1.国家知识产权局专利复审委员会与白象食品股份有限公司、陈朝晖外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷申请再审案〔最高人民法院（2014）知行字第4号行政裁定书〕

【案情摘要】陈朝晖于2000年10月16日向国家知识产权局提出产品名称为“食品包装袋”的外观设计专利（以下简称涉案专利）申请，并于2001年5月2日被授权公告。白象公司持有的第1506193号“白象”商标（以下简称白象商标）的申请日为1997年12月12日，核准注册于2001年1月14日。2009年8月4日，白象公司针对涉案专利，以其与在先的白象商标权冲突为由，向国家知识产权局专利复审委员会（简称专利复审委员会）提出无效宣告请求。专利复审委员会以白象商标的核准注册日在涉案专利申请日之后，不属于合法的在先权利为由，决定维持涉案专利权有效。白象公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院以白象商标的核准注册日早于涉案专利的授权公告日，白象商标构成在先权利为由，撤销无效决定。专利复审委员会不服，提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院以白象商标的申请日早于涉案专利的申请日，白象商标的商标申请权构成在先权利为由，二审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。专利复审委员会不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院审查认为，商标申请权不能作为专利法第二十三条所称的在先取得的合法权利。但是，商标申请权对于判断外观设计专利权和注册商标专用权是否构成权利冲突具有重要意义。只要商标申请日在外观设计专利申请日之前，在先申请的注册商标专用权就可以对抗申请日在后的外观设计专利权。白象商标获得注册后，涉案专利的实施客观上会与其产生权利冲突，应当依照保护在先权利的原则，认定申请日在先的白象注册商标专用权可用于对抗陈朝晖的外观设计专利权。据此驳回专利复审委员会的再审申请。

【创新意义】法院在本案中明确了商标申请日在解决权利冲突问题时的法律意义。法院指出，只要商标申请日在专利申请日之前，且在专利无效宣告请求提出时商标已被核准注册并仍然有效，在先申请的注册商标专用权就可以对抗在后申请的外观设计专利权，进而用于判断是否与外观设计专利权相冲突。本案对适用专利法第二十三条的规定，判断注册商标专用权是否构成合法在先权利时，须以核准注册日作为时间节点的规则进行了一定程度的突破，对涉及权利冲突案件的审理具有一定的指引价值。

2.（瑞士）埃利康亚洲股份公司与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、刘夏阳等发明专利权无效行政纠纷提审案〔最高人民法院（2014）行提字第11、12、13号行政判决书〕

【案情摘要】埃利康公司系名称为“自动的机械停车场中用于机动车水平传送的托架”发明专利（即本案专利）的权利人。本案专利有15项权利要求，其中独立权利要求1为：“在轮子（3）上自行走的托架，.....一个部分还具有一对装置（58），装置（58）可对称地垂直于该托架纵轴线移动并被构造用来支承、定中心、停止移动及抬升该机动车的一个轴的两个车轮，而另一部分具有一对装置（59），装置（59）可对称地垂直于该托架纵轴线移动并被构造用来支承、定中心、停止移动及抬升该机动车第二轴的两个车轮……。”针对本专利，刘夏阳、怡峰公司先后三次提出无效请求，理由之一为权利要求1-15缺少必要技术特征，不符合专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款的规定。专利复审委员会决定认定权利要求1及有关从属权利要求缺少必要技术特征并宣告其无效，但同时认定权利要求4及其从属权利要求的技术方案符合专利法第二十六条第四款的规定。埃利康公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院、北京市高级人民法院先后驳回其诉讼请求和上诉。埃利康公司不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院提审认为，独立权利要求缺少必要技术特征，不符合专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款规定的，一般也不能得到说明书的支持，不符合专利法第二十六条第四款的规定。无效决定在认定权利要求缺少必要技术特征的基础上，又认定其得到了说明书的支持，适用法律错误。据此判决撤销专利复审委员会的审查决定及一审、二审判决，并责令专利复审委员会重新作出审查决定。

【创新意义】本案对专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款关于“必要技术特征”的问题进行了较为深入和全面的阐述，特别是对于如何理解“缺乏必要技术特征”与“权利要求书是否以说明书为依据”的关系问题予以澄清，对于专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款规定的适用具有一定的指导意义。法院指出，专利法第二十六条第四款与专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款均涉及权利要求书与说明书的对应关系，但相较于专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款，专利法第二十六条第四款的适用范围更为宽泛，它既同时适用于独立权利要求和从属权利要求，也同时适用于权利要求记载的技术特征范围过宽不能得到说明书的支持，以及缺少必要技术特征从而使权利要求整体上不能得到说明书支持的情形。因此，在独立权利要求缺少必要技术特征，不符合专利法实施细则第二十一条第二款规定的情况下，一般也不能得到说明书的支持，不符合专利法第二十六条第四款的规定。

3. 孙俊义与郑宁侵害实用新型专利权纠纷申请再审案〔最高人民法院（2014）民申字第1036号民事裁定书〕

【案情摘要】孙俊义是名称为“防粘连自动排气阀”的实用新型专利（以下简称涉案专利）的权利人。2013年6月28日，长春市宽城锅炉排汽阀厂向个体工商户业主郑宁发出通知函，称郑宁销售的“胜益”牌全自动排气阀侵犯了其“中权”牌排汽阀的专利权（专利号为ZL200320112523.2，专利权人为孙俊义），落款处有“长春市宽城锅炉排汽阀厂打假办”印章和专利权人孙俊义的印章，并附有通讯地址、邮政编码、联系人及联系电话。2013年7月，孙俊义从郑宁处购买到了被诉侵权的“胜益”牌排气阀，并以郑宁侵害其实用新型专利权为由提起诉讼。辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院一审认为，被诉侵权产品的技术特征与本案专利的技术方案构成等同，落入本案专利权的保护范围。孙俊义向郑宁邮寄的通知函中未附有专利证书和其他必要文件，不足以使郑宁认识到其销售的为侵权产品。鉴于郑宁作为销售者已经提供了侵权产品的合法来源，主观上并无过错，依法可免除赔偿责任。据此判决驳回孙俊义的诉讼请求。孙俊义不服，提出上诉。辽宁省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。孙俊义不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2014年12月13日裁定指令辽宁省高级人民法院再审本案。最高人民法院审查认为，判断销售者是否知道其销售的是专利侵权产品，应当结合案件事实进行综合判断。如销售者曾经销售过专利产品，或其购入被诉侵权产品的价格不合理地低于专利产品的市场价格等，均可以作为认定销售者知道其销售的是专利侵权产品的事实基础。如果上述情况均不存在，而仅仅是权利人向销售者发出过侵权警告函，则需要进一步对警告函中的具体内容予以审查。如果警告函中记载或包含有专利权（专利号、专利名称、专利权证书复印件等）和被诉侵权产品的基本情况、侵权比对结果及联系人信息等内容，在销售者也已经收到该警告函的情况下，原则上应当推定其知道销售的是专利侵权产品。

