2024 年 9 月 – 第 3 页 – 上海后花园论坛-上海419论坛-夜上海论坛-阿拉爱上海

Trillions of Aerospace run out of a super unicorn

Original, Liu Bo, investment community

This is an epic journey to the sea of stars.

Author I Liu Bo

Report I Investment Community PEdaily

The future has arrived.

In December, the Central Economic Work Conference emphasized that next year will focus on promoting high-quality development and leading the construction of a modern industrial system with scientific and technological innovation. The conference pointed out that it is necessary to build a number of strategic emerging industries such as bio-manufacturing, commercial aerospace, and low-altitude economy, and open up new tracks for future industries such as quantum and life sciences.

As a strategic emerging industry, commercial aerospace is becoming increasingly important.

With MIIT’s disclosure, China will accelerate the development and innovation of 6G technology, and achieve commercial use around 2030. This also means that another new node of mobile communication is coming soon. In other words, 6G network will form a fully connected world of ground wireless and satellite communication integration. It is not difficult to find that satellites will play a key role in it, which also gives a number of commercial aerospace companies the opportunity to show their strength. Space-time Daoyu is the leader among them.

What is the origin of Spacetime Daoyu? Established in 2018, Spacetime Daoyu is a technology innovation enterprise under Geely Holding Group. After five years of completing the layout of the whole industrial chain covering satellite research and development, manufacturing, measurement and control, application, etc., Spacetime Daoyu has now become the first commercial aerospace enterprise in China to achieve a commercial closed loop, with a valuation of over 10 billion yuan, ranking among the top echelons of commercial aerospace unicorns.

There has always been a view in the VC/PE circle that the unknown space is the last new continent for mankind. In the words of investors, the Chinese who missed the "era of great navigation" must not miss the upcoming "era of great aerospace". This is a truly epic journey to the sea of stars.

After 10 years of preparation, commercial spaceflight has exploded

Charge out a super unicorn

Looking back at 2014, China’s commercial aerospace industry ushered in an important juncture –

The "Guiding Opinions on Innovating Investment and Financing Mechanisms in Key Areas to Encourage Social Investment" was issued, which clearly stated that "private capital should be encouraged to develop, launch and operate commercial remote sensing satellites, provide market-oriented and professional services; guide private capital to participate in the construction of satellite navigation ground application systems." Since then, China’s commercial aerospace has begun.

Then in 2018, Spacetime Daoyu was established. At that time, Spacetime Daoyu founder and CEO Wang Yang had anticipated that commercial aerospace would become a strategic emerging industry in the information age and an important driving force for the development of global technology and digital economy.

How is the quality of the Space-Time Daoyu team? According to reports, since 2000, there have been no more than 100 important satellite models in China, of which engineers from Space-Time Daoyu have participated in the completion of at least 50 satellites, and each person has complete experience in more than 5 national key satellite models.

But Wang Yang knows that a more important prerequisite than having a strong technical team is to choose the right direction and track. Looking at the commercial satellite industry chain, high thresholds, many links, and strong complexity are significant characteristics. Therefore, start-up companies focus on a certain sub-field, and few have the layout of the whole industry chain, until the emergence of space and time.

Space-Time Daoyu is positioned as a provider of aerospace information and communication infrastructure and application solutions, covering the entire industrial chain from satellite R & D, manufacturing to application. "To use a popular analogy, Huawei provides ground-based information and communication products (ICT), while Space-Time Daoyu provides space-based information and communication products (AICT), both of which are dedicated to technological innovation and commercial applications in the field of human information and communication."

The rapidly rising space-time universe has been recognized by the capital markets in just five years, and it is reported that the latest valuation has exceeded 10 billion yuan. There is no doubt that a commercial aerospace super unicorn is rushing all the way.

Look at the product early, look at the mass production in the long run

At present, satellite commercialization is entering the era of mass delivery.

Let’s take a look at a set of intuitive data – the Blue Book of China’s Aerospace Science and Technology Activities (2022) revealed that in 2022, China completed 64 launch missions and developed and launched 188 spacecraft. At present, there is still a big gap between the number of 2,067 spacecraft launched by the United States in the whole year.

At the same time, industry data show that 100,000 satellites are expected to be deployed in low-Earth orbit in the future, and China has 30,000-40,000 satellites. Under the influence of factors such as the timeliness limit of ITU frequency declaration, the continuous increase of domestic policy support, and the continuous decline in rocket launch costs and satellite manufacturing costs, the manufacturing and launch of low-orbit satellites in our country is expected to enter an "exponential" growth period in the next five years. However, there is still a gap of 90% in the annual production capacity of domestic micro-satellites. Obviously, satellite manufacturing has become a key link in the development of China’s satellite industry chain.

With the inclusion of satellite Internet in the "new infrastructure", satellite manufacturing has been forced to enter the "industrialization" stage. The traditional production model is difficult to meet the huge demand for capacity for rapid networking, and short-cycle, low-cost, and mass production have become the prerequisites for the industry to accelerate.

Spacetime Daoyu Satellite Super Factory Production Line

"Look at the product in the early stage, look at the mass production in the long run", this is a profound lesson left by the development path of new energy vehicles to the market. The reason is not difficult to understand: in the early days of a segment, the product concept and product positioning determine whether it can be successfully launched into the market, and when the product competition gradually intensifies, the mass production speed and mass production capacity determine whether it can solidly occupy the market.

In today’s era of intelligent travel with integrated heaven and earth, commercial satellites are no exception. The last word for success lies in mass production capabilities. However, it should be noted that commercial satellites still face multiple challenges in large-scale manufacturing, including complex technology, high cost, vertical integration of supply chains, and extremely high quality and reliability requirements.

Among them, the cost has become the first question in front of commercial aerospace companies. According to Morgan Stanley estimates, the manufacturing cost of Starlink satellites is 1 million US dollars/piece, and founder Musk has publicly disclosed that the cost of a single satellite can be reduced to 500,000 US dollars. In contrast, according to the Zhejiang Securities Research Report, the average cost of our country’s low-orbit communications satellites is about 30 million yuan, of which labor costs + manufacturing costs account for about 50%.

The "2022 China Commercial Aerospace Industry Investment Report" shows that since 2015, the number of domestic commercial aerospace enterprises that have been registered and effectively operated has reached 433. Obviously, if you want to break through, you have to master the word "cost", and low-cost satellite manufacturing is the top priority.

