|
|
|
Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2024 Published by the Supreme People's Court
[Effective]
|
|
最高人民法院发布2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例
[现行有效]
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2024 Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例 |
| (April 21, 2025) | | （2025年4月21日） |
| On April 21, 2025, the Supreme People's Court ("SPC") held a press conference, on which the Situation of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Chinese Courts (2024) and the Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2024 were issued and questions from reporters were answered. Tao Kaiyuan, vice president of the SPC, Li Jian, chief judge of the Third Civil Division of the SPC, and He Zhonglin, deputy chief judge of the Intellectual Property Court of the SPC, attended the press conference. The press conference was chaired by Lin Wenxue, press spokesman of the SPC. At the press conference, Tao Kaiyuan published the Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2024. This group of cases cover various case types, including patent, trademark, copyright, anti-unfair competition, and trade secret, involve such industry fields as biomedicine, AI technology, and online games, further clarify the relevant adjudication rules, and highlight the roles of judicial adjudication in guiding, regulating, and safeguarding the development of such industries. | | 2025年4月21日，最高人民法院举行新闻发布会，发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护状况（2024年）》及2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例，并回答记者提问。最高人民法院副院长陶凯元、最高人民法院民三庭庭长李剑、最高人民法院知识产权法庭副庭长郃中林出席发布会。发布会由最高人民法院新闻发言人林文学主持。发布会上，最高人民法院副院长陶凯元发布了2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例。该批案例覆盖了专利、商标、著作权、反不正当竞争、商业秘密等案件类型，涉及生物医药、AI技术、网络游戏等行业领域，进一步明确了相关裁判规则，彰显了司法裁判对行业发展的引领、规范和保障作用。 |
| Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the People's Courts in 2024 | | 2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例 |
| 1. Case of Patent for Invention Ownership of "mRNA Osteoarthritis Drugs" | | 案例1.“mRNA骨关节炎药物”发明专利权权属案 |
| 2. Case of Infringement on a Trademark and Unfair Competition in the Real Estate Field | | 案例2.房地产领域商标侵权及不正当竞争案 |
| 3. Case of Infringement on a Trade Secret by "Spoiling" Undisclosed Characters in a Game | | 案例3.“剧透”游戏未公开角色侵害商业秘密案 |
| 4. Case of Infringement on Copyright by "AI-powered Face Swapping" | | 案例4.“AI换脸”著作权侵权案 |
| 5. Case of Infringement by "Skin-Changing" in a Game | | 案例5.游戏“换皮”侵权案 |
| 6. Case of Unfair Competition involving Online Assessment Where Products Are Praised or Belittled | | 案例6.网络测评“有踩有捧”不正当竞争案 |
| 7. Case of Unfair Competition involving Ticket-snatching Software | | 案例7.抢票软件不正当竞争案 |
| 8. Civil Action Incidental to a Criminal Case Involving Infringement on Copyright of Hit Films and TV Series | | 案例8.涉热播影视作品侵犯著作权刑事附带民事诉讼案 |
| 1. Case of Patent for Invention Ownership of "mRNA Osteoarthritis Drugs" | | 案例1.“mRNA骨关节炎药物”发明专利权权属案 |
| [Dispute over Patent Right Ownership (Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Rui[REDACTED] Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Hu [REDACTED])] | | 【深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司与深圳瑞某生物科技有限公司、胡某专利权权属纠纷】 |
| [Judgment of Second Instance] (No. 871 [2023], Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC) entered by the SPC | | 二审：最高人民法院（2023）最高法知民终871号 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. is a high-tech company jointly established in January 2018 by Yu [REDACTED], Wang [REDACTED], and Hu [REDACTED] who are entrepreneurs returning to China for the purpose of promoting the R&D and transformation of mRNA technology in the field of biomedicine. In September 2019, Hu [REDACTED] established Shenzhen Rui[REDACTED] Biotechnology Co., Ltd. A patent for invention titled "an mRNA-based pharmaceutical formulation for osteoarthritis, its preparation method and applications" was applied by Shenzhen Rui[REDACTED] Biotechnology Co., Ltd. in June 2021 and was granted in October 2021. Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit, claimed that the patent involved was a service invention completed by Hu [REDACTED] when he held a post in the Company, the application for the patent involved by Shenzhen Rui[REDACTED] Biotechnology Co., Ltd. damaged the lawful rights and interests of Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd., and requested that the people's court should confirm that the patent involved was owned by Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. The court of first instance dismissed the claims of Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Zhen[REDACTED] Medical Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. | | 深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司成立于2018年1月，是于某、王某、胡某等3位归国创业人员共同创立的高科技公司，旨在推动mRNA技术在生物医药领域的研发和转化。