【创新意义】为维护正常的市场经营秩序和鼓励打击侵权源头，专利法第七十条对销售者的合法来源抗辩作出了规定，即在侵权产品的销售者主观上没有过错并能提供产品合法来源的情况下，可以免除赔偿责任。但司法实践中对于判断销售者是否具有主观过错，存在事实认定上的困难。侵权警告函在专利侵权纠纷中的广泛采用，为解决销售者主观过错的认定困境，提供了一种新的解决方案。本案中，法院根据权利人已经向销售者发出了记载有涉案专利和被诉侵权产品基本情况、侵权比对结果及联系方式等内容较为明确的侵权警告函，且销售者已经实际收到该警告函等事实，推定销售者知道其销售的为专利侵权产品。本案的审理，规范了权利人对销售者主观过错的证明标准，也为人民法院对销售者主观过错的认定，提供了证据审查和判断的司法指引。

4. 苹果公司与中华人民共和国国家知识产权局专利复审委员会外观设计专利申请驳回复审行政纠纷上诉案〔北京市高级人民法院（2014）高行（知）终字第2815号行政判决书〕

【案情摘要】2010年7月26日，苹果公司向中华人民共和国国家知识产权局提出名称为“便携式显示设备（带图形用户界面）”的外观设计专利申请（以下简称涉案申请）。国家知识产权局原审查部门以涉案申请系《专利审查指南》所规定的“产品通电后显示的图案”，不属于授予外观设计专利权的客体为由，对涉案申请予以驳回。苹果公司不服，向专利复审委员会提出复审请求。专利复审委员会对驳回决定予以维持。苹果公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院认为，虽然涉案申请还包括了在产品通电状态下才能显示的图形用户界面，但其仍是对便携式显示设备在产品整体外观方面所进行的设计，亦能满足外观设计专利在工业应用和美感方面的要求，可以成为我国外观设计专利权的保护客体。据此判决撤销专利复审委员会的复审决定，专利复审委员会不服，提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

【创新意义】本案是涉及图形用户界面这一新类型客体能否作为外观设计专利申请对象的专利授权行政案件。法院在本案中明确了图形用户界面可以成为外观设计授权客体的法律依据，以及该类外观设计申请所需满足的条件。法院指出，虽然《专利审查指南》作出了“产品通电后显示的图案属于不授予外观设计专利权的情形”的规定，但图形用户界面能否作为外观设计专利的保护客体，仍应当以专利法第二条第四款的规定为法律依据。以图形用户界面提出外观设计专利申请时，为便于准确确定外观设计的内容，申请人应当在图片、照片或者简要说明中，通过恰当的方式指明哪些部分属于通电后才能显示的图案。本案为今后审理与图形用户界面有关的授权确权类专利行政案件，进一步明晰了审理思路。

5. 怀化正好制药有限公司与湖南方盛制药股份有限公司确认不侵害专利权纠纷上诉案〔湖南省高级人民法院（2014）湘高法民三终字第51号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】怀化正好制药有限公司（以下简称正好公司）于2005年7月1日向国家知识产权局提出名称为“一种药物金刚藤微丸及其制备方法”的发明专利申请，并于2009年6月17日获得授权，专利号为ZL200510080293.X。湖南方盛制药股份有限公司（以下简称方盛公司）就药品名称为“金刚藤分散片”的片剂药品向湖南省食品药品监督管理局（以下简称湖南省药监局）提出新药申请，湖南省药监局于2005年10月19日对该申请予以受理。2008年12月25日，国家食品药品监督管理局药品审评中心（以下简称审评中心）向方盛公司致函称，在该公司的“金刚藤分散片”注册过程中，正好公司向审评中心反映该申报药品涉及专利问题。审评中心通知方盛公司对此出具答复意见。2009年1月9日，方盛公司向审评中心出具了对上述问题的答复意见，认为“金刚藤分散片”的药品注册申请未与正好公司的专利权形成冲突。方盛公司于2011年9月13日向正好公司致函，督促其行使诉权或者向国家药监局撤回异议。后正好制药公司既未提起诉讼，亦未撤回异议。方盛公司向湖南省长沙市中级人民法院提起确认不侵害专利权之诉。一审法院判决确认方盛公司的“金刚藤分散片”不侵犯正好公司的专利权。正好公司不服，提起上诉。湖南省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

【创新意义】权利人发出侵权警告函是确认不侵权之诉成立的行为要件之一。司法实践中，以律师函等形式体现的警告函的发送对象通常是涉嫌侵权的生产经营者本人。本案的意义在于扩展了侵权警告函的形式和对象的范围，即本案中的侵权警告是以正好公司针对方盛公司的新药申请而向国家有关部门提出的权利异议的方式体现。虽然它有别于权利人与涉嫌侵权人之间直接建立的侵权警告关系，但由于正好公司提出的该种异议已经直接影响到了方盛公司的生产经营活动，从而在实质上起到了直接向方盛公司发送警告函相同的作用和后果，考虑到市场经营活动中已经越来越多地出现了这种当事人借助合法形式，拖延或干扰他人正常的生产经营活动的行为，从尽快稳定法律关系和恢复市场秩序的角度出发，法院在本案中对侵权警告函的形式和对象作出的灵活处理和解释，符合法律设置确认不侵权之诉的立法本义。

6. 东阳市上蒋火腿厂与浙江雪舫工贸有限公司侵害商标权纠纷上诉案〔浙江省高级人民法院（2013）浙知终字第301号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】“雪舫蒋”火腿始产于明朝，系中华老字号。东阳市上蒋火腿厂（以下简称上蒋火腿厂）系“雪舫蒋”商标的权利人。2007年，浙江雪舫工贸有限公司（以下简称雪舫工贸公司）获得该商标的独占许可使用权，许可期限至2028年止。雪舫工贸公司于2007年、2009年两次支付许可费各36万元。2011年11月2日，上蒋火腿厂以雪舫工贸公司逾期支付许可使用费为由要求解除合同。雪舫工贸公司于次日向上蒋火腿厂汇入许可使用费36万元。其后，上蒋火腿厂多次在“雪舫蒋”店铺购买到了同时标注“雪舫蒋”和“吴宁府”商标的火腿。上蒋火腿厂以雪舫工贸公司侵害其“雪舫蒋”商标权为由，向浙江省金华市中级人民法院提起诉讼。一审法院认定雪舫工贸公司的行为构成商标侵权，遂判决其停止使用“雪舫蒋”商标，并赔偿经济损失18万元。上蒋火腿厂、雪舫工贸公司均不服一审判决，向浙江省高级人民法院提起上诉。二审法院认为，雪舫工贸公司违约情节轻微，上蒋火腿厂未履行合同附随义务，无权单方解除合同。但雪舫工贸公司在火腿商品上同时使用“吴宁府”与“雪舫蒋”商标的行为构成商标侵权。遂改判雪舫工贸公司立即停止在火腿商品上同时使用“雪舫蒋”和“吴宁府”系列商标的行为，并赔偿经济损失15万元。

