Topscien Company v. Miulab Company's Objection of Jurisdiction on Utility Model Patent Infringement Disputes

——Identification of infringement of information network as a connection point of jurisdiction

First trial case number: (2018) Zhejiang 02 Minchu No. 2308

Second trial case number: (2019) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin Xia Zhong No. 13

【The main takeaway of the trial】

The information network infringement acts as the connection point of jurisdiction as stipulated in Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China refers to the infringements fully implemented on the information network; If the infringement are partially implemented online, it will not constitute the above-mentioned information network infringement, and the jurisdiction of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation cannot be applied.

【Case Introduction】

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Hangzhou Miulab Instrument Co., Ltd. (referred to as Miulab Company)

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Ningbo Topscien Instrument Co., Ltd. (referred to as Topscien Company)

Miulab Company claimed on its company website that it was a "company integrating R & D, production and sales of laboratory instruments" and displayed pictures of the alleged infringing products on the website. Topscien Company obtains the contact information of Miulab's sales staff from Miulab Company's website, completes the purchase of the alleged infringing product through WeChat communication and offline. Topscien Company believes that Miulab Company manufactures, sells, and promises to sell products that infringe its patents involved, so it filed a lawsuit in the court of first instance. Miulab Company then filed an objection to jurisdiction in the original trial court.

The original trial of the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court in Zhejiang Province held that the notarial certificate and other evidence provided by Topscien Company can preliminarily prove that Miulab Company carried out the act of selling the alleged infringing product through the information network, which is the important carrier and media information network of the transaction involved in the case. The sales behavior of Miulab Company occurred in the information network environment, so the alleged infringement was an information network infringement. Therefore, it ruled to dismiss Miulab Company’s objection to the jurisdiction of the case. Miulab Company dissatisfied with the ruling of the original trial court and appealed to the Supreme People's Court, requesting that the ruling of the original trial be revoked and the case be transferred to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court for trial.

The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that Ningbo City was neither the place where the infringed act was accused nor the place where the defendant was domiciled, therefore the court of first instance had no jurisdiction over this case. The original trial ruling applied the wrong law and should be corrected. The place of infringement in this case and the place of residence of the defendant are both in Hangzhou. According to the relevant provisions of "The Supreme People's Court's consent of Hangzhou, Ningbo, Hefei, Fuzhou, Jinan, and Qingdao Intermediate People's Courts to set up special examination and approval agencies and cross-regional jurisdiction of some intellectual property cases" and " Notice of the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province on the establishment of special examination and approval agencies in Hangzhou and Ningbo Intermediate People's Courts and cross-regional jurisdiction over certain intellectual property cases”, this case should be under the jurisdiction of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. The appellant’s grounds for appeal are established and should be supported. The ruling is as follows: (1) Revoke the Civil Ruling of Zhejiang Intermediate People's Court (2018) Zhejiang 02 Minchu No. 2308. (2) This case is under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province.

【Typical meaning】

Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the place where the information network infringement is carried out includes the location of the computer and other information equipment that carried out the alleged infringement, and the place where the infringement occurred includes the infringer’s place of residence. It can be seen from this that in order to define where the information network infringement is carried out and where the information network infringement result occurs, the information network infringement should be defined first. How to define information network infringement is the core issue in this case.

In a contemporary society where the popularity of the Internet is high, infringement also has a close relationship with the Internet environment. Some infringements are completely implemented in the network environment, some infringements have nothing to do with the network environment, and others, as far as the entire infringement process is concerned, partially occur in the network environment (online) and the rest occurs outside the network environment (offline). In this case, the court of second instance clearly defined the information network infringement as stipulated 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, that is, the information network infringement has a specific meaning and refers to infringers use the Internet to publish information that directly infringes on the legal rights and interests of others, mainly aiming at infringing the personal rights and interests of others through the information network and infringing the rights of others to spread the information network, that is, the implementation of the alleged infringement and the occurrence of the damage result are all on the information network. The implementation of the infringement and the occurrence of the damage result are related to the network and can be regarded as an information network infringement. It can be seen that the act of information network infringement is to publish information, the object of act is personal rights or the right to disseminate information network, and the place of act is the network environment. Therefore, although the facts of the case appear on the website platform or the two parties communicate through the network, or the two parties conduct the transaction of the alleged infringing product through the network platform, it should not be determined that they constitute information network infringement.

This analysis is based on the case mentioned in Summary of the Judgment of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (2019), you can referred to the original article through links below:

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

Link to the Part IV: http://www.chinaiptoday.com/post.html?id=837