I.Civil Intellectual Property Cases

（I）Patent Cases

1.In the case of application for retrial of patent infringement dispute between Strix Limited and Ningbo Shenglida Electric Manufacturing Co.，Ltd.，Jian-Mart Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2007）MSJZ No.51-1 Notification on rejection of the retrial application held that，the application of unconfined public technique defense relies on identicalness or equivalence between all the technical characteristics of accused infringing products that fall into the scope of patent right protection and the relevant technical characteristics of other prior technical solutions that open to the public，and the application of unconfined public technique defense shall not be denied due to the identicalness between the accused infringing product and the patent of the patentee.

2.In the case tried by the High People's Court of Liaoning Province on the patent infringement of Chaoyang Xingnuo Company about its implementation of patent included in the industry standard Design Code for Composite Ram-compaction Consolidate Piles issued by the Ministry of Construction in the process of design and construction，the SPC（2008）MSTZ No.4 Response held that，considering that currently there is no public disclosure and usage regulations on patents included in the standards established by the standard formulation institution in our country，if the patentee participated into the establishment of standards or agreed to incorporate the patent into national，industrial or local standards，it shall be held that the patentee allowed other to use the patent during the implementation of standards，and the relevant implementation behavior does not constitute infringement of patent rights as stipulated in Article 11of the Patent Law；the patentee may charge the implementation party with certain fee，but the amount shall be obviously lower than normal licensing fee；if the patentee promised to waive the licensing fee，the issue shall be handled in accordance with such promise.

3.In the case of application for retrial，Zhejiang Hangzhou Xinfu Pharmacy Co，Ltd.v.Shandong Xinfa Co.，Ltd.and Shanghai Aixiti International Trade Co.，Ltd.，over the patent royalty during temporary protection period of invention patent and objection on jurisdiction of infringement of invention patent dispute，the SPC（2008）MSZ No.81 Civil Ruling explicated the jurisdiction determination principle on royalty dispute during temporary protection period of invention patent.The SPC held that，although the dispute over royalty during temporary protection period of invention patent do not pertain to normal patent infringement disputes，but in essence it's a kind of patent infringement dispute，and the jurisdiction of royalty dispute during temporary period of invention patent shall be determined in accordance with jurisdiction determination principle related to infringement litigation stipulated in Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law.In its nature，royalty disputes during temporary protection period of invention patent are similar to patent infringement disputes.Therefore，its jurisdiction can be determined by referring to the jurisdiction regulations on patent infringement disputes before particular regulations on the jurisdiction of this kind of cases are provided by law or juridical interpretation.For implementation behavior accused of infringement spanning the date of authorization proclamation of invention patent，the behavior features continuity and consistency，and for the purpose of facilitating involved parties prosecution，the patentee shall be allowed to claim for the royalty during the temporary protection period and protection of patent rights at the same time.

4.In the appeal case of utility model infringement，Lanxing Chemical New Material Co.，Ltd.，Jiangxi Xinghuo Organic Silicon Factory v.Shandong Dongyue Organic Silicon Material Co.，Ltd.，Shandong Dongyue Fluorine-silicon Material Co.，Ltd.，and Beijing Petrochemical Designing Institute Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2008）MSZZ No.7 Civil Ruling held that，as the precondition of proceedings of a case，the appellate court should have jurisdiction over the case.When there is conflict in determining the subject of litigation and the jurisdiction，the appellate court shall give ruling on jurisdiction in the first place.

5.In the case of application for retrial of the dispute over the objection on jurisdiction of patent infringement，Cai Langchun v.Foshan Shiwan Yingpai Ceramics Co，Ltd.，Jiangmen Xinli Plastics Co.，and Zhu Genliang，the SPC（2008）MSZ No.19 Civil Ruling held that，since Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court had tried several infringement cases filed by the retrial applicant on the patent right，and this case does not pertain to significant cases in Zhejiang province，to facilitate the proceeding of this case，the people's court may transfer the first instance civil case under the jurisdiction of the court to a people's court at lower level in accordance with the provision of Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Law.[2]

（II）Copyright Cases

6.In the case of application for retrial of copyright infringement dispute，Guangdong Dasheng Culture Communication Co.，Ltd.v.Hong Ruding，Han Wei，Guangzhou Audio&Video Publishing House，Chongqing Sanxia Compact Disc Development Co.，Ltd，Liansheng Commercial Chain Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2008）MTZ No.51 Civil Ruling clarified the issue on application scope of Article 39.3 and Article 41.2 of the Copyright Law.Article 39.3 of the Copyright Law establishes the statutory licensing regulations on the restrictions to the copyright owner of musical compositions，that is，‘producer of phonogram may produce phonogram by using that phonogram lawfully recorded by others without licensing from the copyright owner，but shall pay remuneration as stipulated’.Although it is specified that one may produce phonogram by using phonogram lawfully recorded by others without licensing from the copyright owner，but the intention is to facilitate and promote the propagation of musical compositions.For replication and publication of phonogram produced by using this kind of musical compositions，the stipulation on statutory licensing in Article 39.3 of the Copyright Law shall apply as well.That is，once the phonogram of musical compositions produced with copyright owner's permission is open to the public，the stipulation of Article 41.2‘Permission of copyright owner’shall be not applicable to production，replication and publication of phonogram by using the musical compositions by others.