【创新意义】在同一商品之上同时标注被许可使用的商标和使用人自有商标的行为是否构成侵权，在商标法中并无明确的法律依据。法院在本案中从商标法第五十二条所规定的“其他损害”这一条文表述的开放性入手，结合商标许可使用制度的目的仍然在于保证商品来源的唯一性这一制度本义，考虑被许可商标的知名度，从雪舫工贸公司同时使用两商标的行为将导致同一商品出现两个来源这一客观后果的角度，推导出消费者将产生“雪舫蒋”和“吴宁府”商标具有商品来源关系上的同一性的认知，从而影响“雪舫蒋”商标识别功能的正常发挥，并得出构成商标侵权的结论是恰当的。此外，二审法院还特别强调了这种使用行为对商标许可使用关系结束之后的持续影响力，即它会使雪舫工贸公司自有且并无知名度的“吴宁府”商标变相获取和攀附已经具有较高市场知名度的“雪舫蒋”商标商誉的后果。本案的审理，对于规范商标许可使用关系，以及厘清经许可使用的行为和侵权行为之间的界限，具有可资参考的价值。

7. 深圳市周一品小肥羊餐饮连锁管理有限公司与内蒙古小肥羊餐饮连锁有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷上诉案〔广东省高级人民法院（2014）粤高法民三终字第27号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】内蒙古小肥羊餐饮连锁有限公司（以下简称小肥羊公司）成立于1999年9月13日，其拥有第3043421、3092512、3420327、3878260、4098504号“小肥羊”文字或图文组合商标，均核定使用于第43类的饭店、餐厅（馆）等服务上，第3043421号商标曾于2004年11月12日被认定为餐厅、饭店服务上的驰名商标。深圳市周一品小肥羊餐饮连锁管理有限公司（以下简称周一品公司）在门店招牌、服务员的胸牌及点菜单上使用了“一品小肥羊”标识；在门店指示牌使用了“周一品小肥羊”等标识；在餐具和火锅电磁炉上使用含有“小肥羊”的商业标识；同时在域名为www.zypxfy.com的网站上，除使用上述标识外，还注明版权所有为深圳市一品小肥羊餐饮连锁集团，……一品小肥羊官方网站。该网站提供 “一品小肥羊餐饮连锁”加盟登记表，并介绍“一品小肥羊”特许连锁店加盟程序。小肥羊公司以周一品公司的上述行为构成侵害商标权及不正当竞争为由，向广东省深圳市中级人民法院提起诉讼。一审法院认定，周一品公司的先用权主张不能成立，其使用的商业标识及企业名称侵犯了小肥羊公司的注册商标专用权及企业名称权，故判决周一品公司立即停止侵权行为并赔偿小肥羊公司经济损失90万元及合理支出10万元。周一品公司不服，提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

【创新意义】修改后的商标法第五十九条第三款增加了关于商标先用权的规定，这在一定程度上确认了在先使用的未注册商标的法律地位及相应的权益，也较好地平衡了注册商标权利人和在先使用未注册商标权利人之间的利益。本案在商标法修改的立法背景下，探讨了关于商标先用权的规则适用，特别是在理论和司法实践中都尚无定论的商标先用权抗辩中“原有范围”的界定问题，并在此基础上较为深入地阐释了先用权制度与注册商标制度之间的位次关系和利益平衡，为新商标法实施后涉及先用权抗辩案件的审理进行了积极而有益的探索。

8. 杭州聚合网络科技有限公司与中国移动通信集团浙江有限公司、浙江融创信息产业有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷上诉案〔浙江省高级人民法院（2013）浙知终字第289号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】浙江省卫生信息中心（以下简称信息中心）代表浙江省卫生厅（以下简称卫生厅）牵头建设浙江省医院预约诊疗服务系统，该系统软件由中国移动通信集团浙江有限公司（以下简称浙江移动公司）负责，由其全资子公司浙江融创信息产业有限公司（以下简称融创公司）具体实施，融创公司委托杭州聚合网络科技有限公司（以下简称聚合公司）进行软件开发。2010年9月，聚合公司开发的系统软件上线试运行。2011年9月底，因聚合公司与浙江移动公司、融创公司的合作发生争议，聚合公司开发的软件于2011年10月9日后被停用。融创公司利用聚合公司所开发软件的部分源代码重新开发了系统软件。聚合公司以浙江移动公司、融创公司、卫生厅、信息中心未经其许可，复制、剽窃并使用涉案软件的行为，侵害其软件著作权为由，向浙江省杭州市中级人民法院提起诉讼。一审法院认为，涉案软件的著作权有聚合公司享有，但融创公司作为委托方，有权在委托创作的特定目的范围内免费使用该作品。遂判决驳回聚合公司的诉讼请求。聚合公司不服，向浙江省高级人民法院提出上诉。二审法院认为，浙江移动公司、融创公司仅能在委托创作的原有目的范围内继续使用，但不能对聚合公司享有著作权的软件作品作为技术成果加以利用。融创公司的行为构成侵权，但由于涉案软件具有公益属性，不宜停止使用。遂判决撤销一审判决，由浙江移动公司、融创公司共同赔偿聚合公司20万元。

【创新意义】本案以软件著作权案件为视角，诠释和明晰了委托创作合同关系中委托方和受托方的权利范围。法院指出，在著作权归属于受托人的情况下，如双方未就作品的使用范围作出约定，委托人可以在委托创作的特定目的范围内免费使用软件作品。但基于软件作品的特殊性，委托人的具体使用方式应仅包括通过软件客户端正常使用软件的各项功能和基于使用环境、功能和目的的改进所进行的必要修改。但委托人不能够将软件作品作为技术成果加以利用，若委托人采取修改程序源代码的方式对软件进行重新开发利用，将直接侵害受托人的著作权。本案的审理，对于软件著作权案件中合理划分委托人与受托人的权利义务，以及明确侵权行为的认定标准具有一定的借鉴意义。

