最高人民法院知识产权法庭年度报告（2019）(16)

　　Taking “this first gaveled case” as a model, the IP Court summarized its experiences from individual cases to try similar cases based on the characteristics of intellectual property in different technical fields, and established a number of model cases. For example, in the field of machinery, the invention patent infringement case of Wuxi Hisky Medical Technologies Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Echosens (Respondent) and China-Japan Friendship Hospital (Defendant in the first instance) was tried by the IP Court. The patent involved was that of a “non-invasive diagnostic instrument for liver disease.” The case established the rules for claim construction in patent infringement litigation, the distribution of burden of proof and the determination of the literal and equivalent infringement. In the field of pharmaceuticals, an administrative reexamination dispute over invention patent of the National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC (Appellant) v. Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam and Roger Kingdon Craig (Respondents) was tried by the IP Court. The IP Court clarified the relationship between the patent inventiveness examination and the full disclosure of the specification and other legal standards, promoted the inventiveness examination standards to return to the core and essence in patent examination, and gave clear guidance on how to avoid "hindsight" in the inventiveness examination. In the field of telecommunications, the invention patent infringement case of Shenzhen Jixiang Tenda Technology Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved the patent for “a method for easy access to a portal website of a network operator”. This case, taking the technical characteristics of the network telecommunication field as an important consideration, set up a new adjudication rule on multi-actor method patent infringement, that is, if the alleged infringer, without the patentee’s permission, realizes the substance of the patented method of the allegedly infringing product for the purpose of production and operation, and plays an irreplaceable and substantial role in the comprehensive coverage of the technical features of the patent claims; then in such a case, it should be held as an infringement on the method patent. In the field of new plant varieties, the case of dispute over new plant variety rights of Cai Zinguang (Appellant) v. Guangzhou Runping Commercial Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved a “three red pomelo” new plant variety. The case established the adjudication rules on the scope of protection of new plant variety rights and the determination of an infringement. It established that where the plant is both propagating and harvested material, the true intention of the allegedly infringing seller to sell it as a propagating material or harvested material should be examined.

　　3. Implement a systemization project to unify judicial standards

　　Over the past year, the IP Court has built and implemented the “systemization project to unify judicial standards”, and established a working system with special standards, subsection guarantees, and strict management of key points, providing institutional and system guarantees for the unified judicial standards for technology-related IP cases.

　　With respect to system development, the “Implementation Rules for Unifying Judicial standards of the IP Court” was formulated, which clarifies and distributes cases involving the same patent to the same judge or collegial panel in principle, to ensure the uniformity of judicial standards. With respect to front-end sorting, multiple measures such as system comparison and manual review have been adopted to identify similar cases. Civil cases involving the same patent, interconnected civil-administrative cases, and cases with related parties, are collectively allocated to the same collegial panel. With respect to mid-end control, the judge meeting system has been improved. The IP Court held 34 judge meetings throughout the year, unified 120 adjudication rules, and issued the Excerpts from the Minutes of Judge Meetings and Tips for Handling Cases, so that judges can master important judicial standards and case handling methods in a timely manner. Using platforms such as “The IP Court Forum” and “The New Knowledge Lecture Hall,” the IP Court managed to establish adjudication consensus within the IP Court. It also organized “The IP Court Work Deployment and Professional Training Courses” and “Adjudication Practice Training Courses for Technical Cases in People’s Courts,” to strengthen transmission of guidance and adjudication rules to the lower courts. With respect to back-end review, the judge meetings have been used to check the judgment documents of model cases and major sensitive cases. A document evaluation system has been set up to improve the quality of judgment documents. With respect to key cases, a special case report and guidance mechanism for major cases has been established, with 28 Work Information of the IP Court issues and special issues being compiled and distributed, to provide references for leadership decisions.

　　Ⅱ. Deepen institutional reform, promote intelligent case handling, and further improve the quality and effectiveness of technology-related IP case trials