2019年9月，胡某创立深圳瑞某生物科技有限公司。名称为“一种mRNA剂型的骨关节炎药物制剂及其制备方法和应用”的发明专利由深圳瑞某生物科技有限公司于2021年6月申请，2021年10月获得授权。深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司起诉认为，涉案专利系胡某在其公司任职期间完成的职务发明创造，深圳瑞某生物科技有限公司申请涉案专利损害了深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司的合法权益，请求判令确认涉案专利权归深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司所有。一审法院判决驳回深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司的诉讼请求。深圳市臻某医疗科技有限公司不服，提起上诉。 |
| [Judgment] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of second instance, the SPC held that this case involved several researchers returning to China, several enterprises and public institutions, and cutting-edge technologies in the field of biomedicine; by taking into account the important status of mRNA technology in the pharmaceutical field, important contributions made by the three researchers returning to China for entrepreneurship through close cooperation to the R&D of innovative drugs involving mRNA technology, and other factors, the SPC determined the trial approach of "giving priority to mediation" and "resolving the emotional burden of the parties before resolving a lawsuit."Through on-site investigation and circuit trial, the SPC proactively carried out the mediation work, facilitated the parties to sign a package settlement agreement for this case and other related litigations, resolved the conflicts and a series of disputes between the parties lasting for more than two years, promoted both parties to join hands and resume cooperation in the forefront of the field of biomedicine, and achieved a win-win, multi-win, and all-win situation. | | 最高人民法院二审认为，本案涉及多位归国科研人员、多家企事业单位和生物医药领域前沿技术，结合mRNA技术在医药领域的重要地位，以及三位科研人员曾密切合作、共同归国创业并为mRNA技术所涉创新药物研发作出重要贡献等因素，确定了“调解优先”“先解心结、再解法结”的审理思路。通过实地调查、巡回审判，积极开展调解工作，促成各方就本案及其他关联诉讼签署一揽子和解协议，化解了双方当事人长达两年多的矛盾和系列纠纷，促进双方携手在生物医药领域的前沿赛道上回归合作，实现双赢、多赢、共赢。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case was under open court trial by the five-person Collegial Bench including Tao Kaiyuan, vice president and second-class justice of the SPC on the "National Constitution Day" and was reported by nearly 40 media. The mRNA technology involved in this case is a key common technology and cutting-edge high and new technology in the field of biomedicine and a typical representative of new quality productivity. The substantial resolution of disputes in this case and the relevant litigations further releases the clear guidance of the people's courts in encouraging innovation, carrying forward integrity, respecting science, and respecting talents, is favorable to researchers' courage in innovation and entrepreneurship, effectively stimulates the innovation and creativity of the whole society, and promotes the integrated development of scientific and technological innovation and industrial innovation. | | 本案由最高人民法院副院长、二级大法官陶凯元担任审判长组成五人合议庭于“国家宪法日”公开开庭审理，近40家媒体进行了报道。本案涉及的mRNA技术是生物医药领域的关键共性技术和前沿高新技术，是新质生产力的典型代表。本案及关联诉讼纠纷的实质化解，进一步释放了人民法院鼓励创新、弘扬诚信、尊重科学、尊重人才的鲜明导向，有利于科研人员勇于创新、安心创业，更好地激发全社会创新创造活力，促进科技创新和产业创新融合发展。 |
| 2. Case of Infringement on a Trademark and Unfair Competition in the Real Estate Field | | 案例2.房地产领域商标侵权及不正当竞争案 |
| [Dispute over Infringement on a Trademark and Unfair Competition (Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd., Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd., Nanjing Ren[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., and Ren[REDACTED] Holdings Pte. Ltd. v. Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd.)] | | 【仁某置地（成都）有限公司、上海仁某房地产有限公司、南京仁某企业管理有限公司、新加坡仁某控股有限公司与兰州仁某房地产有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷】 |
