Analysis of the Invalidation of the Utility Model “Charger renting and selling machine”
Tao CHEN Chinese Patent Attorney
Beijing Wei Chixue Law Firm
CNIPA published on April 26, 2019 the top ten cases of patent reexamination and invalidation of 2018, including four cases involving a patent for utility model. The invalidation of the utility model “Charger renting and selling machine” concerns a special rule specifying the inventiveness of a utility model. According to the CNIPA, this case has the typical significance that “It provides a reference for how to accurately grasp the technical teachings in similar technical fields in the creative judgment of utility models. When the most-related prior art discloses an overall architecture other than the subject name in the patent claims, the technical fields of the prior art and that of the patent are identified as similar technical fields, rather than being generalized as the same technical field. Specific technical teachings of the prior art in a similar technical field is required so that the prior art can be used to evaluate the inventiveness of a utility model.”
The criteria for evaluating the inventiveness of a utility model will be discussed below with reference to the invalidation of the utility model “Charger renting and selling machine”.
II Disputes in the determination of the inventiveness of utility model patents
By the late half of the 19th century, the system of creationinvention patents has become substantially improved and perfect. However, as a patent for creation-invention requires highly of inventiveness, a great number of small creations aiming to be practical yet not pertaining to design cannot be effective protected. This forms a blank between patent for creation-invention and design. In order to fill this blank area, in 1891, German enacted the first official Utility Model Protection Law. The protection system for utility models is perfected along with time. Just like the system of creationinvention patents, the system of utility model patents is also a protection for technical solutions.
China does not have a separate law for the protection of utility models. The Chinese Patent Law provides protection for both patents for creation-invention and utility model. Judging by the objective of establishing the utility model system, the inventiveness requirements for utility model have always been lower than that for a creation-invention patent.
According to Article 22.3 of the Chinese Patent Law, “inventiveness means that, as compared with the prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents a notable progress, and that the utility model has substantive features and represents a progress.” The Law indeed specifies different criteria for evaluating the inventiveness of invention and utility model. However, “substantive features” and “progress” are subjective concepts, and the definition of “prominent” and “notable” further increases the subjective factors, causing poor operability in practice.
In fact, on the practical level, there are no compelling and operable criteria for determining the inventiveness of utility models throughout the world currently. Each country basically adopts the criteria for evaluating an invention in practice. It is very difficult to fairly and reasonably specify the difference between the inventiveness of a utility model and that of an invention.
In the Guidelines for Patent Examination, in order to provide implementable criteria for evaluating the inventiveness of a utility model, Section 4 Chapter 6 specifies the difference between the inventiveness of a utility model and that of an invention: The difference in requirement of inventive step for a utility model and for an invention is mainly indicated by whether there exists a technical teaching in the prior art. In determining whether there exists a technical teaching in the prior art, a utility model differs from an invention in the field of prior art references and the number of prior art references.
Analysis of the Invalidation of the Utility Model “Charger renting and selling machine”
Regarding the fields of prior art references, the Guidelines for Patent Examination specifies that for an invention, the examiner shall consider not only the technical field to which the invention belongs, but also the proximate or relevant technical fields, and those other technical fields in which the problem to be solved by the invention would prompt a person skilled in the art to look for technical means; for a utility model, the examiner will normally focus on the technical field to which the utility model belongs. Where there is a clear technical teaching, for example, where there is an explicit description in the prior art, to prompt a person skilled in the art to look for technical means in a proximate or relevant technical field, the proximate or relevant technical field may be considered.
Regarding the number of prior art references, the Guidelines for Patent Examination specifies that for an invention application, one, two or more prior art references may be cited to assess its inventive step; for a utility model, normally one or two prior art references maybe cited to assess its inventive step. Where the utility model is made just by juxtaposing some prior art means, the examiner may, according to the circumstance of the case, cite more than two prior art references to assess its inventive step.
Despite of the above provisions, the determination of inventiveness of utility model has always been a difficulty in the practice. The reason is that, on one hand, the above provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination contain controversy and ambiguity; on the other hand, the examination of utility model applications does not include substantive examination while the preliminary examination does not include examination of inventiveness. Thus, the determination of the inventiveness of utility model is only involved in invalidation and the subsequent administrative litigation procedures. As the inventiveness of utility model is examined far less than the inventiveness of creation-invention, there are far less chance for people to learn and talk about the inventiveness of utility model.
Regarding the two main differences in the criteria for determining the inventiveness of utility model and the inventiveness of invention, the number of prior art references seldom causes controversy and is not involved in the case discussed herein. Therefore, it is not discussed in this article. As for the fields of prior art references, the above provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination raise the following disputes.
Firstly, the above differences relate to “determining whether there exists a technical teaching in the prior art”, which is the third step of the “three-step method” for determining inventiveness.