The key to low-cost and fast mass production lies in: first, modular design, improve versatility and reuse rate, and shorten the delivery cycle of satellites; second, industrial-grade component replacement and core component self-development can reduce satellite manufacturing costs and simplify the development process; third, flexible pulsation production, taking the production of automobiles as an example, flexible production lines can produce both small-size economy cars and large-size luxury cars. The same is true for flexible production satellites, which can enhance the batch production capacity of satellites.

At present, Spacetime Daoyu may be the industry’s breaker. Compared with OneWeb, which is located in the first echelon of the global commercial aerospace industry, it is learning from the Airbus Group’s aircraft production line and assembling production in an assembly line to reduce costs and increase efficiency. Relying on Geely, Spacetime Daoyu was born with automobile manufacturing genes and took the lead in building a satellite super factory. It is the world’s first satellite mass production factory that deeply integrates aerospace manufacturing and automobile manufacturing. Through satellite mass production and intelligent manufacturing, it can help the global constellation network quickly.

It is understood that the Spacetime Daoyu Satellite Super Factory draws on the large-scale mass production manufacturing models such as intelligence and automation in the automotive industry to realize the disruptive innovation of satellite mass production AIT. Through modular design, flexible production, intelligent manufacturing and other technologies, and the use of parallel production in assembly lines, the design and production cycle of satellites can be greatly reduced, while the manufacturing cost of satellites can be greatly reduced.

As a fruitful integration of engineering capabilities in the aerospace and automotive industries, the effect is equally obvious. At present, the factory has broken through the production capacity limit of traditional satellite manufacturing, and can achieve a satellite production cost reduction of about 45% per day, which helps the constellation rapid networking construction. At the same time, by adopting a flexible production method, the factory can flexibly meet the final assembly, integration and testing of satellites of different models and specifications such as communication, navigation, and remote sensing satellites, and meet the needs of different types of constellation rapid networking construction.

With its strong mass production and delivery capabilities, Spacetime Daoyu also successfully fired the first shot of "heaven". In April 2022, Spacetime Daoyu completed the development of the first orbital surface satellite of the low-orbit future travel constellation. And in June of that year, it was successfully launched into orbit with a single arrow of 9 stars at the Xichang Satellite Launch Center, becoming another milestone in the history of China’s commercial satellites.

It is reported that in addition to manufacturing satellites for the future travel constellation of Spacetime Daoyu, its satellite super factory is also providing satellite batch production and one-stop in-orbit delivery services for industry partners, helping to rapidly build China’s satellite constellation and accelerate the rapid development of the satellite industry chain.

Without a doubt, facing the challenge of global satellite large-scale manufacturing, Space-Time Daoyu has already broken the industry boundaries by fully borrowing from the mature mass manufacturing concept of automobiles, thus achieving cost reduction and efficiency increase, and promoting China’s satellite manufacturing into the era of industrialized large-scale production.

Here comes another trillion-dollar race track

As the upstream of the commercial aerospace industry chain, satellite manufacturing will benefit first, and the next stop will definitely return to the "commercial" essence.

According to iiMedia consulting data, since 2015, China’s commercial aerospace market has grown rapidly, with an annual growth rate of more than 20% from 2017 to 2024. At the same time, according to Tabor Think Tank, the size of China’s commercial aerospace market will reach 2.80 trillion yuan by 2025. How can start-up companies get a share of the pie?

As we all know, commercial aerospace is a hard technology. In order to survive and develop, it is necessary to break the tradition and achieve disruptive innovation. And innovation is not only technology, but also business models and mechanisms. Therefore, in addition to building business systems based on satellite constellations, there is a need for practical commercial scenarios, which must be enough to cover the huge constellation construction costs.

More generally, for commercial aerospace, if technology is the foundation, then the construction of the industrial chain and the construction of the business ecosystem are the driving force for the development of the industry. Only when technology and business "walk on two legs" can enterprises go further.

Wang Yang has previously mentioned that the market-oriented mechanism has put forward higher requirements for private commercial aerospace, not only to achieve technological innovation, but also to make aerospace technology serve human production and life, and promote the economic development of human society. "Policies, market demand and other favorable factors are promoting our country’s commercial aerospace from manufacturing-driven to an era of comprehensive application traction."

Looking back at the history of commercial aerospace development, there are many losers. For example, Motorola’s Iridium plan, which lacks a correct judgment of the development potential of mobile communications, has suffered bankruptcy. In addition to Iridium, OneWeb also filed for bankruptcy in 2020 due to the impact of the epidemic on the normal operation of the company, unable to obtain financing. The reason is that due to the lack of large-scale commercial application scenarios, it is difficult to support its huge constellation construction and operating costs.

Because of this, what the Spacetime Daoyu team is doing is a commercial practice, not a scientific engineering experiment. What they want to do is to make the application of aerospace technology more simple and friendly, adapt to user requests, and make products more affordable. To be more straightforward, it is affordable for everyone. To this end, Spacetime Daoyu has made great efforts in satellite applications and has become the first commercial aerospace enterprise in China to achieve commercial closed-loop.

Among the many application scenarios, mobile phone satellite communication is detonating the industry trend. In recent years, Huawei and Apple have launched mobile phones with satellite communication functions. The reason why these consumer products can directly connect to satellites is to conform to the upcoming 6G era. 6G will have a new application scenario of "ubiquitous connection", and satellites will enable mobile communication to truly realize all-terrain and all-space three-dimensional coverage connection. CCTV previously reported that according to incomplete statistics, as of September 2023, the size of our country’s satellite communication market is around 80 billion yuan.

Space-time Dao Yu has also been forward-looking layout.

With its excellent satellite mass manufacturing capabilities, Space-Time Daoyu will have the ability to form network constellations faster than other commercial aerospace companies. They are building the world’s first low-orbit future travel constellation to serve the future travel ecosystem by deploying the whole orbit, and it is the world’s first commercial communication, navigation and remote sensing integrated constellation. The first orbit has been deployed, and nine satellites have been in orbit for more than one year. It plans to launch 02 sets of satellites in the constellation in early 2024 to complete the deployment of the second orbital plane. In 2025, the launch and deployment of 72 satellites in the first phase of the constellation will be completed, providing satellite application services for global users.

In addition, the "Space-Time Daoyu – Peking University Advanced Communication Joint Laboratory" was jointly established with Peking University, and the two sides are committed to conquering the core technology in the future communication field – while the same-frequency full-duplex communication technology. The satellite network is an important part of the future 6G. The two sides will jointly develop full-duplex communication low-orbit satellites, promote the on-orbit verification of this technology, synchronously promote the formulation of industry standards, and accelerate the implementation of industrial applications.