7.In the case of application for retrial of the dispute over infringement of right of dissemination via information networks，NuCom Online International Co.，Ltd.，v.Zigong Branch of China Network Communications Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2008）MSZ No.926 Civil Ruling held that，with regard to the notarial evidence provided by the parties involved，the people's court may examine the notarial certified network information to see whether it's from Internet or local computer based on the specific network environment and network evidence when necessary，and determine whether it can be used as the basis of verdict.Considering that it is technically possible to set up a target webpage on local computer in advance，and the virtual target webpage can coexist with other real Internet webpage at the same time when the computer accesses Internet，under the circumstance that notarization happened outside the notary office，the computer and removable hard disk for notarization were not under the control of notary before the notarization，and the notarized certificate did not specify whether cleanness check was performed on the computer and removable hard disk，the SPC holds that although this kind of notarized certificate may prove the behavior of recording the notarized certificate before the notary，it is inadequate to prove that the behavior happened in the internet.This case is not only of guidance significance for the people's court to examine the network related notarized evidence，but also can facilitate the regulation on network related notarization behavior.

8.In the case of application for retrial of copyright infringement，Futabasha Publishers Ltd.v.Shanghai Enjia Economic&Trade Development Co.，Ltd.，GuangdongChengyiGlassesCo.，Ltd.，XiangshuiCountyShifuEconomic Development Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2007）MSJZ No.14-1 Civil Ruling held that，Futabasha's accusation not only claimed that respondents，Chengyi Company and Shifu Company，illegally used‘Nowara Shnnosuke’works of art whose copyright is owned by Futabasha in the trademarks registered and held by the respondents，but also claimed that Enjia Company illegally used Futabasha's works of art for product distribution and promotion without permission；Futabasha's accusation about the actual use in product distribution and promotion pertains to the scope of civil rights and interests disputes，and the people's court shall accept this case under the circumstance that it conforms with the provisions of Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law.

9.In the appeal case of copyright infringement，China Federation of Literary and Art Circles Publishing House，Tianjin Tianbao Culture Development Co.，Ltd.，Tianjin Tianbao Compact Disk Co.，Ltd.，the appellants，v.Guangdong Changjin Audio&Video Co.，Ltd.，the appellee and Hebei Clapper Opera Theater，the defendant of the first trial，the SPC（2008）MSZZ No.5 Civil Ruling held that：first，for the performance of the whole drama，considering the preparation，organization，and rehearsal are managed by the performing entities like theater or opera troupe，the cost of performing is assumed by the performing entity，and the performance reflects the will of the performing entity，thus the performing entity is the performer in the sense of the Copyright Law；second，the‘right of video producer’the video producer entitled to is different from the‘right of exclusive publication and distribution of video product of relevant plays’authorized by the performer and relevant copyright owner.The former refers to the right of replication，distribution，leasing，and information spreading via network of the video products recorded by itself，while the latter similar to the exclusive publishing right，which prohibits others from publication，distribution of video products of plays performed by the same performer without permission，and it is not limited to a certain performance or a certain recorded version.

10.In the case of the dispute over infringement of performer's right，Sun Nan v.Beijing Jinshi Compact Disk Co.，Ltd.，Zibo Yinzuo Shopping Mall Co.，Ltd.，Jiangxi Audio&Video Publishing House，the SPC brought the case to trial under（2008）MSZ No.804 Civil Ruling，although the case was brought to closure with the withdrawal application granted under（2008）MTZ No.55 Civil Ruling due to the application withdrawal by the parties involved，the cognition about the burden of proof of parties involved and the determination standards for relevant evidence was unified through the hearing of the case.With respect to the determination of the performer's identity，considering that cover and core of compact disks involved in this case were labelled with characters of‘Sun Nan Eye to Eye’and‘Sun Nan：Latest Album’，printed with pictures of Sun Nan，and Sun Nan confirmed the fact that he performed relevant tracks，as there is no opposite evidence to overthrow that fact，it can be determined that Sun Nan is the performer of relevant tracks.With respect to determination of infringer's identity，first，Jinshi Company denied the replication and publication of the compact disks involved，but the compact disks were etched with the company's production source identification number（SID）；second，the company admitted that the relevant letter of replication authorization it submitted to the court was forged，but did not state who forged it，nor give reasonable explanation on the consistency between the publication number，publication date，relevant text shown on the compact disks involved and the content of another legally signed letter of replication authorization；third，Jiangxi Audio&Video Publishing House also argued that Jinshi Company once used the Publishing House's publication number without authorization.Based on the aforementioned relevant evidences，it can be determined that the compact disks involved in this case were replicated and published by Jinshi Company.