It is known that three-step method includes: (1) determining the closest prior art, (2) determining the distinguishing features of the invention and the technical problem actually solved by the invention, and (3) determining whether or not the claimed invention is obvious to a person skilled in the art (i.e., whether or not the prior art contains technical teachings).
The prior art used in the third step is generally restricted in the technical field of the utility model. When the prior art contains an explicit teaching, prior arts in a proximate or a relevant technical field may be taken into consideration. However, regarding the most-related prior art determined in the first step which is the basis of and is of great importance for the determination of inventiveness, the Guidelines for Patent Examination does not specify whether the technical field is restricted like in the third step.
Secondly, the technical fields of the prior arts are divided into the technical field of the utility model, proximate technical fields, relevant technical fields, and the other technical fields. However, the standard for classifying the technical fields is not clarified.
Thirdly, the definition of “clear technical teaching” is not clear. The Guidelines for Patent Examination gives an example of “where there is a clear technical teaching, for example, where there is an explicit description in the prior art, to prompt a person skilled in the art to look for technical means in a proximate or relevant technical field”. However, it is not sufficient to determine what kind of technical teachings can be counted as “clear technical teaching”.
The Decision of Invalidation of the “Charger Renting and Selling Machine” and the typical significance of this case claimed by the CNIPA involved the above three disputed aspects. Brief introduction of this case and analysis of the disputes are described in the following parts of this article.
III Case Summary
In the invalidation case of “Charger Renting and Selling Machine”, claim 1 of the patent at issue is as follows: a charger renting and selling machine, comprising a cabinet, the cabinet having more than one charging module storage compartment configured to store a mobile charging module, the cabinet further including a payment management module, a master control circuit module, an electronic valve module, and a power module; the payment management module identifying and managing fees paid by a user and connecting the master control circuit module to provide detection and identification signals to the master control circuit module; the master control circuit module managing and
controlling the electronic valve module; the electronic valve module controlling the charging module storage compartment to open and providing the master control circuit module with storage detection signals indicating whether the mobile charging module is put back into the charging module storage compartment; the power supply module configured to supply power for the payment management module, the master control circuit module, and the electronic valve module and to charge the mobile charging module.
Evidence 1 discloses a battery charging and exchanging cabinet providing battery charging and exchanging services for electric vehicles or electric trolleys. It has substantially the same overall architecture with the rental machine of claim 1, comprising a cabinet, more than one charging module storage compartment, a payment management module, a mater control circuit module, an electronic valve module, and a power module. Moreover, the function of each module and the connection relationship between the modules are disclosed by Evidence 1. Claim 1 is distinguished from Evidence 1 in the claimed subject matter. Claim 1 of the patent at issue claims a charger renting and selling machine for storing a mobile charging module and renting and selling the mobile charging module; Evidence 1 discloses a battery charging cabinet storing a battery and performing battery exchange.
Evidence 3 discloses a paid rental system of mobile charging module for renting a mobile charging module so that a user can take away the mobile charging module to power or charge a portable electronic apparatus and return the mobile charging module after use, so as to flexibly and conveniently power or charge a portable electronic apparatus.
The Decision of Invalidation states the following opinions. Evidence 3 teaches to rent a mobile charging module. Under the teaching of Evidence 3, one skilled in the art can easily conceive the idea of restructuring the battery charging and exchanging cabinet of Evidence 1 so that the cabinet stores mobile charging modules to realize renting of mobile charging modules. As for the selling, it is a common business mode that can be easily realized on the basis of renting, and does not make contribution to the technology in view of the overall technical solution. Therefore, claim 1 does not possess inventiveness over Evidence 1 in combination with Evidence 3.
1. Regarding the first dispute
Based on the above-mentioned provisions of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, in determining the inventiveness of utility model, the most-related art is selected in the same way as in determining the inventiveness of invention; the prior art in a proximate technical field can be directed cited.
In this case, the Reexamination Board pointed out in the Decision of Invalidation that “Regarding the field of Evidence 1, the mobile charging module is essentially an assembly consisting of a rechargeable battery and a power management function module. Both the electric vehicle battery and the mobile charging module are a power component that is rechargeable and capable of supplying power to other devices. Viewing from the technical field of rechargeable batteries, Evidence 1 and this patent at least pertain to a proximate technical field.” Moreover, the Reexamination Board directly cites Evidence 1 as the most-related prior art without further discussing whether the prior art provides explicit technical teaching.
Regarding the technical field of the most-related prior art, in practice, different trial authorities may have different opinions.