| [Judgment of Second Instance] (No. 418 [2023], Final, Civil Division, SPC) entered by the SPC | | 二审：最高人民法院（2023）最高法民终418号 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co. Ltd. were established in 1993. Nanjing Ren[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was established in 1994. From 1995, the aforesaid companies successively launched real estate projects in Shanghai, Nanjing, Chengdu, and other places and were granted several registered trademarks including "Ren[REDACTED]" in construction services and other categories. In January 2002, Jin [REDACTED], legal representative of Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd., subscribed for a real estate developed by Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. in Shanghai Municipality. Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. was registered and established on November 26, 2002 and it has used the business name "Ren[REDACTED]" since its establishment. It has developed and constructed Ren[REDACTED] International real estate, Ren[REDACTED] Meilin County real estate, and Ren[REDACTED] Crystal City real estate in Lanzhou Area. Ren[REDACTED] (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and others deemed that the aforesaid acts of Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. constituted infringement on trademarks and unfair competition and therefore filed a lawsuit. The court of first instance decided that Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. should stop infringement on trademarks and unfair competition, compensate Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and others for their economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of 13,405,992.3 yuan, and publish a statement to eliminate the adverse impacts. Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. | | 1993年，仁某置地（成都）有限公司、上海仁某房地产有限公司成立。1994年，南京仁某企业管理有限公司成立。自1995年开始，上述公司分别在上海、南京、成都等地推出房地产项目，并在建筑服务等多个类别上先后获准注册多枚“仁某”商标。2002年1月，兰州仁某房地产有限公司的法定代表人金某认购上海仁某房地产有限公司在上海开发的楼盘。兰州仁某房地产有限公司于2002年11月26日登记成立，开始使用“仁某”企业字号，并先后在兰州地区开发建设了仁某国际、仁某美林郡、仁某晶城楼盘。仁某置地（成都）有限公司等认为兰州仁某房地产有限公司的上述行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，遂提起诉讼。一审法院判决兰州仁某房地产有限公司停止侵害商标权以及不正当竞争行为，赔偿仁某置地（成都）有限公司等经济损失及合理开支共计13405992.3元，刊登声明消除影响。兰州仁某房地产有限公司不服，提起上诉。 |
| [Judgment] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of second instance, the SPC held that although Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. only used the alleged infringing mark in Lanzhou Area, after taking into account factors such as the degree of similarity between the alleged infringing mark and the four trademarks involved, the degree of connection between the services used and the goods, the degree of popularity of the trademark "Ren[REDACTED]," the actual way of use by Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. and the actual confusions caused, it may be determined that the alleged infringement acts of Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. will easily cause the relevant public to be confused and constitute infringement on a trademark. On the basis of the use of the trade name "Ren[REDACTED]" by Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd., the facts that Jin [REDCTED], legal representative of Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. once purchased a real estate developed by Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. and he knew Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. used the trade name "Ren[REDACTED]" first, it may be determined that the trade name "Ren[REDACTED]" constituted a prior trade name with certain influence. As a peer operator, Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. should have avoided the use of such trade name. However, it still registered and used the trade name "Ren[REDACTED]" to engage in the same business as that of Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. The relevant public will easily believe that the real estate projects developed by Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. have specific relationship with Shanghai Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd., and the above acts of Lanzhou Ren[REDACTED] Real Estate Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition. The SPC entered a judgment of second instance to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. | | 最高人民法院二审认为，虽然兰州仁某房地产有限公司仅在兰州地区使用被诉侵权标识，但考虑被诉侵权标识与涉案四商标的近似程度，所使用服务与商品的关联程度，“仁某”商标的知名程度，兰州仁某房地产有限公司的实际使用方式及已经发生实际混淆的情况等因素，可以认定兰州仁某房地产有限公司的被诉侵权行为容易导致相关公众混淆，构成侵害商标权的行为。根据上海仁某房地产有限公司等对“仁某”字号的使用情况，包括兰州仁某房地产有限公司法定代表人曾购买上海仁某房地产有限公司开发的楼盘，明知上海仁某房地产有限公司在先使用“仁某”字号的事实，可以认定“仁某”字号构成有一定影响的在先字号。兰州仁某房地产有限公司作为同业经营者理应予以避让，但其仍然登记注册并使用“仁某”字号从事与上海仁某房地产有限公司等相同行业的经营活动，容易使得相关公众认为其开发建设的楼盘项目与上海仁某房地产有限公司等存在特定联系，兰州仁某房地产有限公司的上述行为构成不正当竞争。