11.In the case of application for retrial of the publication contract，Wang Zhirong v.Hunan University，the SPC（2008）MSZ No.823 Civil Ruling held that，the major legal issue of the case is that whether Article 16 of the Regulations on Remuneration for Publication of Written Works formulated by the National Copyright Administration is applicable.The SPC held that，considering the legal basis of that Article—Article 40 of the Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law before amendment was deleted in the amendment on September 15,2002，although there is no adjustment on Article 16 of the Regulations on Remuneration for Publication of Written Works，that Article shall not be applicable to this case due to its inconformity with the purpose of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China currently in effect.

12.In the case of application for retrial of the copyright infringement，Zhang Peilian v.Sichuan Science&Technology Press，the SPC（2008）MJZ No.126 Civil Ruling clarified that，if the books that were judged to have constituted infringement by the effective ruling and for which adequate compensation has been made to the right owner are further published after the ruling came into effect，it shall be an issue involving enforcement of original ruling，and shall not constitute new infringement.

（III）Trademark Cases

13.In the case of consultation about infringement of trade mark and unfair competition，Shenzhen Yuanhang Technology Co.，Ltd.v.Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co.，Ltd.，Tencent Technology（Shenzhen）Co.，Ltd.，Xi'an Branch of Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2008）MSTZ No.12 Response held that，with regard to the conventional name of poker games in certain region，if the parties involved did not use it as trademark for the purpose of identifying product or service source，but as a game name to reflect the content and characteristics of that kind of game，it can be recognized as fair use.Whether or not it pertains to aforementioned circumstances shall be determined depending on the specific circumstance of the case according to the provisions of Article 49 of the Implementation Regulations of the Trademark Law.

（IV）Anti-unfair Competition Cases

14.In the case of application for retrial of trademark infringement and unfair competition，Guandong Welsun Group Co.，Ltd.，Foshan Gaoming Genuin Electric Industry Co.，Ltd.，Guangdong Genuin Electric Co.，Ltd.v.Foshan Shunde Genuin Electric Co.，Ltd.，Foshan Shunde Guangda Enterprise Group Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2005）MSJZ No.15-1 Civil Ruling held that，company names under the protection of the Anti-unfair Competition Law，especially the designation，are different from the personal right in general sense，which can be inherited as business marks to distinguish different market entities.The ruling also clarified that，with regard to registration and use of text same as that of other's registered trademarks in the designation of company name to produce and operate similar products，if it is sufficient to cause confusion about the source of products in the relevant public，even though other's trademark is not deemed as well-known trademark or famous trademark，it still constitutes unfair competition.

15.In the appeal case of objection on jurisdiction about infringement of commercial secret，Avery Dennison Company，Avery（Guangzhou）Co.，Ltd.，Avery（Kunshan）Co.，Ltd，Avery（China）Co.，Ltd.v.Four Pillars Enterprise Co.，Ltd.，Four Pillars Industry（Shenzhen）Co.，Ltd.，Nanhai Lishuiyili Printing House，Business Department of Foshan Huanshi Dongsheng Fenjiang Printing House，the SPC（2007）MSZZ No.10 Civil Ruling held that，sales of infringing products produced by infringing commercial secrets shall not be the behavior of infringing commercial secrets as stipulated in Article 10 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law；usually，the place where the act of using commercial secrets is committed is the same as the place where the result of the infringing act takes place，that is，the procedure of using commercial secrets is normally the procedure of producing infringing product，when the production of infringing products finished，the infringement result of using commercial secrets arises at the same time，and it's appropriate to take the sales place of infringing product as the consequence arising place of infringement of using commercial secrets.

（V）Technology Contract Cases

16.In the case of application for retrial for objection on jurisdiction of commissioned technology development contract，Great Wall Motor Corporation Ltd.v.Kautex（Shanghai）Plastic Technology Co.，Ltd.，the SPC（2008）MSZ No.46 Civil Ruling held that，Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law specified that the court at the place of performance of the contract shall have jurisdiction over the lawsuit filed for contract dispute，but it does not give the definition of the place of performance.The Supreme People's Court Opinions on Issues Concerning Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China does not provide explanation on the place of performance regarding technology contract either，while Chapter 4 of the Contract Law stipulated the principle of determining the place of performance of the contract.Therefore，the place of performance stipulated in Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law can be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Law concerning the place of performance of the contract.