9. 麦格昆磁（天津）有限公司诉夏某、苏州瑞泰新金属有限公司侵害技术秘密纠纷上诉案〔江苏省高级人民法院（2013）苏知民终字第159号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】麦格昆磁国际公司（以下简称麦格昆磁公司）掌握快淬法生产钕铁硼磁粉的两项关键技术——甩带轮技术和喷嘴技术，后以普通许可的方式授权麦格昆磁（天津）有限公司（以下简称麦格昆磁天津公司）使用上述技术，并授权其可以自身名义起诉。苏州瑞泰新金属有限公司（以下简称瑞泰公司）亦从事相同磁粉的生产和销售，张某、夏某系该公司的创立者。其中，张某曾为麦格昆磁公司和麦格昆磁天津公司的员工，掌握涉案甩带轮技术和喷嘴技术；夏某系瑞泰公司生产设备的提供者。2009年6月，麦格昆磁公司以瑞泰公司、张某侵害其商业秘密为由向公安机关报案。公安机关在侦查过程中对夏某进行了询问，查扣了瑞泰公司的生产设备，调取了加工制造图纸，并将相应资料送交鉴定机构进行鉴定。经鉴定，麦格昆磁公司主张的相关技术信息不为公众所知悉，瑞泰公司的生产设备中的相应技术信息与麦格昆磁公司主张权利的技术信息实质相同，目前该刑事案件尚未审结。麦格昆磁天津公司根据公安机关侦查过程中形成的主要证据，以夏某、瑞泰公司侵害其技术秘密为由，向江苏省苏州市中级人民法院提起诉讼。一审法院认为，夏某、瑞泰公司的行为侵害了麦格昆磁天津公司的商业秘密，判决夏某、瑞泰公司立即停止侵权并共同赔偿麦格昆磁天津公司经济损失及合理费用共计1150余万元。夏某、瑞泰公司均不服，向江苏省高级人民法院提起上诉。二审法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

【创新意义】本案是一起民刑交叉的商业秘密侵权案件。民刑交叉知识产权案件中证据规则和证明标准的差异，一直困扰着此类案件的审理。法院在本案中对几个争议问题的处理，以及相关的审理思路，对于类似案件的审理均具有较强的借鉴意义和示范效应：对于刑事侦查阶段出现的鉴定程序瑕疵，法院采取了补充调查和质询鉴定专家的方式，克服了技术事实认定方面的障碍；对于民事侵权责任与刑事责任之间的关系，法院明确指出，由于证明标准存在差异，民事侵权司法认定并不当然能够成为刑事案件中定罪量刑的依据。

10. 张俊雄侵犯著作权罪案〔上海市普陀区人民法院（2013）普刑（知）初字第11号刑事判决书〕

【案情摘要】2009年年底，被告人张俊雄设立www.1000ys.cc网站（网站名称为“1000影视”）。其后，张俊雄未经著作权人许可，通过网站管理后台，链接至哈酷资源网获取影视作品的种子文件索引地址，通过向用户提供并强制使用QVOD播放软件的方式，为网站用户提供浏览观看影视作品的网络服务。为提高网站的知名度和所链接影视作品的点击量，被告人张俊雄以设置目录、索引、内容简介、排行榜等方式向用户推荐影视作品。同时，被告人张俊雄加入“百度广告联盟”，并获取广告收益。经鉴定，网站链接的影视作品中，有941部与中国、美国、韩国、日本等相关版权机构认证的具有著作权的影视作品内容相同。上海市普陀区人民法院经审理后认为，被告人张俊雄以营利为目的，未经著作权人许可，发行（通过信息网络向公众传播）影视作品达941部，情节严重，其行为已构成侵犯著作权罪，依法判处被告人张俊雄犯侵犯著作权罪，判处有期徒刑一年三个月，缓刑一年三个月，并处罚金人民币三万元；违法所得依法予以追缴；扣押在案的作案工具，依法予以没收。判决后，被告人张俊雄未提起上诉，公诉机关未提起抗诉，判决已发生法律效力。

【创新意义】本案中的被告人所实施的并非作品提供行为，而是网络服务提供行为。目前的刑事司法实践中，对于此类帮助型间接侵权行为能否或有必要上升为刑事犯罪行为，即司法解释中“通过信息网络向公众传播”的行为是否包括提供网络服务的行为；如入罪，网络服务提供者应认定为正犯还是帮助犯；如系正犯，如何掌握“未经著作权人许可”等犯罪构成要件的审查标准，如何处理民刑衔接的证据认定和证明标准等问题在司法实践中都尚存争议。本案围绕网络服务提供行为这种新的犯罪类型，从入罪路径、犯罪构成要件审查、证据审查标准等角度进行了较为深入的研究和探索，具有一定的创新意义。

1. The Patent Reexamination Committee of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, Baixiang Food Co., Ltd. and Chen Chaohui applied for retrial of the administrative dispute over the invalidity of the design patent [the Supreme People's Court (2014) Zhi Xing Zi No. 4 Administrative Ruling]

[Abstract] Chen Zhaohui applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration on October 16, 2000 for a design patent with the product name of "food packaging bag" (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved), and was authorized to publish it on May 2, 2001. The application date for the "White Elephant" trademark No. 1506193 held by White Elephant Company (hereinafter referred to as "White Elephant Trademark") was December 12, 1997, and its registration was approved on January 14, 2001. On August 4, 2009, White Elephant Company filed a request for invalidation to the Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) for the patent involved, on the ground of its conflict with the prior White Elephant trademark rights. The Patent Reexamination Board decided to maintain the validity of the patent right in question on the grounds that the registration date of the white elephant trademark is not a legitimate prior right after the patent application date. The White Elephant Company is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit. The First Intermediate people's court of Beijing revoked the invalid decision on the ground that the approval and registration date of the white elephant trademark was earlier than the authorization announcement date of the patent involved, and the white elephant trademark constituted the prior right. The Patent Reexamination Board is dissatisfied and files an appeal. The Beijing High People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the ground that the application date of the white elephant trademark was earlier than the application date of the patent involved, and the trademark application right of the white elephant trademark constituted the prior right. The Patent Reexamination Board is dissatisfied and applies for a retrial to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court has reviewed and found that the right to apply for a trademark cannot be considered as a legitimate right obtained in advance as referred to in Article 23 of the Patent Law. However, the right to apply for a trademark is of great significance in determining whether the design patent right and the registered trademark exclusive right constitute a conflict of rights. As long as the trademark application date is before the design patent application date, the exclusive right to use the registered trademark that was previously applied for can compete against the design patent right that was later applied for. After the registration of the White Elephant trademark, the implementation of the patent in question will objectively conflict with its rights. It should be determined that the exclusive right to use the White Elephant registered trademark on the earlier application date can be used to counter Chen Chaohui's design patent right, in accordance with the principle of protecting prior rights. Accordingly, the Patent Reexamination Board's application for reexamination is rejected.