Of course, in the era of intelligent travel with the integration of heaven and earth, the car is the scene that cannot be ignored the most. Space-time Daoyu also gave a bright transcript – it is the first domestic aerospace product to achieve the standard R & D and mass production of vehicles, and the first commercial aerospace company to realize the large-scale application of vehicle satellite communication and high-precision positioning at the same time.

Specifically, Space-Time Daoyu innovatively introduced satellite communication services into new energy mass-produced vehicles, and launched the world’s first mass-produced satellite communication passenger car in conjunction with Polar Krypton to provide two-way satellite messaging and satellite call services. Its satellite-based high-precision positioning service (PPP-RTK) also achieved the world’s first large-scale on-board. During the Hangzhou Asian Games, Space-Time Daoyu provided high-precision positioning, satellite communication, and remote sensing technical support. By equipping nearly 2,000 officially designated vehicles for the Asian Games with Space-Time Daoyu high-precision positioning products and services, it realized accurate vehicle management and scheduling, and the cumulative guarantee mileage exceeded 2.02 million kilometers.

For the space-time universe that aspires to space, the pace of exploration cannot be stopped. Looking to the future, commercial aerospace is a global industry, so domestic commercial aerospace enterprises must take the initiative to go out and improve their international competitiveness. Only in this way can we promote the globalization of China’s commercial aerospace industry.

In fact, many commercial space companies and even countries around the world do not have the ability to independently build satellite constellations and carry out satellite internet services. Therefore, if Chinese commercial space companies can actively expand overseas business by building their own constellations, they will inevitably achieve new business growth.

It will not only provide satellite application data services for SCO countries and countries along the "Belt and Road Initiative", but also cooperate with Malaysian telecom operator Altel to promote high-tech research and development and system application, accelerate the implementation of solutions in smart ports, smart agriculture and other fields, and promote the globalization of satellite applications.

From building its own constellation and ground systems, to mass manufacturing of satellites, large-scale application of satellites, and rapid expansion of overseas markets. The purpose of Space-Time Daoyu is to close the loop of commercial applications in the aerospace industry, from completing the layout of the entire industrial chain to having continuous self-hematopoietic capabilities.

Today, Spacetime Daoyu has formed a R & D system with Shanghai Research Institute as the core and R & D centers in Nanjing, Xi’an and Wuhan as the support; has two business operation headquarters in Guangzhou and Qingdao; established business centers in Beijing and New York; established a satellite super factory in Taizhou, Zhejiang as a satellite manufacturing base; and laid out a global constellation measurement and operation control network. At the same time, we have implemented the global "Belt and Road Initiative" strategy and continued to promote the business implementation of "Belt and Road Initiative" countries and regions such as the Middle East and South East Asia.

Write at the end

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the Soviet rocket pioneer, once said: "The earth is the cradle of mankind, but mankind cannot be bound to the cradle forever, but will constantly explore new celestial bodies and spaces, and will begin to carefully penetrate the atmosphere and then conquer the solar system."

Looking back at history, in 1957, the world’s first man-made earth satellite was successfully launched, marking the official start of the human space age; and then in 1970, our country’s first satellite "Dongfanghong No. 1" was launched, playing music in space, and creating countless people’s indelible memories; today, a group of new space blood, like space and time, are still embarking on an unknown journey in the vast universe.

As Wang Yang, CEO of Spacetime Daoyu, said, "Aerospace is the most romantic industry, and it carries the dream of human beings to explore the universe."

The original title: "Trillion Aerospace Runs Out of a Super Unicorn"

Read the original text

The top 10 intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2023

　　The General Secretary of the Supreme Leader emphasized that "one case is worth a dozen documents," vividly and profoundly explaining the important demonstration and guiding functions of cases. The 10 major intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases released by Chinese courts in 2023 on April 22 cover intellectual property types such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, new plant varieties, anti-unfair competition and monopolies. They involve key core technological innovation, well-known brands at home and abroad, digital economy, seed industry and many other key areas and industries in the new era. They reflect the following characteristics of judicial protection:
　　First, the people’s court grasps the theme of high-quality development, strictly protects scientific and technological innovation achievements, and serves the development of new-quality productive forces.To protect intellectual property rights is to protect innovation, and the people’s courts will step up their efforts to protect innovation and creativity with the power of the rule of law."Danyu No. 405" Infringement Case of New Varieties of Corn Plants,For enterprises that have repeatedly committed deck infringement, repeated infringement, and intentional infringement, punitive compensation shall be applied in accordance with the law, effectively enhancing the confidence of agricultural researchers."Lentinan" Infringement of Technical SecretsThis paper explores the identification of the technical secrets of traditional authentic medicinal materials and the compensation for the illegal use of technical secrets, which has positive significance for the integrity and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.
　　The second is to actively respond to social concerns and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the people.Involved in the "juvenile model" unfair competition dispute case,Responding to society’s concerns about the protection of adolescents, guiding network service providers to consciously fulfill their network obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors."Basic Funeral Services" Refusal to Trade Dispute CaseThe abuse of market dominance by public enterprises in the funeral industry shall be stopped in accordance with the law, and the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises shall be effectively safeguarded.
　　The third is to explore the adjudication rules in new technologies, new business models, and new fields to serve the new economic drivers.Scientific and technological innovation has spawned new industries, new models, and new driving forces, constantly challenging the existing rules of social life. The people’s courts are facing the dual test of new technologies and new thinking in their trial work. The cases announced this year involve new issues such as copyright protection of navigation electronic map data, illegal data capture, and the prevention of transaction and resale. The people’s courts actively explore adjudication rules, clarify the boundaries of rights and interests protection, and serve the digital economy.
　　Fourth, we should strengthen equal protection and actively create a market-oriented, rule-of-law, and international business environment.exist"Siemens" trademark infringement and unfair competition case, "Michelin" trademark infringement case, "Lafite" trademark infringement and unfair competition caseThe people’s courts shall equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties in accordance with the law, vigorously crack down on the behavior of free-riding near famous brands, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in accordance with the law, and promptly respond to foreign investors’ concerns about intellectual property protection.
　　The fifth is to strengthen coordination, strengthen the protection of the entire chain of intellectual property rights, and build a comprehensive protection work pattern.Intellectual property protection is a systematic project that covers a wide range of fields and involves many aspects, from review and authorization, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection to arbitration and mediation, industry self-discipline, and citizen integrity. This requires continuous improvement of the protection system, strengthening coordination and cooperation, and building a large protection pattern. Among the cases released this year, there are both cases of administrative and judicial connection, as well as cases of legal inspection cooperation.Administrative dispute involving invalidation of "facial recognition" invention patentIt clarifies the requirements for the scope, method and purpose of modification of claims in the administrative procedure of patent invalidation, and promotes the unification of administrative law enforcement standards and judicial judgment standards.Judicial punishment case involving malicious litigation of "Changgao Dianxin" trademarkIn addition to punishing the abuse of intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, the people’s courts also transfer the clues of the parties’ suspected abuse of intellectual property rights to the people’s procuratorate, and actively promote the people’s procuratorate to exercise its supervisory functions and make procuratorial suggestions in accordance with the law.
　　In the next step, the people’s courts will adhere to the Supreme Leader’s thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era as a guide, continue to deeply practice the Supreme Leader’s thought on the rule of law, focus on fairness and efficiency, and continuously improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property trials in the new era.

