V. Judgement on Computer Software Cases
32. Determination of Development Target in Computer Software Development Contract
In the dispute over infringement on computer software copyright of Ningbo Ruiqizhiwei Information Technology Co., Ltd (the appealer) VS Zhejiang Fast Development Technology Co., Ltd and Ningbo Haishu Yaoguang Barbershop (appellees) [final ruling No. 694 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that determination on whether the software in the dispute is the development target in the computer software development contract shall not be made only on the literal agreement in the contract, but shall take into consideration of comprehensive elements such as the purpose of the involved contract, the association or functional mating of the disputed software and the software on which the agreement was made and fulfilment of the contract.
33. Applicable Scope of Open-source Agreement and Influence on Determination of Software Copyright Infringement
In the dispute over computer software copyright infringement of Beijing Shinning Fashion Information Technology Co., Ltd (the appealer) VS Buluanmaie-commerce (Beijing) Co., Ltd (appellee) [final ruling No. 663 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the front-end codes and rear-end codes of a website are obviously different in display manner, technology used and functional division, and they are mutually independent and inter-associated separate programs; even if the font-end uses open-source codes in the GPL agreement items, the rear-end codes are not to be restrained by the GPL agreement, and copy of rear-end codes without permission also constitutes infringement on software copyright.
34. Determination of Delay of Fulfilment of the Developer in Computer Software Development Contract
In the dispute over computer software development contract of Beijing Zhongyi Network Technology Co., Ltd (the appealer) VS Beijing Shengshixinghui Network Technology Co., Ltd (the appellee) [final ruling No. 433 for IP civil case in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that during the fulfilment of the computer software development contract, adjustment and improvement of content and functions of the software are quite normal considering the facts that the requirements from the client become more clear and the communication between two parties become deeper, as well as the specific conditions of fulfilment stage of the trustee, the objective change of market situation and even the consideration of transaction costs; it is not appropriate to simply determine the delay of fulfilment of the developer just because the developer delivers the software after the time limit specified in the contract expires.
VI．Judgement on Monopoly Cases
In the appeal of objection to jurisdiction in dispute over vertical monopoly agreements of Shell China Ltd. (the appealer) VS Hohhot Huili Materials Co., Ltd. (the appellee) [final ruling No. 46 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that in view of the fact that the determination and processing of the monopoly agreement have far beyond the relationship of rights and obligations between the counterparts in the contract, the arbitration items agreed by the parties involved in the agreement shall not be used as a necessary basis for excluding the people’s court from jurisdiction of the monopoly agreement dispute.
VII. Judgement on Procedural Cases including Jurisdiction
36. Applicability of Centralized Jurisdiction by Overall Coordination of Multiple Associated Cases with Repeated Appeal Elements
In the dispute over infringement on utility model patent right of YizhengJiahe Geotechnical Material Co., Ltd (the appealer) VS Zhang Zhenwu (appellee), China Communications Second Aviation Bureau Second Engineering Co., Ltd. and China Railway Fourth Bureau Group First Engineering Co., Ltd. (the defendants in the original trial) [final ruling No. 447 and470 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the right holder was based on the same patent right , the same infringed product was involved, and multiple disputes over patent infringement wereraised to the same manufacturers of the infringed product, therefore the infringed products actually used by different users shall be taken as truth basis for claiming compensation in each case; and the infringed products in each case was manufactured in the same period, the sued manufacturing behaviour was actually the same behaviour, and the supreme court may appoint centralized jurisdiction (as the case may be) in order to repeated judgement and achieve economic litigation and ensure coordinated judgements results.
37. Judgement Coordination of Decentralized Trial of Patent-associated Infringement Lawsuit and Determination of Non-infringement Lawsuit
In the two cases of appeal for jurisdiction objection of dispute over infringement on patent right of Shanghai Baoye Group Co., Ltd. (the appealer) VS Lianqi Development Co., Ltd., and Supervision Sakai International Technology (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., China Construction First Bureau (Group) Co., Ltd., Bocheng Engineering Co., Ltd., Jiangxi Hantang System Integration Co., Ltd. and China Electronic System Engineering Second Construction Co., Ltd. (the defendant in the original trial) ([final ruling No. 1 and 2 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)],) the supreme court pointed out that the lawsuit of infringement and the lawsuit of determination of non-infringement involving the same patent or associated patent shall be subject to joint trial in principle; where, under special circumstances, it is appropriate to perform separated trials based on the consideration of facilitating the parties involved with litigation and the people’s court with hearing, then the IP court of the supreme court shall strengthen planning and coordination in the second trial to ensure consistence of judgement criteria.
38. Jurisdiction for Dispute over Equity Transfer Agreement including Patent Right Transfer Clauses
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of dispute over patent right transfer agreement of Rongyang Aluminum (China) Co., Ltd. (appealer) VS Bonali Golden Door and Window System (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd. (appellee) [final ruling No. 158 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the dispute over equity transfer agreement containing patent right transfer clauses is in principle a dispute over equity transfer agreement, rather than dispute over patent transfer agreement, therefore it is not appropriate to determine jurisdiction as a patent case.
39. Determination of Component Usage Behaviour as Jurisdiction Link
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of dispute over utility model patent right infringement of Shenzhen Beina Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (appealer) VS Shanghai Junzheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Yonganxing Low Carbon Technology Co., Ltd. (appellees) [final ruling No. 201 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out if the infringed product is a component of another product, the behaviour of using another product also makes the infringed product implement its value as a component, then the usage behaviour also constitutes a usage of the infringed component product, and thus can be taken as the jurisdiction link of the case.
40. Determination of Information Network Infringement Behaviour as Jurisdiction Link
In the appeal of jurisdiction objection of dispute over utility model patent right infringement of Hangzhou Miou Instrument Co., Ltd. (appealer) VS Ningbo Tuopusen Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. (appellee) [final ruling No. 13 for IP civil jurisdiction in the supreme court (2019)], the supreme court pointed out that the information network infringement behaviour as specified in Article 25 of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" as the jurisdiction link refers to the infringement behaviour completely implemented on information network; if only part of the infringement behaviour is implemented on the network, then it does not constitute the above information network infringement behaviour, and cannot be applicable to the above jurisdiction determination specified in the Interpretation.
Link to the Part I: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=832
Link to the Part II: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=833
Link to the Part III: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=834