[Innovative Significance] In this case, the court clarified the legal significance of the trademark application date in resolving rights conflicts. The court pointed out that as long as the trademark application date is before the patent application date and the trademark has been approved for registration and is still valid at the time of the request for invalidation of the patent, the exclusive right to use the registered trademark applied earlier can be used to oppose the design patent right applied later, and thus to determine whether it conflicts with the design patent right. This case has made a certain degree of breakthrough in the application of Article 23 of the Patent Law to determine whether the exclusive right to a registered trademark constitutes a legitimate prior right, which requires the approval registration date as the time node. It has a certain guiding value for the trial of cases involving rights conflicts.

2. Administrative dispute on invalidation of invention patent right between (Switzerland) Elikon Asia Co., Ltd. and Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration of the China, Liu Xiayang, etc. [Administrative Judgment of the Supreme People's Court (2014) KTZ No. 11, 12, 13]

[Summary of Case] Ericon Company is the holder of the invention patent titled "Bracket for Horizontal Transmission of Motor Vehicles in Automatic Mechanical Parking Lot" (i.e. the patent in this case). The patent in this case has 15 claims, Among them, independent claim 1 is: "A bracket that walks on its own on the wheel (3),... one part also has a pair of devices (58), which can symmetrically move perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bracket and be constructed to support, center, stop moving, and lift two wheels of one axle of the motor vehicle, while the other part has a pair of devices (59), and the device (59) Two wheels that can move symmetrically perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the bracket and are constructed to support, center, stop moving, and lift the second axis of the motor vehicle For this patent, Liu Xiayang and Yifeng have made invalid requests for three times. One of the reasons is that claims 1-15 lack necessary technical features and are not in conformity with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The Patent Reexamination Board has decided to determine that claim 1 and related dependent claims lack necessary technical features and declare them invalid, but at the same time, it has determined that the technical solution of claim 4 and its dependent claims complies with the provisions of Article 26 (4) of the Patent Law. Elecon Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit. The First Intermediate people's court of Beijing Municipality and the Beijing High People's Court successively rejected their claims and appeals. Elicon Company is dissatisfied and applies for a retrial to the Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People's Court brought up the case and held that an independent claim lacks the necessary technical features and is not in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Article Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, and generally cannot be supported by the description, and is not in conformity with Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law. The invalid decision is based on the determination that the claim lacks necessary technical features and is supported by the specification, resulting in a legal error. Based on this judgment, the examination decision and first and second instance judgments of the Patent Reexamination Board shall be revoked, and the Patent Reexamination Board shall be ordered to make a new examination decision.

[Innovative significance] This case has made a more in-depth and comprehensive exposition on the issue of "necessary technical features" in Paragraph 2 of Article Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, especially on how to understand the relationship between "lack of necessary technical features" and "whether the claims are based on the description", which has certain guiding significance for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The court pointed out that Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law and Paragraph 2 of Rule Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law both involve the correspondence between the claims and the description, but compared with Paragraph 2 of Rule Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law has a broader scope of application, which applies to both independent claims and dependent claims, It also applies to situations where the technical features recorded in the claims are too broad to be supported by the specification, as well as situations where the necessary technical features are missing, resulting in the overall inability of the claims to be supported by the specification. Therefore, in the case that the independent claim lacks necessary technical features and is not in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Article Twenty-One Demands of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, it cannot generally be supported by the description and is not in conformity with Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law.

3. Application for retrial of the dispute between Sun Junyi and Zheng Ning over infringement of utility model patent rights [Supreme People's Court (2014) Minshenzi No. 1036 Civil Ruling]

Summary of Case: Sun Junyi is the holder of a utility model patent named "Anti adhesion Automatic Exhaust Valve" (hereinafter referred to as the patent in question). On June 28, 2013, Changchun Kuancheng Boiler Exhaust Valve Factory issued a notice letter to individual business owner Zheng Ning, stating that the "Shengyi" brand fully automatic exhaust valve sold by Zheng Ning infringed on the patent right of its "Zhongquan" brand exhaust valve (patent number ZL200320112523.2, patent holder Sun Junyi), with the seal of "Changchun Kuancheng Boiler Exhaust Valve Factory Anti Counterfeiting Office" and the seal of the patent holder Sun Junyi attached at the signature, along with the communication address Postal code, contact person, and phone number. In July 2013, Sun Junyi purchased the sued "Shengyi" brand exhaust valve from Zheng Ning and filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Zheng Ning had infringed on his utility model patent rights. The Intermediate people's court of Shenyang City, Liaoning Province held in the first instance that the technical features of the sued infringing products were equivalent to the technical solution of the patent in this case, and fell within the protection scope of the patent in this case. The notification letter sent by Sun Junyi to Zheng Ning did not include the patent certificate and other necessary documents, which was not enough to make Zheng Ning realize that the products he sold were infringing. Considering that Zheng Ning, as a seller, has provided a legitimate source of infringing products and is subjectively innocent, he can be exempted from compensation liability in accordance with the law. According to this judgment, Sun Junyi's lawsuit request was rejected. Sun Junyi was dissatisfied and appealed. The second instance decision of the High people's court of Liaoning Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Sun Junyi refused and applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court ordered the High people's court of Liaoning Province to retry the case on December 13, 2014. The Supreme People's Court holds that a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the facts of the case to determine whether the seller is aware that they are selling patent infringing products. If the seller has previously sold a patented product, or if the price of the accused infringing product is unreasonably lower than the market price of the patented product, it can be used as the factual basis for determining that the seller knows that they are selling a patented infringing product. If none of the above situations exist and only the right holder has issued an infringement warning letter to the seller, further examination of the specific content of the warning letter is necessary. If the warning letter records or contains the basic information of the patent right (patent number, patent name, copy of patent certificate, etc.) and the accused infringing product, infringement comparison results, and contact information, etc., and the seller has also received the warning letter, in principle, it should be presumed that they know that they are selling the patented infringing product.