The top 10 intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2023

　　1. A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between Ximou Joint Stock Company, Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 312]
　　Second, the case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition between a winery and Nanjing Jinmou Wine Industry Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 313]
　　Administrative dispute case between Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office and Pingmou Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company for invalid invention patent rights [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 556 administrative court verdict]
　　IV. Liaoning Danzhiye Technology joint stock company and Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. Infringement of new plant variety rights dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhiminzhuan No. 2907 civil court verdict]
　　V. Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company and Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2021) Jingmin End No. 421 civil court verdict]
　　Six, Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and other unfair competition disputes [Guangdong Higher People’s Court (2022) Yueminjian No. 4541 civil court verdict]
　　Case of copyright infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Shanghai 03 Xingchu No. 23 criminal court verdict]
　　Eight, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Minchu No. 3444 civil court verdict]
　　Case of unfair competition dispute between Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict of Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 03 Minchu No. 423]
　　Ten, Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd., Tengmou Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Free Trade Zone People’s Court (2022) Jin 0319 Minchu No. 23977 civil court verdict]

50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2023

　　Intellectual property civil cases
　　(1) Patent ownership, patent infringement, and confirmation of whether it falls within the scope of patent protection
　　1. Zhejiang Jimou Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Weimou Intelligent Travel Technology (Shanghai) joint stock company and other patent application rights dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhimin Zhuan No. 2436 civil court verdict]
　　2. Beijing Jinmou Security Software Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Mengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of design patent dispute case [Shanghai Higher People’s Court (2022) Shanghai Minzhuan No. 281 civil court verdict]
　　3. Sichuan Huamou Lighting Technology joint stock company and Yangzhou Yumou Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of design patent dispute case [Tibet Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Zangzhi Minzhi No. 1 civil court verdict]
　　4. Jiangsu Jiu high-tech joint stock company and Qidi Qingmou (Shanghai) New Material Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement patent dispute case [Qinghai Province Xining City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Qing01 Zhiminchu No. 15 civil court verdict]
　　5. A dispute case between Yanmou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Shimou Group Oumou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to confirm whether it falls within the scope of patent protection [Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 4 civil court verdict]
　　(2) Cases of trademark infringement disputes
　　1. Shanghai Bimou Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Shimou Biological Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil court verdict No. 238]
　　2. Dispute over trademark infringement between Namou Co., Ltd. and a shopping store in Shunping County [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme People’s Court Civil Court verdict No. 277]
　　3. Panmou Door Industry Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Xinmou Door Industry Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 209]
　　4. Mimou Group Headquarters and Shanghai Mimou Catering Management Co., Ltd. and other disputes over trademark infringement and unfair competition [Hubei Higher People’s Court (2022) Erzhimin End No. 190 civil court verdict]
　　5. Dispute over trademark infringement by Limou Co., Ltd., Simou Sporting Goods (China) Co., Ltd. and Nanchang Weimou Industrial Co., Ltd. [Jiangxi Higher People’s Court (2022) Gan Minzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
　　6. Bai a joint stock company and a (Tianjin) petrochemical joint stock company infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Higher People’s Court (2023) Jinminzhuan No. 314 civil court verdict]
　　7. Beijing Kuaimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Kuaimou Moving Co., Ltd. Infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition dispute case [Guizhou Higher People’s Court (2023) Qianminzhuan No. 261 civil court verdict]
　　8. Beimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Fucheng Bo Real Estate Intermediary Service Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes [Hebei Province Hengshui City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Ji 11 Minzhuan No. 2075 civil court verdict]
　　9. Binzhou Zhanmou winter jujube brand management joint stock company and Lingwu Fumou jujube industry professional cooperative and other trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case [Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Yinchuan City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Ning 01 Zhiminzhuan No. 8 civil court verdict]
　　(3) Cases of disputes over copyright ownership, copyright infringement, and confirmation of non-infringement of copyright
　　1. Yunnan Yangmou Information Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Yunmou (Beijing) Catering Management Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2023) Jingmin Shen No. 215 Civil Ruling]
　　2. Gong Mouping and a research institute, Yang Mouming copyright infringement dispute case [Shandong Higher People’s Court (2022) Lu Minzhuan No. 2685 civil court verdict]
　　3. Wang Mouyu and Hainan Chain Technology Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to disseminate information online [Sichuan Higher People’s Court (2023) Chuanzhimin End No. 253 civil court verdict]
　　4. Su Sports Culture Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Ai TV Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and a joint stock company of China Electric Heilongjiang Branch infringed on the right of information network dissemination of works [Heilongjiang Higher People’s Court (2023) Heiminzhuan No. 528 civil court verdict]
　　5. Heqing Yang Yinlou Co., Ltd. and Heqing County Eight Original Handmade Silver Store Copyright Ownership and Infringement Dispute Case [Yunnan Higher People’s Court (2022) Yunminzhuan No. 2088 civil court verdict]
　　6. Xinjiang Bimouya Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Xinjiang Shenmou Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to disseminate information on the work network dispute case [Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Xinminzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
　　7. Li Moufan, Da’an Yumou Grain Trading Co., Ltd. and Qianguo County Xumou Rice Industry Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Jilin Provincial Higher People’s Court (2023) Ji Minzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
　　8. A system joint stock company and a special automobile technology joint stock company infringement of computer software copyright dispute case [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) Beijing 73 Minchu No. 345 civil court verdict]
