The Standing Committee of NPC and the State Council Announce 2024 Legislative Programs which Include IPR Legislation
Reference Number: Guobanfa [2024] No. 23
Issue Date: 8 May 2024
In the legislative program work plan of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the draft amendment to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and 12 other laws are listed as 'laws for initial review,' in the section ‘drafting and review arrangements for accelerating the development of new productive forces and constructing a new development paradigm’.
In the legislative program released by the General Office of the State Council, the draft amendment to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law drafted by the State Administration for Market Regulation is included among 20 other draft laws in the section 'laws to be submitted for review by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.' At the same time, focusing on the strategies of revitalizing the country through science and education and building a strong cultural nation, there are preparations to submit the draft Artificial Intelligence Law and the draft amendment to the Trademark Law for review by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, as well as a proposal to amend the Regulations on the Protection of New Plant Varieties.
Source: Standing Committee of NPC, General Office of the State Council
https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202405/content_6950093.htm
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202405/t20240508_436982.html
全国人大常委会、国务院分别公布2024年度立法计划，涉及商标、植物新品种、反不正当竞争等多项知识产权立法
发文字号：国办发〔2024〕23号
发文日期：2024-05-08
全国人大常委会的立法工作计划中，《反不正当竞争法修订草案》被列为“初次审议的法律案”，其与另外12部法律一同被写在“加快发展新质生产力，构建新发展格局”部分的法律案起草与审议安排中。
国务院办公厅发布的立法计划中，国家市场监督管理总局起草的《反不正当竞争法修订草案》与其他20件法律草案被列在了“拟提请全国人大常委会审议的法律案”中。同时，该计划围绕科教兴国、文化强国战略，预备提请全国人大常委会审议《人工智能法草案》、《商标法修订草案》，拟修订《植物新品种保护条例》。
资料来源：全国人大常委会、国务院办公厅
新闻链接：https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/202405/content_6950093.htm
http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202405/t20240508_436982.html
CNIPA and Eight Other Organs at State Level Jointly Issue Implementation Plan for the Construction of the IPR Protection System
Reference Number: Guobanfabaozi [2024] No. 10
Issue Date: 27 May 2024
The Implementation Plan specifies seven key focuses for building an intellectual property protection system: intellectual property protection policies and standards; enforcement and judicial systems’ authorization and confirmation systems; protection and management systems; social governance systems; national security governance systems; and capability support systems. It aims to achieve modernization of the intellectual property protection system and capability by 2035.
Regarding the construction of the enforcement and judicial systems, the Implementation Plan requires the establishment of a high-quality intellectual property judicial agency, the enhancement of specialized adjudication systems, the strengthening of oversight mechanisms for intellectual property cases, and the full implementation of punitive damages for intellectual property infringements. It also aims to refine rules on evidence and criteria for determining damages in infringement cases. Simultaneously, improvements to the administrative enforcement mechanisms for intellectual property are planned, including intensified enforcement efforts to combat counterfeit and illegal activities, along with strengthened professional guidance and administrative adjudication system development.
In relation to the construction of the authorization and confirmation systems, the Implementation Plan emphasizes improving the quality and efficiency of authorization and confirmation processes. The goals set to be achieved by 2025, include reducing the patent examination period for inventions to 15 months, stabilizing trademark registration periods at seven months under normal circumstances, achieving a closure accuracy rate of over 95% for invention patent cases, and a qualification rate of over 97% for trademark examination checks.