[Innovative Significance] In order to maintain normal market operation order and encourage the crackdown on the source of infringement, Article 70 of the Patent Law provides for the seller's legitimate source defense, that is, in the case where the seller of the infringing product has no subjective fault and can provide the legitimate source of the product, compensation liability can be exempted. However, in judicial practice, there are difficulties in determining whether the seller has subjective fault. The widespread use of infringement warning letters in patent infringement disputes provides a new solution to the dilemma of determining the subjective fault of sellers. In this case, based on the fact that the right holder has already issued a clear infringement warning letter to the seller, which records the basic information of the involved patent and the accused infringing product, infringement comparison results, and contact information, and the seller has actually received the warning letter, it is presumed that the seller knows that the product they are selling is a patent infringing product. The trial of this case has standardized the standards for proving the subjective fault of the seller by the rights holder, and also provided judicial guidance for the people's court to review and judge the evidence of the seller's subjective fault.

4. Apple and the Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration of the China rejected the appeal of administrative dispute over reexamination of design patent applications [Beijing High People's Court (2014) Gao Xing (Zhi) Zhong Zi No. 2815 Administrative Judgment]

[Summary of Case] On July 26, 2010, Apple filed an application for a design patent with the China National Intellectual Property Administration of the China entitled "Portable display device (with graphical user interface)" (hereinafter referred to as the application involved). The original examination department of the China National Intellectual Property Administration rejected the application on the ground that it was "the pattern displayed after the product was powered on" as specified in the Patent Examination Guide, and it did not belong to the object for which the design patent right was granted. Apple is not satisfied and has submitted a request for reexamination to the Patent Reexamination Board. The Patent Reexamination Board upheld the rejection decision. Apple is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit. The First Intermediate people's court of Beijing held that, although the application involved in the case also includes the graphical user interface that can be displayed only when the product is powered on, it is still the design of the portable display device in terms of the overall appearance of the product, can also meet the requirements of the design patent in terms of industrial application and aesthetic feeling, and can become the object of protection of the design patent right in China. Based on this judgment, the Patent Reexamination Board's reexamination decision was revoked. The Patent Reexamination Board was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The second instance judgment of the Beijing High People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Innovative Significance] This case is a patent authorization administrative case involving whether a new type of object, the graphical user interface, can be used as the object of a design patent application. In this case, the court clarified the legal basis for a graphical user interface to become the authorized object of a design, as well as the conditions that need to be met for such a design application. The court pointed out that although the "Patent Examination Guidelines" stipulate that "the pattern displayed after the product is powered on belongs to the situation where the design patent right is not granted", whether the graphical user interface can be the protected object of the design patent should still be based on the provisions of Article 2 (4) of the Patent Law. When filing a design patent application using a graphical user interface, in order to accurately determine the content of the design, the applicant should indicate in appropriate ways in pictures, photos, or brief explanations which parts belong to patterns that can only be displayed after being powered on. This case further clarifies the trial approach for future administrative cases related to graphical user interface authorization and patent confirmation.

5. The appeal case of Huaihua Zhengzheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Hunan Fangsheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. confirming the non infringement of patent rights [Hunan High people's court (2014) XGFMSZZ No. 51 civil judgment]

[Abstract] Huaihua Qiaoji Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qiaoji) filed an application for an invention patent named "a drug Jingangteng pellets and its preparation method" with the China National Intellectual Property Administration on July 1, 2005, and was authorized on June 17, 2009, with the patent number ZL200510080293. X. Hunan Fangsheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fangsheng Company) submitted a new drug application to the Hunan Provincial Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as Hunan Provincial Drug Administration) for the tablet drug named "Jingangteng Dispersible Tablets". The Hunan Provincial Drug Administration accepted the application on October 19, 2005. On December 25, 2008, the Drug Evaluation Center of the State Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Evaluation Center) sent a letter to Fangsheng, saying that during the registration process of the company's "Jingangteng dispersible tablets", the company just reported to the Evaluation Center that the declared drug involved patent issues. The evaluation center notified Fangsheng Company to provide a response opinion on this matter. On January 9, 2009, Fangsheng Company issued a response to the above questions to the evaluation center, stating that the drug registration application for "Jingangteng Dispersible Tablets" did not conflict with the patent rights of Qiqiong Company. On September 13, 2011, Fangsheng Company sent a letter to Qiaoqi Company, urging it to exercise its right of appeal or withdraw its objection from the State Administration for Drug Administration. Later, the pharmaceutical company neither filed a lawsuit nor withdrew its objection. Fangsheng Company filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate people's court of Changsha City, Hunan Province to confirm that the patent right was not infringed. The first instance court ruled to confirm that Fangsheng Company's "Jingangteng Dispersible Tablets" did not infringe on Qiaoqi Company's patent rights. Coincidentally, the company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The second instance judgment of the High people's court of Hunan Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

The issuance of an infringement warning letter by the right holder is one of the behavioral requirements for confirming the establishment of a non infringement lawsuit. In judicial practice, warning letters in the form of Demand letter are usually sent to producers and operators suspected of infringement. The significance of this case lies in expanding the form and scope of the infringement warning letter, that is, the infringement warning in this case is reflected in the right objection raised by the company to the relevant national departments in response to Fangsheng Company's new drug application. Although it is different from the infringement warning relationship directly established between the rights holder and the suspected infringer, the objection raised by the company has directly affected the production and operation activities of Fangsheng Company, thus essentially playing the same role and consequences as sending a warning letter directly to Fangsheng Company. Considering that more and more parties have resorted to legal forms in market operations, The act of delaying or interfering with the normal production and business activities of others, from the perspective of stabilizing legal relations and restoring market order as soon as possible, the court's flexible handling and interpretation of the form and object of the infringement warning letter in this case is in line with the legislative essence of confirming non infringement litigation in the legal setting.

6. Dongyang Shangjiang Ham Factory and Zhejiang Xuefang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. appeal case of trademark infringement dispute [Zhejiang High people's court (2013) Zhejiang Zhizhong Zi No. 301 Civil Judgment]

[Summary] The "Xuefang Jiang" ham was originally produced in the Ming Dynasty and is a China Time-honored Brand in China. Dongyang Shangjiang Ham Factory (hereinafter referred to as Shangjiang Ham Factory) is the obligee of the trademark "Xuefangjiang". In 2007, Zhejiang Xuefang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xuefang Industry and Trade Company) obtained the exclusive license to use the trademark, with a license period ending in 2028. Xuefang Industry and Trade Company paid license fees of 360000 yuan each in 2007 and 2009. On November 2, 2011, Shangjiang Ham Factory requested the termination of the contract on the grounds that Xuefang Industry and Trade Company had overdue payment of the license fee. Xuefang Industry and Trade Company remitted 360000 yuan in licensing fees to Shangjiang Ham Factory the next day. Afterwards, Shangjiang Ham Factory purchased ham with both the "Xuefangjiang" and "Wuning Mansion" trademarks at the "Xuefangjiang" store multiple times. Shangjiang Ham Factory filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate people's court of Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province on the ground that Xuefang Industry and Trade Company infringed its trademark right of "Xuefang Jiang". The first instance court determined that the actions of Xuefang Industry and Trade Company constituted trademark infringement, and therefore ordered it to stop using the "Xuefang Jiang" trademark and compensate 180000 yuan for economic losses. Shangjiang Ham Factory and Xuefang Industry and Trade Company refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed to the High people's court of Zhejiang Province. The second instance court held that the breach of contract by Xuefang Industry and Trade Company was minor, and Shangjiang Ham Factory did not fulfill its contractual obligations and had no right to unilaterally terminate the contract. However, the simultaneous use of the "Wuning Mansion" and "Xuefang Jiang" trademarks by Xuefang Industry and Trade Company on ham products constitutes trademark infringement. Therefore, the verdict was changed to immediately cease the use of the "Snow Boat Jiang" and "Wu Ning Fu" series trademarks on ham products by Snow Boat Industry and Trade Company, and to compensate 150000 yuan for economic losses.