二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case involves protection of the rights and interests of trade names of enterprises and their patent rights in the sector of commercial housing development and construction. At present, there are a large number of such disputes. In this case, common issues including use of infringing trademarks, possibility of confusion, and proper use in the field of commercial housing were clarified and the application of examination benchmarks and proof standards for protecting the competitive interests of enterprise trade names as prescribed in the subparagraph (2) of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China was specified. The judgment of this case included the circumstance that the infringer knew prior use of a trade name by others in the determination of "certain influence," which conveys the adjudication ideas of protecting business operations in good faith and maintaining fair competition order. | | 本案涉及商品房开发建设领域中的企业字号权益及商标权的保护问题，目前此类纠纷大量存在。本案对商品房领域中商标侵权的商标使用、混淆可能性以及正当使用等方面的常见问题进行了澄清，明确了适用《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第六条第二项保护企业字号竞争性利益的审查基准与证明标准。本案裁判将侵权人明知他人在先使用字号的情节纳入“有一定影响字号”的认定，传递了保护诚信经营，维护公平竞争秩序的裁判理念。 |
| 3. Case of Infringement on a Trade Secret by "Spoiling" Undisclosed Characters in a Game | | 案例3.“剧透”游戏未公开角色侵害商业秘密案 |
| [Dispute over Infringement on a Trade Secret (Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chen [REDACTED]) | | 【上海米某科技有限公司与陈某侵害商业秘密纠纷】 |
| [Judgment of First Instance] (No. 38294 [2024], First, Civil Division, 0115, Shanghai) entered by the Primary People's Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai Municipality | | 一审：上海市浦东新区人民法院（2024）沪0115民初38294号 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of [REDACTED] Game and has obtained the right to use and the right to safeguard rights after being granted the permission of the game copyright owner. Since its launch, the Game has aroused enthusiastic responses in the global game market. In the operations, Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. updated the Game from time to time by adding roles, scenes, plots, activities, and others, so as to maintain the public attention to and vitality of the Game. The aforesaid added content was subject to closed beta test in advance. For this purpose, Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies have recruited several players, including Chen [REDACTED] to participate in the closed beta test and signed confidentiality agreements with them. During the closed beta test, Chen [REDACTED] secretly photographed and recorded the test content and footages of the game involved Zhi[REDACTED], including the in-game images of seven game characters (images of game characters that may be controlled by players), skill effects, and skill data, and has disclosed the aforesaid content and footages to third parties several times. After discovering the aforesaid situation, Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. filed an application with the people's court for pre-litigation conduct preservation on the grounds that the relevant information was a trade secret and further disclosure of such information would cause irreparable damages to it, filed a lawsuit within the statutory time limit, and claimed that the people's court should order Shen [REDACTED] to stop infringement, eliminate the adverse impacts, and compensate for its losses. Chen [REDACTED] contended that the aforesaid game content was not a trade secret. | | 上海米某科技有限公司系某游戏的运营方，并获得游戏著作权人的许可取得使用和维权权利。该游戏自上线以来在全球游戏市场引起热烈反响。上海米某科技有限公司在运营中，每隔一段时间进行版本更新，新增角色、场景、剧情、活动等内容，以保持游戏关注度和产品活力。这些内容会提前进行内测。为此，上海米某科技有限公司及其关联公司招募了包括陈某在内的多名玩家参加内测并签订了保密协议。陈某参与内测期间，未经允许对涉案游戏“知某某”等7个游戏角色实机形象（即可供玩家操控的游戏角色形象）、技能效果、技能数据等测试内容和画面进行偷拍、偷录，并多次向第三人披露。上海米某科技有限公司发现后，以相关信息属于商业秘密，如进一步披露将给其造成难以弥补的损害为由，向人民法院提出诉前行为保全申请，并在法定期间内提起诉讼，请求判令停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿损失。陈某辩称，上述游戏内容不构成商业秘密。 |
| [Judgment] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| The Primary People's Court of Pudong New Area of Shanghai Municipality examined the application for pre-litigation conduct preservation and held that the claim of Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. had factual and legal basis;if no preservation measure was taken, the lawful rights and interests of Shanghai Mi[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. may be damaged irreparably, and taking such preservation measure would not result in obvious imbalance of interests of the parties. Therefore, within 48 hours upon receipt of the application, the Court entered a ruling, ordering Chen [REDACTED] not to disclose, use, and allow others to use the game content photographed and recorded without permission during the closed beta test. | | 上海市浦东新区人民法院对诉前行为保全申请进行审查，认为上海米某科技有限公司的请求具有事实基础和法律依据，如不采取相应保全措施可能会对上海米某科技有限公司的合法权益造成难以弥补的损害，且采取行为保全措施不会导致当事人之间利益显著失衡。故在收到申请后48小时内依法作出裁定，责令陈某不得披露、使用、允许他人使用其在参与游戏测试过程中擅自摄录的游戏内容。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|