　　9. Beijing Hongmou Technology Development Co., Ltd. and a general merchandise store in Haikou Longhua and Shanghai Xunmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to distribute works [Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2021) Qiong 73 Civil court verdict No. 28 in the early days of the People’s Republic of China]
　　10. Zhejiang Shengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Co., Ltd. confirmed the dispute over non-infringement of copyright [Hangzhou Internet Court (2021) Zhejiang 0192 Minchu No. 10369 civil court verdict, Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 01 Minzhan No. 453 civil court verdict]
　　(4) Cases of unfair competition and monopoly disputes
　　1. Shengmou Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen Mougang, Yuncheng Jinmou Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 816 civil court verdict]
　　2. Hubei Huimou Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Zhang Mouyang, Hubei Zhimou Chemical Technology joint stock company infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Hubei Province Wuhan City Intermediate People’s Court (2021) Hubei 01 Zhiminchu No. 334 civil court verdict]
　　3. China Pingmou Life Insurance joint stock company and Linyi City Lanshan District Yunmou advertising design studio commercial slander dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court civil court verdict No. 75]
　　4. Unfair competition dispute case between an association in Tangshan City and an e-commerce company in Changsha Shun [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil court verdict No. 76]
　　5. Shenzhen Quanmou Technology Co., Ltd. and Mingmou (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and other unauthorized use of goods with the same or similar decoration that have a certain impact on others [Shandong Higher People’s Court (2023) Lu Minzhuan No. 1035 civil court verdict]
　　6. Tengmou Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Aimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition dispute case [Jiangsu Higher People’s Court (2023) Su Minzhuan No. 280 civil court verdict]
　　7. Unfair competition dispute case between a certain information technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Gumou Technology Co., Ltd. [Fujian Higher People’s Court (2022) Minminzhan No. 1871 civil court verdict]
　　8. Nanjing Yuanmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Yuanmou Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Remou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Shaanxi Higher People’s Court (2022) Shaanxi Zhimin End No. 139 civil court verdict]
　　9. Guilin Lingmou Software Co., Ltd. and Xiaomou Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Xiaomou Mobile Software Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Guiminzhuan No. 196 civil court verdict]
　　10. Unfair competition dispute case between Shenzhen Mayor’s Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. and Beijing Tianmou Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict of Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Guangdong 03 Minzhi No. 4897]
　　11. A dispute case between Guomou Technology Holdings Co., Ltd. and Guomou (Dalian) Co., Ltd. in which the unauthorized use of others has a certain impact on the enterprise name [Liaoning Province Dalian Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Liaoning 02 Minzhuan No. 6496 civil court verdict]
　　12. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Damou Brand Planning Co., Ltd. and Jinan Shengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Chongqing First Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Yu 01 Minchu No. 3538 civil court verdict]
　　13. Unfair competition dispute case between Beijing A Yi Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan A Yi Culture Technology Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Qun A Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict No. 2875, Xiang0105 Minchu, Kaifu District People’s Court, Changsha City, Hunan Province (2023) ]
　　14. Quanzhou Licheng Li Funeral Service Co., Ltd. and Quanzhou Ji Funeral Service Co., Ltd. refused to trade dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin Final No. 242 civil court verdict]
　　15. Ningbo Tongmou Materials Co., Ltd. and Japan Corporation Abuse of Market Dominance Dispute Case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin End No. 1398 civil court verdict]
　　(5) New plant varieties, technical contract disputes, and judicial punishment cases
　　1. Anhui quan a high-tech seed industry joint stock company and Yuan agricultural high-tech joint stock company and other disputes over infringement of new plant variety rights [Anhui Provincial Higher People’s Court (2022) Anhui Minchu No. 2 Civil Ruling]
　　2. Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a research institute in Zhengzhou and Chen Mouqun [Civil court verdict No. 865, Zhiminchu, Henan Province, Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2023) ]
　　3. Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Dunhuang A Good Species Co., Ltd., Ulanhot Fengzhiye Co., Ltd., and Hao Moujun [Civil court verdict No. 18, 01 Zhiminchu, Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2023) ]
　　4. Dispute case of infringement of new plant variety rights by Shandong seed industry limited company and big seed industry joint stock company [Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province (2021) Gan 01 Zhiminchu No. 51 civil court verdict]
　　5. Wujiaqu City, a new energy technology Co., Ltd. and Luoyang Di Chemical Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. technical service contract dispute case [Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Sixth Division Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Bing 06 Minchu No. 4 civil court verdict]
　　6. Monkey Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Changmou International Trade Co., Ltd., and Changmou Technology Co., Ltd. Judicial Punishment Case for Infringement of Trademark Rights and Unfair Competition Disputes [Decision No. 4 of Xiang01 Division, Intermediate People’s Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province (2023) ]
　　II. Intellectual property administrative cases
　　1. Hangzhou Yuanmou medical apparatus Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office, Hangzhou Zhuomou medical technology Co., Ltd. invalid utility model patent administrative dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 132 administrative court verdict]
　　2. Shanghai Zhanmou Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Minhang District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, Shanghai Minhang District People’s Government Fines and Administrative Reconsideration Case [Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court (2022) Shanghai 0112 Xingchu No. 506 Administrative court verdict]
　　III. Intellectual property criminal cases
　　1. Su Mouqi’s Criminal Case of Copyright Infringement [Criminal Ruling No. 422 of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province (2023) ]
　　2. The crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks by Deng Mouguang and Yan Moujiao and the crime of selling counterfeit registered trademarks by Xiao Moucheng, Liu Mouxia and Zhang Mouyan [Shaanxi Province Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Shaanxi 01 Zhixingchu No. 6 criminal court verdict]
　　3. Hao Mouzhen’s crime of copyright infringement [Criminal court verdict No. 116, Xingchu, Jin 0106, People’s Court of Yingze District, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province]

Brief Introduction to the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2023