[Innovative significance] There is no clear legal basis in trademark law whether the act of simultaneously labeling the licensed trademark and the user's own trademark on the same product constitutes infringement. In this case, the court starts from the openness of the expression of "other damages" as stipulated in Article 52 of the Trademark Law, combined with the original meaning that the purpose of the trademark licensing system is still to ensure the uniqueness of the source of the goods, considering the popularity of the licensed trademark, and from the perspective of the objective consequence that Xuefang Industry and Trade Company's simultaneous use of two trademarks will lead to the occurrence of two sources of the same goods, It is appropriate to infer that consumers will recognize the identity of the origin relationship between the "Xuefangjiang" and "Wuningfu" trademarks, thereby affecting the normal functioning of the "Xuefangjiang" trademark identification function, and draw a conclusion that constitutes trademark infringement. In addition, the second instance court also emphasized the continued impact of this use behavior on the end of the trademark licensing relationship, that is, it will cause Xuefang Industry and Trade Company's own and unknown "Wuning Mansion" trademark to obtain and attach to the already well-known "Xuefang Jiang" trademark goodwill in a disguised form. The trial of this case has reference value in regulating the relationship between trademark licensing and clarifying the boundary between licensed use and infringement.

7. The appeal case of Shenzhen Monpin Little Sheep Group Catering Chain Management Co., Ltd. and Inner Mongolia Little Sheep Group Catering Chain Co., Ltd. for infringement of trademark rights and Unfair competition [Guangdong High people's court (2014) YGFMSZZ No. 27 Civil Judgment]

[Abstract] Little Sheep Group Catering Chain Co., Ltd. of Inner Mongolia (hereinafter referred to as Little Sheep Group Company) was established on September 13, 1999. It owns the trademark "Little Sheep Group" (No. 3043421, 3092512, 3420327, 3878260, 4098504) in words or pictures, which is approved to be used in the service of restaurants, restaurants (museums) and other services of category 43. The trademark 3043421 was recognized as a well-known trademark in restaurants and hotel services on November 12, 2004. Shenzhen Mongpin Little Sheep Group Catering Chain Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mongpin) uses the logo of "Yipin Little Sheep Group" on the store signboard, the waiter's badge and the order menu; "Little Sheep Group on Monday" and other signs are used on the store signs; Use the commercial logo containing "Little Sheep Group" on tableware and hot pot Induction cooking; At the same time, on the website with the domain name of www.zypxfy.com, in addition to the use of the above logo, it is also noted that the copyright is owned by Shenzhen Yipin Little Sheep Group Catering Chain Group,... the official website of Yipin Little Sheep Group. The website provides the registration form of "Yipin Little Sheep Group Catering Chain" and introduces the franchise procedures of "Yipin Little Sheep Group" franchise chain. Little Sheep Group Company filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate people's court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, on the grounds that the above-mentioned acts of Mongpin Company constituted infringement of trademark rights and Unfair competition. The court of first instance found that the right of first use claim of Mongpin Company could not be established, and the commercial logo and enterprise name used by Mongpin Company infringed the exclusive right of registered trademark and enterprise name of Little Sheep Group Company. Therefore, Mongpin Company immediately stopped the infringement and compensated Little Sheep Group Company with 900000 yuan of economic losses and 100000 yuan of reasonable expenses. Monday's product company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The second instance judgment of the High people's court of Guangdong Province rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Innovative Significance] The revised Article 59, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law has added provisions on the right of first use of trademarks, which to some extent confirms the legal status and corresponding rights and interests of unregistered trademarks that were previously used, and also balances the interests between registered trademark owners and those who previously used unregistered trademarks. In the legislative context of the amendment of the Trademark Law, this case explores the application of rules regarding the right of first use of trademarks, especially the definition of the "original scope" in the defense of the right of first use of trademarks, which has not yet been determined in theory and judicial practice. Based on this, it further explains the ranking relationship and balance of interests between the system of first use rights and the registered trademark system, We have actively and beneficially explored the trial of cases involving the defense of prior use rights after the implementation of the new trademark law.

8. The appeal case of the dispute between Hangzhou Polymerization Network Technology Co., Ltd., China Mobile Group Zhejiang Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Rongchuang Information Industry Co., Ltd. over infringement of computer software copyright [Zhejiang High people's court (2013) Zhejiang Zhizhong Zi No. 289 Civil Judgment]

Summary of Case: The Zhejiang Provincial Health Information Center (hereinafter referred to as the Information Center), on behalf of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the Department of Health), is leading the construction of the Zhejiang Provincial Hospital Appointment Diagnosis and Treatment Service System. The system software is managed by China Mobile Communications Group Zhejiang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhejiang Mobile Company) and implemented by its wholly-owned subsidiary Zhejiang Rongchuang Information Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rongchuang Company), Rongchuang Company entrusts Hangzhou Juju Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Juju Company) to carry out software development. In September 2010, the system software developed by Aggregation Company was launched for trial operation. At the end of September 2011, due to a dispute over the cooperation between Aggregation Company, Zhejiang Mobile Company, and Rongchuang Company, the software developed by Aggregation Company was discontinued after October 9, 2011. Rongchuang Company has redeveloped the system software using part of the source code of the software developed by Aggregation Company. Aggregation Company filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate people's court of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province on the grounds that Zhejiang Mobile, Rongchuang, the Department of Health and the Information Center copied, plagiarized and used the software involved without their permission, and infringed their software copyright. The first instance court held that the copyright of the software in question is owned by Aggregation Company, but Rongchuang Company, as the commissioning party, has the right to use the work for free within the specific purpose of the commissioned creation. Therefore, the judgment rejected the lawsuit request of the Aggregation Company. The polymerization company refused and appealed to the High people's court of Zhejiang Province. The court of second instance held that Zhejiang Mobile Company and Rongchuang Company can only continue to use within the original purpose of the commissioned creation, but cannot utilize the software works that Aggregation Company enjoys copyright as technical achievements. The behavior of Rongchuang Company constitutes infringement, but due to the public welfare nature of the software involved, it is not appropriate to stop using it. The first instance judgment was revoked, and Zhejiang Mobile Company and Rongchuang Company jointly compensated Juju Company with 200000 yuan.

