentives, curbs leakages, and promotes healthy game-industry development.

---

Case 7: Malicious Counterfeiting of Another’s Famous Drug Trademark Results in High Damages

Dispute: GanPharma vs. DongPharma et al. over Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition

Basic Facts

Founded in 1998, GanPharma leads in biosynthetic human insulin development. In 2002 it introduced “Changxiulin” third-generation insulin injection—the only domestic brand in its segment for over a decade. DongPharma, once a GanPharma shareholder and second-generation insulin producer, registered “Changshulin,” “Sushulin,” and “Ruishulin” marks in related categories after GanPharma’s registrations since 2005. In February 2020, DongPharma used “Changshulin” on insulin and marketed it with packaging highly similar to Changxiulin. A May 2021 administrative decision recognized GanPharma’s “Changxiulin” as a famous mark predating DongPharma’s applications and invalidated “Changshulin.” GanPharma sued for infringement, seeking RMB 90 million plus RMB 810,000 in costs, and public apology.

Court’s Ruling

The court found DongPharma’s marks were maliciously registered and used on identical products with confusingly similar names and packaging, constituting infringement and unfair competition. Calculating based on DongPharma’s sales revenue, profit margins, and mark-contribution rate (capped at 20%), and considering its malicious conduct and severity, the court awarded GanPharma RMB 60 million in damages and RMB 810,000 in costs.

Significance

Drug-industry innovations directly affect public health. This highest-ever trademark-infringement award in pharmaceuticals refines contribution-rate analysis, integrates punitive factors for high-risk, easily confused drugs, and sends a strong deterrent. It underscores the strictest protection of IP in the medical field, leveraging brand effects for innovation and safeguarding public health.

---

Case 8: Unauthorized Use of a “Wake-Word” Similar to Another’s Well-Known Voice Command Constitutes Unfair Competition

Dispute: TechCo vs. Huang et al. over Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition

Basic Facts

TechCo’s “Xiaomi” brand is highly famous on notebooks, video phones, and more. Since 2017 its “Xiao Ai Tongxue” voice-wake command has been built into many smart devices. Huang’s Taobao shop sold “Xiaomi Smart Toilet” products using the “Xiao Ai Xiao Ai” wake-word. TechCo alleged trademark infringement by use of “Xiaomi” and unfair competition by confusingly similar wake-word use, seeking injunction, apology, and damages.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that Huang’s prominent use of “Xiaomi” in shop and product names, images, etc., infringed the registered mark. “Xiao Ai Tongxue,” long recognized by consumers as TechCo’s AI-interaction engine identifier, was famous; Huang’s “Xiao Ai Xiao Ai” was highly similar and likely to confuse, constituting unfair competition. Considering brand strength and sales volume, the court awarded TechCo RMB 80,000.

Significance

As AI voice-interaction proliferates, this case extends Anti-Unfair Competition Law protections to influential voice commands, curbing misuse of others’ wake-words, protecting innovators’ goodwill, and promoting honest technology competition for a sustainable AI industry.

---

Case 9: Providing Fee-Based “Store-Copying” Relocation Software Constitutes Online Unfair Competition

Dispute: TaoCo, TianCo vs. FengCo, TaoCo et al.; and FengCo & TaoCo vs. Zhenjiang Market Supervision Bureau (Administrative Penalty Annulment)

Basic Facts

TaoCo (Taobao) and TianCo (Tmall) operate major e-commerce platforms. FengCo and TaoCo developed and sold relocation software to merchants on other platforms, which bypassed anti-scraping measures to extract 160 million+ product data items, and republished them on “no-inventory” shops. Orders placed were automatically forwarded to TaoCo/TianCo merchants for fulfillment. TaoCo and TianCo filed administrative complaints; after code appraisal confirmed targeted, automated data scraping, Zhenjiang Market Supervision Bureau fined FengCo RMB 530,000 and TaoCo RMB 120,000. TaoCo and TianCo then sued for apology, impact removal, and RMB 20 million in damages; FengCo and TaoCo filed for annulment of the administrative penalty.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that product-data collections are costly, proprietary resources giving platforms advantage. By unauthorized scraping and resale, FengCo and TaoCo depleted TaoCo/TianCo’s market opportunity, diverted traffic, and imposed extra costs—constituting unfair competition under Article 12. Considering data value, scope, duration, and malice, the court awarded TaoCo and TianCo RMB 5 million. The administrative penalty was upheld.

Significance

Data is a new-economy resource and a key factor of new productive forces. This landmark civil-administrative crossover case clarifies judicial rules for big-data competition protection, affirms data-rights ownership, and strongly deters large-scale unauthorized scraping—reinforcing fair-competition order in China’s digital economy.

---

Case 10: Especially Serious “Hotlinking” of Audiovisual Works Warrants Heavy Punishment

Dispute: Criminal Copyright-Infringement Case of Defendants Zhang and Sun

Basic Facts

Zhang ran online video-aggregation apps (“Pure Film Vault,” “Today’s Films,” etc.). Between end of 2017 and January 2023, Zhang, Sun, and associates downloaded audiovisual works and re-uploaded them to rented cloud servers or used “hotlinking” services to fetch content directly from rights-holders’ platforms—stripping out ads so users could stream without visiting the original sites. They distributed 11,000+ titles via upload/download and 72,000+ via hotlinking, generating RMB 392 million in ad revenue.

Court’s Ruling

Zhang, experienced in online distribution, knew that authorization was required. Conspiring with Sun, they provided 83,000+ works without permission, profiting RMB 392 million. Their conduct constituted criminal infringement by network distribution with especially serious circumstances. Zhang was sentenced to 5½ years’ imprisonment and fined RMB 20 million; Sun received 3 years and RMB 4 million fine.

Significance

This case, jointly supervised by five national agencies, is the largest-scale hotlinking criminal case in China by titles and profits. The court’s rigorous enforcement highlights its role in safeguarding copyright, maintaining healthy audiovisual-industry development, and supporting the construction of a copyright-strong and culturally strong nation.

本文原文为中文，本文由AI辅助翻译

The original text of this article is in Chinese; it was translated with the assistance of AI.