　　I. Case involving "Siemens" trademark infringement and unfair competition
　　Case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Ximou Joint Stock Company, Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 312]
　　[Case summary] Ximou Co., Ltd. and Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Ximou Company) are the rights holders of the registered trademarks of "Siemens" and "SIEMENS". The two trademarks are registered on washing machines and other goods. After long-term use and vigorous promotion by Ximou Company, they have already gained a high reputation. Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and other "Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." names to be registered overseas are widely used as commercial logos in the washing machine products, product outer packaging and related publicity activities it produces and sells. Ximou Company believes that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. infringes its exclusive right to use its registered trademark and constitutes unfair competition, so it sued the court. The court of first instance held that the alleged infringement of Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. did not constitute trademark infringement, but constituted unfair competition, and ruled that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the infringement and compensated 100 million yuan for economic losses and 163,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and filed an appeal. The Supreme People’s Court held that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. knowingly knew the popularity of the "Siemens" and "SIEMENS" trademarks, and deliberately used "Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. on washing machine products, causing confusion and misunderstanding among consumers, which constituted trademark infringement; the use of the logo in product packaging and publicity activities also constitutes unfair competition, and should be liable for compensation. Regarding the amount of compensation, although the existing evidence is difficult to determine the actual loss of Ximou Company or the infringement profit of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd., it is sufficient to determine that the infringement profit of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. has obviously exceeded the maximum limit of statutory compensation of 5 million yuan. In this case, considering that Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. refused to provide financial information related to the infringement, which constituted evidence obstruction, the court of first instance referred to the data in the media report that the total annual sales of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. was 1.50 billion yuan, and based on the relevant facts of the case, calculated the sales proportion of the accused infringing products according to one-fifteenth, and then determined that it was not improper for Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. to bear the amount of compensation of 100 million yuan. The Supreme People’s Court ruled: reject the appeal,
　　[Typical significance] The 2nd-round Moderation judgment in this case strictly applies the system of providing evidence and obstructing the infringer who deliberately fails to provide evidence and hinders the people’s court from determining the facts of the case, and makes an unfavorable handling method and judgment in accordance with the law. This case fully reflects the judicial attitude of the people’s court to strictly protect intellectual property rights, and has effectively cracked down on the behavior of maliciously clinging to the goodwill of well-known trademarks, which has played an important role in purifying the market order and creating a good business environment.
　　II. Case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition of "Lafite"
　　Case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition between Laimou Winery and Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 313]
　　[Case summary] La Winery is the owner of the "LAFITE" trademark and "CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD" trademark (hereinafter collectively referred to as the trademarks involved), and the two trademarks are registered on alcoholic beverage products. The trademarks involved in the case have a high reputation after long-term use, and "LAFITE" and "Lafite" have established a solid relationship. On April 1, 2005, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. applied for the registration of the "Lafite Manor" trademark on wine and other products. Since then, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and others have used logos such as "Lafite Manor" and "LAFEI MANOR" in the process of producing, importing and selling wine, and have promoted them on websites and trading documents. On December 23, 2016, the Supreme People’s Court issued a retrial judgment in favor of the trademark administrative department to revoke the trademark of "Lafite Manor". Lafite Winery then sued Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other seven defendants to the court. The court of first instance held that Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other seven defendants constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, ordered them to stop infringement, and applied punitive damages. Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held that in the process of applying for registration and using the "Lafite Manor" trademark, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. had malicious intent to cling to the trademark involved in the case of Lafite Winery, and did not have a good faith interest in trust. Its use of the "Lafite Manor" "LAFEI MANOR" logo constituted trademark infringement, and exaggerating the historical heritage and popularity of "Lafite Manor" wine in the publicity constituted false propaganda. Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other infringement malice was obvious, and the infringement circumstances were serious. According to the request of Lafite Winery, punitive compensation was applied, and Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. was ordered to compensate Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. for the total economic loss and reasonable expenses of 79.17 million yuan.
　　The judgment in this case points out that trademark registrants who have the intention to cling to their trademarks should not be protected, which is of positive significance for advocating market players to participate in market competition in a sincere and good faith manner, and highlights the strength and determination of the people’s court to severely punish "near famous brands" and "free riders".
　　Administrative disputes involving the invalidation of "facial recognition" invention patents
　　Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company Invalid Patent Administrative Dispute Case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 556 administrative court verdict]
　　[Case summary] Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. is the patentee of the invention patent with patent number 200480036270.2 and the name is "a method for obtaining face images and facial recognition method and system". Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company filed a request for invalidation of the patent right involved in the case. Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. submitted the revised text of the patent claim during the examination of the invalidation of the patent right involved in the case. The State Intellectual Property Office did not accept some of the revised claims. It only made an examination decision based on the accepted part, determined that the patent involved was not creative, and declared all of them invalid. Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but was not supported. Beijing Zhonghao Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed on the grounds that all modified claims should be accepted. The Supreme People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that in the administrative procedure of patent right confirmation, the maximum scope of modification of claims shall not exceed the "scope of information" stipulated in Article 33 of the Patent Law and the "scope of protection" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 69 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law. The review of whether the modification method of a certain claim belongs to "further limitation" shall only be based on whether the modified claim fully contains all the technical features of the modified claim, whether the modified claim adds technical features to the modified claim, and whether the added technical features are recorded in other claims in the original claims. Modifications to claims in administrative procedures for patent right confirmation should generally be limited to responding to the reasons for invalidation; those that reconstruct the reality of the claims in the name of overcoming the defects referred to in the reasons for invalidation may not be accepted. In this case, claims 4 and 7 are essentially the original claims and are the natural basis for examination; the technical solutions citing claims 4 and 7 in the revised claims 8-10 should also be accepted; the revised claims 11 and 12 are not in response to the modification of the reasons for invalidation, and it is not inappropriate for the State Intellectual Property Office not to accept them. Therefore, the judgment revokes the first-instance judgment and the decision to be sued, and the State Intellectual Property Office makes a new decision.
　　[Typical meaning] This case clarifies the requirements for the extent, method, and purpose of modification of claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation, especially the identification criteria for "further limiting" modification, which is of reference significance for the grasp of the legal standards for modifying claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation.
　　IV. Infringement dispute involving new varieties of corn plants "Danyu No. 405"
　　Liaoning Danye Science and Technology joint stock company and Linghai Agricultural Science and Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. infringed on the right of new plant varieties dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 2907 civil court verdict]