[Innovative Significance] This case takes the perspective of software copyright cases, interpreting and clarifying the scope of rights between the principal and the trustee in the commissioned creative contract relationship. The court pointed out that in the case where the copyright belongs to the trustee, if both parties have not agreed on the scope of use of the work, the principal can use the software work for free within the specific purpose of the commissioned creation. However, based on the particularity of the software work, the specific usage method of the client should only include necessary modifications made through the normal use of various functions of the software through the software client and improvements based on the usage environment, function, and purpose. However, the principal cannot utilize the software work as a technical achievement. If the principal modifies the program source code to redevelop and utilize the software, it will directly infringe on the copyright of the principal. The trial of this case has certain reference significance for reasonably dividing the rights and obligations of the principal and trustee in software copyright cases, as well as clarifying the standards for determining infringement behavior.

9. McGregor Kunci (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. v. Xia Mou and Suzhou Ruitai Nu metal Co., Ltd. on the appeal of infringement of technical secrets [Jiangsu High People's Court (2013) Su Zhimin Zhong Zi No. 159 Civil Judgment]

[Summary of Case] McGonagall Magnet International Company (hereinafter referred to as McGonagall Magnet Company) mastered two key technologies for the production of neodymium iron boron magnetic powder using the rapid quenching method - the throwing pulley technology and the nozzle technology. Later, McGonagall Magnet (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as McGonagall Magnet Tianjin Company) was authorized to use the aforementioned technology through ordinary licensing, and it was authorized to sue in its own name. Suzhou Ruitai Nu metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ruitai Company) is also engaged in the production and sales of the same magnetic powder. Mr. Zhang and Mr. Xia are the founders of the company. Among them, Zhang used to be an employee of McGonagall Magnetic Company and McGonagall Magnetic Tianjin Company, mastering the technology of the throwing pulley and nozzle involved in the case; Xia is a supplier of production equipment for Ruitai Company. In June 2009, McGonagall Magnetic Company reported to the public security organs on the grounds that Ruitai Company and Zhang had infringed on their trade secrets. During the investigation, the public security organs questioned Xia, seized the production equipment of Ruitai Company, retrieved processing and manufacturing drawings, and submitted the corresponding materials to the appraisal agency for appraisal. After appraisal, it was found that the relevant technical information claimed by McGonagall Magnetic Company is not known to the public. The corresponding technical information in the production equipment of Ruitai Company is essentially the same as the technical information claimed by McGonagall Magnetic Company. Currently, the criminal case has not been resolved. McGregor Kunci Tianjin filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate people's court of Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, on the basis of the main evidence formed during the investigation of the public security organ and the infringement of its technical secrets by Xiamou and Ruitai. The first instance court held that the actions of Xia and Ruitai Company infringed on the trade secrets of McGonagall Tianjin Company, and ruled that Xia and Ruitai Company immediately ceased the infringement and jointly compensated McGonagall Tianjin Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling over 11.5 million yuan. Xia Mou and Ruitai Company refused and appealed to Jiangsu High People's Court. The second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Innovative significance] This case is a commercial secret infringement case that intersects civil and criminal law. The differences in evidence rules and standards of proof in civil criminal intellectual property cases have always troubled the trial of such cases. The court's handling of several controversial issues in this case, as well as the relevant trial ideas, have a strong reference and demonstration effect for the trial of similar cases: for the flaws in the identification procedure in the Criminal investigation stage, the court adopted the way of supplementary investigation and questioning the identification experts, overcoming the obstacles in the identification of technical facts; Regarding the relationship between civil tort liability and criminal liability, the court clearly pointed out that due to differences in proof standards, judicial determination of civil tort does not necessarily serve as the basis for conviction and sentencing in criminal cases.

10. Chang Chun-hsiung's Crime of Infringement of Copyright [Shanghai Putuo District People's Court (2013) PX (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 11 Criminal Judgment]

【 Summary 】 At the end of 2009, the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung set up the website www.1000ys.cc (the website name is "1000 Movie"). Later, Chang Chun-hsiung, without the permission of the copyright owner, linked to Haku Resources Network through the website management background to obtain the Torrent file index address of film and television works, and provided website users with network services to browse and watch film and television works by providing users with and forcing the use of QVOD playing software. In order to improve the popularity of the website and the number of hits of the linked film and television works, the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung recommended film and television works to users by setting up directories, indexes, content profiles, ranking lists, etc. At the same time, the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung joined the "Baidu Advertising Alliance" and obtained advertising revenue. After identification, 941 of the film and television works linked to the website have the same content as the copyrighted film and television works certified by relevant copyright agencies in China, the United States, South Korea, Japan, and other countries. The People's Court of Putuo District, Shanghai, after hearing the case, held that the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung distributed 941 film and television works (to the public through the information network) for the purpose of making profits, without the permission of the copyright owner. The circumstances were serious, and his act constituted a crime of copyright infringement. According to law, the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung was sentenced to commit a crime of copyright infringement, and was sentenced to one year and three months of fixed-term imprisonment, one year and three months of probation, and a fine of 30000 yuan; The illegal gains shall be recovered in accordance with the law; The tools of crime seized in the case shall be confiscated in accordance with the law. After the judgment, the defendant Chang Chun-hsiung did not file an appeal, and the public prosecution organ did not file a protest. The judgment has become legally effective.

The defendant in this case did not engage in the act of providing works, but rather in the act of providing online services. In current criminal justice practice, whether it is necessary or not to elevate such assisted indirect infringement behavior to a criminal offense, that is, whether the act of "spreading information to the public through the internet" in judicial interpretation includes the provision of online services; If convicted, the network service provider should be identified as a principal offender or an accomplice; There are still controversies in judicial practice regarding how to master the examination standards for the constituent elements of a crime such as "without the permission of the copyright owner", and how to handle the evidence recognition and proof standards for the connection between civil and criminal law, if it is a principal offender. This case focuses on the new type of crime of providing online services, and conducts in-depth research and exploration from the perspectives of the path of incrimination, the examination of criminal constituent elements, and the standards of evidence examination, which has certain innovative significance.