Source: CNIPA
https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2024/5/27/art_75_192629.html
国家知识产权局等九部门联合印发《知识产权保护体系建设工程实施方案》
发文字号：国知发保字〔2024〕10号
发文日期：2024-05-27
《实施方案》指出，建设知识产权保护体系的重点包括知识产权保护政策和标准体系、执法司法体系、授权确权体系、保护管理体系、社会共治体系、国家安全治理体系和保护能力支撑体系七个方面，并设定了在2035年基本实现知识产权保护体系和保护能力现代化的工作目标。
其中，在执法司法体系建设方面，《实施方案》要求建设高水平知识产权审判机构，完善专门化审判体系，加强知识产权案件检察监督机制建设，并全面实施知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度，完善侵权损害赔偿的证据规则、数额计算等裁判标准；与此同时，完善知识产权行政执法机制，加大行政执法力度，严厉打击侵权假冒违法行为，并强化知识产权行政执法专业指导和行政裁决体系建设。
在授权确权体系建设方面，《实施方案》要求提高授权确权质量和效率，实现到 2025 年，发明专利审查周期压减至 15 个月，一般情形商标注册周期稳定在 7 个月，发明专利结案准确率 95%以上，商标审查抽检合格率 97%以上。
资料来源：国家知识产权局
新闻链接：https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2024/5/27/art_75_192629.html
State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) Issues Interim Provisions Against Unfair Competition on the Internet
Reference Number: Guobanfabaozi [2024] No. 10
Issue Date: 6 May 2024
The Interim Provisions supplement and improve the provisions on regulating unfair competition on the internet in China as follows:
Source: SAMR
https://www.samr.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/fgs/art/2024/art_80019fe59e464196bef173dc56678a42.html
国家市场监督管理总局发布《网络反不正当竞争暂行规定》
发文字号：国家市场监督管理总局令第91号
发文日期：2024-05-06
施行时间：2024-09-01
《暂行规定》主要从以下四个方面补充和完善了我国关于规制网络不正当竞争行为的规定：
1.《暂行规定》进一步强化了网络平台经营者的法律责任。具体来看，《暂行规定》第6条要求平台经营者应当加强对平台内竞争行为的规范管理，在发现平台内经营者的不正当竞争行为后，应及时予以处置，并保存有关记录，记录保存时间自作出处置措施之日起计算不少于三年。此外，平台经营者应将上述不正当竞争行为向其住所地县级以上市场监督管理部门进行报告。
2．《暂行规定》回应了网络经营活动中出现的新型不正当竞争行为，增补了相关行为规范。例如，在网络混淆行为中增加了“擅自使用他人有一定影响的网络代称、网络符号、网络简称等标识”行为；在网络虚假宣传中新增“通过热搜、热评、热传、榜单等方式，实施商业营销活动”行为；将网络贿赂中的财物界定为“包括现金、物品、网络虚拟财产以及礼券、基金、股份、债务免除等其他财产权益”等。
3.《暂行规定》完善了利用技术手段实施不正当竞争行为的规定，以维护市场的公平竞争。《暂行规定》第18条要求经营者不得利用技术手段通过影响用户选择、限流、屏蔽、搜索降权、商品下架等方式，干扰其他经营者之间的正常交易，妨碍、破坏其他经营者合法提供的网络产品或者服务的正常运行。同时，经营者不得利用技术手段，通过限制交易对象、销售区域或者时间、参与促销推广活动等，影响其他经营者的经营选择。
4.《暂行规定》在网络不正当竞争案件的管辖方面作出新规定。根据《暂行规定》第27条，对于网络不正当竞争行为举报较为集中，或者引发严重后果或者其他不良影响的情形，可以由违法经营者实际经营地、违法结果发生地的设区的市级以上市场监督管理部门进行管辖。
资料来源：国家市场监督管理总局
新闻链接：
https://www.samr.gov.cn/zw/zfxxgk/fdzdgknr/fgs/art/2024/art_80019fe59e464196bef173dc56678a42.html
The Intellectual Property Court of SPC Concludes a Case of Reconsideration of an Administrative Fine against Patent Infringement, with the Accused Infringer Fined for Falsifying Evidence, and a Witness Fined for False Statement
Date: 15 May 2024
The administrative reconsideration decision concerns a fine imposed by the court of first instance in a patent infringement action between a technology company and an instrument company. The patent in question was a utility model patent entitled 'Pupillary Distance Adjustment Mechanism for Ophthalmic Medical Equipment and Ophthalmic Medical Equipment,' with the patentee being the technology company. The instrument company had raised the defence of prior existing technology.