　　[Case summary] Liaoning Danyu Industrial Technology joint stock company is the owner of the new variety of corn plant "Danyu No. 405". Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. infringed the variety rights of "Danyu No. 405" with the name "Ziguang No. 4" without authorization, and was found to be infringing by an effective judgment in 2015. After that, in 2019 and 2020, it continued to carry out the infringement of producing and selling the "Danyu No. 405" variety under the names "Jinyu 118" "Anyu 13" and "Danyu No. 606" respectively. Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. is the seller of the alleged infringing seeds. Liaoning Dan Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. then sued the court, requesting that Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. stop infringing and jointly compensate a total of 3 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses (with 1.50 million yuan as the compensation base, and 1 times the punitive compensation). The court of first instance held that the calculation base of punitive damages could not be determined, so it applied the statutory compensation judgment Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. stopped infringing and compensated a total of 1 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Liaoning Dan Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that the infringement of Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. has a long time, a wide geographical area, and a large scale, and has repeatedly committed deck infringement and repeated infringement. The infringement is intentional and obvious, and the infringement circumstances are bad, so it should bear punitive compensation liability. Refer to the number of "Danyu No. 405" seeds that Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. believes can be harvested by breeding 400 mu of infringing seeds and the gross profit on sales, which has basically satisfied the 1.50 million yuan compensation base claimed by Liaoning Danye Industrial Technology Co., Ltd., and then according to the compensation base of 1.50 million yuan and 1 times the punitive compensation, the judgment is changed to support the full amount of Liaoning Danye Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. 3 million yuan lawsuit claim.
　　[Typical meaning] This case makes it clear that the base of punitive compensation can be determined based on the evidence in the case, and cannot simply apply statutory compensation because it is difficult to calculate accurately. The judgment of this case reflects the determination and judicial attitude of the people’s court to fully implement the punitive compensation system, reducing the difficulty of rights holders in accordance with the law, effectively playing the deterrent effect of punitive compensation, and effectively making the infringer pay a heavy price.
　　V. Navigation electronic map copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes
　　Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company and Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2021) Jingminzhuan No. 421 civil court verdict]
　　[Case summary] Beijing four science and technology joint stock company began to carry out electronic map research and development and promotion since 2002, and created the 15Q4 Internet electronic map and 16Q2 Internet electronic map (hereinafter collectively referred to as the rights map). In 2013, Beijing four science and technology joint stock company and Beijing hundred Technology Co., Ltd. signed a "cooperation agreement", agreeing to authorize Beijing hundred Technology Co., Ltd. to use the rights map until the end of 2016. Beijing Simou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates claimed that after the contract expired, Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps that were substantially similar to the rights map in the six accused application software operated by "Baidu Map", "Baidu CarLife" and "Baidu Navigation", which infringed their copyright and constituted unfair competition, and then sued the court. The court of first instance held that the navigation electronic maps used by Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. in the application software constituted copyright infringement, and ordered the company and its affiliates to stop the infringement, apologize, eliminate the impact, and jointly and severally compensate for economic losses of 64.50 million yuan and reasonable expenses of more than 920,000 yuan. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The 2nd-round Moderation of the Beijing Higher People’s Court held that the rights map constitutes a graphic work under the copyright law. For the massive map data, through the comparison of 30 secret notes, 125 internal roads, 47 sea-expanding administrative area maps and 44 model maps provided by the right holder, it can be determined that Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps that were substantially similar to the rights map in the six accused applications operated after the expiration of the "Cooperation Agreement", infringing the copyright of Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company. In view of the fact that the copyright law has been applied to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder, it is not appropriate to apply Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for repeated protection. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
　　[Typical meaning] Data is a key element of the digital economy. This case is a typical case of navigation electronic maps being protected by copyright law. The case not only conducts in-depth analysis of the elements of navigation electronic maps that constitute graphic works, but also makes useful explorations on the substantive similarity comparison of massive map data, highlighting the important role of intellectual property judicial trial services in safeguarding the digital economy.
　　VI. Cases involving unfair competition of "data"
　　Beijing Weimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and other unfair competition disputes [Guangdong Higher People’s Court (2022) Yueminjian No. 4541 civil court verdict]
　　[Case summary] Beijing Jianmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of Sina Weibo. It accused Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. of using malicious technical means to illegally call the server API (application programming interface) to capture a large amount of Weibo data, store and sell it, which constituted unfair competition, and then sued the court. The court of first instance held that Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition and ordered it to compensate 20 million yuan for economic losses and 272,680 yuan for reasonable expenses for rights protection. Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province held that Beijing Jianmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. enjoys the rights and interests of independent control, lawful use and economic benefits of Weibo data held in accordance with laws and regulations. Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. illegally calls the Weibo server API to capture a large amount of background data for storage by changing IP (network address), UID (user account number) and other deceptive technical methods, and sells it to unspecified Internet users without processing to make profits. This behavior significantly increases the risk of the Weibo platform being substantially replaced, and may also cause data security issues such as personal privacy and leakage of sensitive information. It violates the principles of fairness, integrity and business ethics, disrupts the competitive order of the data market, seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Beijing Weimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and consumers, and constitutes unfair competition as stipulated in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the median fee standard of 1 yuan/100 times of Guangzhou Jane Information Technology Co., Ltd., its profit is about 2179.79 million yuan. Based on the long duration of the alleged infringement, the huge scale of the call data, and the serious consequences of the damage, it is not improper to fully support the compensation request of Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd., so the judgment rejects the appeal and upholds the original judgment.
　　[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case of illegally capturing data for trading and reselling. The judgment is based on the balanced relationship between "strong protection" of data and "orderly circulation", and clarifies the boundaries of data rights protection. It reflects the clear judicial attitude of judicial trials to guide market entities to obtain and use data "in a good way and to a certain extent."
　　Seventh, criminal infringement of medical equipment software copyright
　　Case of copyright infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Shanghai 03 Xingchu No. 23 criminal court verdict]
　　[Summary of the case] Since March 2019, defendant Liu Mousheng, for profit purposes, without the permission of copyright holders such as Ximou Medical System Co., Ltd., made dongles to avoid copyright technical protection measures, provided download links such as maintenance manuals, copied software such as Nebula Workstation without authorization, and sold the aforementioned dongles and pirated software through Xianyu account and other channels. Since July 2020, defendant Liu Mousheng instructed defendant Liu to open a Xianyu account to sell dongles and pirated software. During this period, defendant Liu Mousheng was responsible for making dongles, copying pirated software, putting goods on the shelves, sending express deliveries, etc., and defendant Liu was responsible for account customer service, collection, etc. After audit, the sales amounts of defendants Liu Mousheng and Liu were 1.06 million yuan and 140,000 yuan respectively. After identification, it was found that the dongles sold by the two defendants could avoid the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner, and the pirated software sold was essentially the same as the copyright owner’s work. The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court held that the two defendants, for the purpose of profit, copied and disseminated their works to the public through information networks without the permission of the copyright owner, and deliberately avoided the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner for their works. Defendant Liu Mousheng’s circumstances are particularly serious. Defendant Liu’s circumstances are serious, and their actions have constituted the crime of copyright infringement. In a joint crime, the defendant Liu Mousheng is the principal offender; the defendant Liu is an accessory, and should be given a lighter punishment. Both defendants have confessed to the circumstances and can be given a lighter punishment; if they voluntarily plead guilty and accept the punishment, they can pay a fine in advance before the court, and can be given a lighter punishment. Therefore, the defendant Liu Mousheng was sentenced to three years and two months in prison and fined 700,000 yuan for the crime of copyright infringement; the defendant Liu was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 80,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, neither defendant appealed.
　　[Typical significance] This case is a typical criminal case of intentional avoidance of technical measures to infringe copyright after the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment (XI). The judgment of this case clarified the relevant standards for criminal responsibility for avoidance or destruction of technical measures, fully protected the legitimate rights and interests of medical device software copyright owners, and demonstrated the strength and determination to strengthen the criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights and serve the innovative development of the digital economy.
　　Eight, "Lentinan" infringement of technical secrets dispute case
　　Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Minchu No. 3444 civil court verdict]
　　[Case summary] In 2004, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. signed the "Lentinan Mushroom Polysaccharide Project Cooperation Contract", agreeing that the former would provide the latter with technologies such as the production of Lentinan APIs; the products involved would be sold to the distributor designated by the former; the latter would compensate the former 20 million yuan for distributing it by itself or entrusting others; both parties should keep the technology of this project confidential, otherwise they would compensate according to the above agreement. Later, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. delivered the technical results to Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. as agreed. Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. obtained the registration and production approval of Lentinan APIs in 2006. In 2010, Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. transferred the shiitake mushroom polysaccharide technology to the outsider for 1 million yuan, and the aforementioned drug production enterprise was changed to the outsider. The outsider’s website publicized in 2014 that the shiitake mushroom polysaccharide API production line was officially put into production, and the annual output value would exceed 100 million yuan. Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. then sued the court. The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held that the technology involved in the case was non-public, valuable, and confidential, and constituted a technical secret. Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. transferred the technology substantially the same as the aforementioned technology to the outsider, which violated the confidentiality agreement and disclosed the technical secret to the outsider, which constituted infringement. According to the amount of compensation agreed by both parties, Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. was sentenced to compensate Nanjing Hanmou Pharm Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. refused to accept and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
　　[Typical meaning] This case involves the protection of technical secrets of traditional Chinese medicine techniques such as the selection, processing and treatment of authentic shiitake mushroom raw materials. The judgment explores issues such as the identification of technical secrets of traditional authentic medicinal materials and compensation for illegal use of technical secrets, which is conducive to the application and development of traditional Chinese medicine technology and promotes the integrity and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.
　　Nine, involving "Xiao Ai Classmate" wake-up word unfair competition dispute case
　　Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 03 Minchu No. 423 civil court verdict]
　　[Case summary] Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. released the first artificial intelligence speaker with the wake-up word "Xiao Ai Classmate" in July 2017, and has since installed an artificial intelligence voice interaction engine using the wake-up word "Xiao Ai Classmate" in mobile phones, TVs and other products. From August 2017 to June 2020, Chen applied for the registration of 66 trademarks such as "Xiao Ai Classmate" in different product categories, and then sent a lawyer’s letter to the affiliated companies of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. to request that it stop infringing its "Xiao Ai Classmate" trademark rights, and used the "Xiao Ai Classmate" trademark on sports watches, alarm clocks and other products with Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. to jointly publish product promotional articles. Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. argued that the actions of Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so it sued the court. The Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province held that "Xiao Ai Classmate" can be widely used as an influential wake-up word, the name of the artificial intelligence voice interaction engine, and the name of the smart speaker equipped with the artificial intelligence voice interaction engine. Protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen registered a large number of trademarks such as "Xiao Ai Classmate" and sent a lawyer’s letter to "stop infringement" to the affiliated enterprises of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd., which violated the principle of good faith, disrupted the fair market competition order, and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd., which is an act of unfair competition regulated by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. sold goods with the logo of "Xiao Ai Classmate" and released misleading commercial publicity information, which constituted confusion and false propaganda of unfair competition. Therefore, the judgment was immediately stopped, Chen compensated Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1.20 million yuan, and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally liable for 250,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.
　　[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case involving the protection of the rights and interests of artificial intelligence Keywords Spotting. The judgment of this case not only makes it clear that the use of wake-up words with certain influence belongs to the legitimate rights and interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but also effectively regulates the behavior of maliciously squatting other people’s wake-up words and abusing rights, fully protecting the brand goodwill of technological innovation enterprises.
　　Cases involving "juvenile model" unfair competition
　　Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Free Trade Zone People’s Court (2022) Jin 0319 Minchu No. 23977 civil court verdict]
　　[Case Summary] Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. and others have set up "Youth Mode" in the "Tencent Video" and "Tencent NOW Live" APP operated by them. When opening the above APP, a pop-up window prompt will pop up on the homepage. The guardian of the teenager can conveniently open the "Youth Mode". This mode is configured with high-quality content suitable for teenagers, restricts social and consumption functions such as recharging, tipping, and gift giving, and sets up an anti-addiction mechanism. In order to ensure the normal operation of the "Youth Mode", the service agreements of both APPs stipulate that users shall not interfere with or destroy the normal operation of the software, shall not add, delete, or change the functions or operation effects of the software, and shall not implement any behavior that endangers minors. The "anti-advertising tool" APP operated by Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. uses the "juvenile mode pop-up box automatic closing" function as a "member exclusive privilege", and guides users to open and use the function in a "free time" way, resulting in users being unable to use "juvenile mode" through the prominent pop-up window prompt popping up on the homepage of Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and others believed that Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so they sued the court. The People’s Court of Tianjin Free Trade Zone held that the blocking of "juvenile mode" by Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. was essentially an act of unfair competition that hindered and destroyed the normal operation of network products and services of Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. on the grounds of technological neutrality to obtain economic benefits, resulting in the failure of the company’s functional design to protect minors, which not only undermined the market order of fair competition and industry ecology, but also violated relevant laws and regulations for the protection of minors, hindered the long-term healthy development of online audio & video, live broadcast and other industries, and constituted unfair competition. Considering that the products of Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. have a greater impact on the adolescent group, Beijing Love Technology Co., Ltd. has a greater subjective fault, and the function of blocking adolescent mode covers a variety of application software. The influence range is wider, the number of downloads is more, and the duration is longer. Factors such as a long time, Beijing Love Technology Co., Ltd. was ordered to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed, and reached a pre-execution settlement.
　　[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case of blocking "juvenile model" unfair competition. The judge affirmed the positive role of "juvenile model" in safeguarding the rights and interests of minors online, and made a negative evaluation of the blocking of "juvenile model" through the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and guided network service providers to consciously fulfill their network obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors.

月度归档 2024年9月1日

Trillions of Aerospace run out of a super unicorn

The top 10 intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2023

近期文章

近期评论

归档

分类

标签