The Defendant claimed first that its 'LD Multifunctional Weakness and Myopia Comprehensive Treatment Instrument' had a pupillary distance adjustment mechanism, submitting Notarial Certificate No1896 as evidence. The product manual of this instrument did not, however, make any reference to the structure of the pupillary distance adjustment mechanism or its operation and usage methods. The technology company, the patentee, then provided Notarial Certificate No. 6190 containing details of a comprehensive treatment instrument purchased from the instrument company. It showed that the actual product did not have a pupillary distance adjustment mechanism, and that its internal structure was different from that shown in the instrument company's Notarial Certificate No. 1896. The instrument company could not provide a reasonable explanation, and the court of first instance determined that the instrument company had artificially altered the treatment instrument when submitting its evidence.
The Defendant further submitted notarial certificate No. 5624, which showed its product with a base plate marked with a production date of 18 April 2017, which was earlier than the production date of the product’s internal chip. Analyzing the production process of the product, the step of affixing the base plate label with the production date is usually the last process of the treatment instrument equipment, and the production time marked on the base plate should normally not be earlier than the production date of the internal chip used in the product. The witness, Fei, an employee of the instrument company, made statements in Court that were obviously unreasonable. Therefore, the court of first instance rendered a decision on the fine: a penalty of 600,000 yuan (approx. US$ 82,700) was imposed on the instrument company; a penalty of 50,000 yuan (approx. US$ 6,890) was imposed on Fei. In response to this decision, the instrument company and Fei filed an application for reconsideration with the Supreme People's Court.
The Supreme People's Court held that the instrument company had fabricated the physical evidence of the treatment instrument in both defenses of prior existing technology, and that Fei had concealed the fact that the physical evidence had been altered and intentionally made false statements, thereby hindering the People's Court in hearing the case. The court of first instance had made a decision to fine the instrument company and Fei based on the nature and circumstances of the acts, which had a factual and legal basis. The Supreme People's Court ultimately dismissed the reconsideration applications of the instrument company and Fei, upholding the decision issued by the court of first instance.
Source: The Intellectual Property Court of SPC
https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-3043.html
最高法知识产权法庭审结一起专利侵权纠纷罚款决定复议案件，被诉侵权人伪造证据被罚款60万元，证人故意作虚假陈述被罚款5万元
日期：2024-05-15
该复议决定涉及某科技公司诉某仪器公司专利侵权纠纷，案涉专利名称为“用于眼科医疗设备的瞳距调节机构以及眼科医疗设备”的实用新型专利，专利权人为某科技公司。
在该案中，某仪器公司先后两次提出现有技术抗辩。第一次抗辩中，某仪器公司主张其“LD多功能弱势近视综合治疗仪”存在瞳距调节机构，并出具1896号公证书，但该产品使用手册记载的仪器结构、操作方法、使用说明均不涉及瞳距调节结构或其操作、使用办法。同时，涉案专利权人某科技公司提供6190号公证书，将其从某仪器公司处购买的同款综合治疗仪产品提交为证据，该份公证书显示，同一产品实物并不存在瞳距调节机构，与某仪器公司的1896号公证书内部结构存在不同。某仪器公司无法作出合理解释，法院由此认定某仪器公司在提交该治疗仪实物作为证据时进行了人为改动。
第二次现有技术抗辩中，某仪器公司提交的5624号公证书所涉实物底板标注出厂日期为2017年4月18日，早于内部芯片的生产日期。以产品的生产流程分析，通常出厂日期的底板标签贴附步骤是治疗仪设备的最后一道工序，底板标注的出厂时间作为产品完工的最后日期，正常不应早于其内部使用的芯片生产日期。而证人费某作为某仪器公司工作人员，出庭陈述的事实存在明显不合常理的情况。一审法院遂作出罚款决定：对某仪器公司处60万元罚款；对费某处以5万元罚款。针对该罚款决定，某仪器公司、费某向最高人民法院提出复议申请。
最高人民法院认为，某仪器公司在两次现有技术抗辩中伪造治疗仪实物，费某隐瞒治疗仪实物被改动的事实，故意作虚假陈述，妨碍人民法院审理案件。一审法院根据行为性质和情节，作出对某仪器公司罚款60万元、对费某罚款5万元的决定，具有事实和法律依据。最高人民法院最终驳回某仪器公司、费某的复议申请，维持原决定。
资料来源：最高人民法院知识产权法庭