In the case of “Gripe Dynamometer” (No. 19 ZXZ (2011)), the Supreme People’s Court points out that the inventiveness standards for creation-invention patent and for utility model patent are different; thus the technical field of the prior art references cited for comparison should also be different; this is an importance aspect of the differences between the inventiveness standards for creation-invention patent and for utility model patent. In this case, the Supreme People’s Court holds that, not just the prior art reference used in determining the technical teaching in the third step, but all the prior art references cited for the determination of the inventiveness of a utility model should be subject to the same restriction.
In the case No. 70 XZ (2016) of Supreme Court, the utility model patent at issue relates to a frequency control hydrodynamic coupling elec
trically driven feed pump; Evidence 4 relates to a rotational speed control device for electrical drive apparatus, in particular a fluid load of, blower, pump, etc. Evidence 4 is cited in the Decision of Invalidation as the most-related prior art to state that claim 1 does not possess inventiveness.
In the litigation, the patentee argued that the patent at issue belongs to a completely different technical field from Evidence 4; thus, it is inappropriate to cite Evidence 4 as the most-relate prior art to prejudice the inventiveness of the patent at issue. The court of first instance held the following opinions: firstly, both the patent at issue and Evidence 4 are speed controlled hydrodynamic coupling, belonging to the same technical field; secondly, even if the patent at issue belongs to a different technical field from Evidence 4, since Evidence 4 specifies a rotational speed control device for electrical drive apparatus adapted for a fluid load of, blower, pump, etc. and the patent at issue relates to a water pump, Evidence 4 prompts one skilled in the art to apply the technical solution thereof to the technical field of water pump.
In the second instance, the patentee continued to argue for the above reason. The court of second instance gave the same opinion as the court of first instance did.
In the cases described above, the courts at various levels all hold that the technical field should be considered in determining the most-related prior art. Generally, prior art references in the technical field of the utility model patent at issue should be paid more attention. However, if there are explicit teachings, a prior art reference in a proximate or relevant technical field can also be taken into consideration.
2. Regarding the second dispute
The criteria for determining the technical field greatly affects the criteria for determining the inventiveness of utility model. With a greater scope covered by “the same technical field”, the number of prior art references in the same technical field with the utility model increases; and thus, the inventiveness requirements for utility model become closer to those for invention.
Regarding the technical field, the Guidelines for Patent Examination stipulates the following: “The technical field of an invention or utility model shall be the specific technical field to which the claimed technical solution of the invention or utility model pertains or is directly applied, rather than a general or adjacent technical field or the invention or utility model per se. The specific technical field usually relates to the lowest position in which the invention or utility model may be classified according to the International Patent Classification.” The Guidelines for Patent Examination further provides an example: as for an invention relating to an excavator cantilever, the inventive feature of which is a change from rectangular section in the background art to elliptic section for the cantilever, the technical field to which the invention pertains should be an excavator, especially an excavator cantilever, rather than a building machine which is the general technical field.
Despite of such provisions, the determination of technical field has never been easy in practice.
In the above-mentioned case No. 70 XZ (2016) of Supreme Court, neither of the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment specifies whether the patent at issue and Evidence 4 belong to the same technical field or proximate technical fields.
In the case of “Gripe Dynamometer”, the patent at issue relates to a gripe dynamometer while Evidence 2 relates to an electronic scale. There have been different views during the trial with regard to the technical field. The Patent Reexamination Board holds that the sensors of the two are biased in the same direction and have the same structure; the only difference is that the objects applying the force are different in the measurement. In a general sense, both the patent at issue and Evidence 2 pertain to the technical field of dynamometer. The court of first instance agrees with the Patent Reexamination Board. The court of second instance holds that the patent at issue and Evidence 2 differ in objective of invention; and the direction of force is different in the patent at issue and Evidence 2; thus, the patent at issue and Evidence 2 pertain to different technical fields. The Supreme People’s Court gives the opinion that they pertain to proximate technical fields.
In this case, the Supreme People’s Court further specifies the general rules for determining the technical field, which is, “determination of technical field should be based on the disclosure of the claims. Generally, the technical field is determined according to the subject matter of the patent in view of the function and the use realized by the technical solution. Reference can be made to the lowest position in which the patent may be classified according to the International Patent Classification. A proximate technical field usually refers to a technical field in which the product has a function and use similar to those of the utility model patent. A relevant technical field usually means the functional technical field in which the distinguishing technical feature of the utility model patent as compared with the most-related prior art reference is applied.”
Many times, in the review of an invalidation request, the Reexamination Board does not follow the above rules when determining the technical field of the prior art. For example, in the invalidation case No. 33159, the Reexamination Board asserts that although Reference 1 re
lates to a wall plate and the patent at issue relates to a switch panel, one skilled in the art should know that both wall plate and switch panel are common electric panels for buildings. The wall plate and the switch panel indeed have different functions, one used for supplying power for electrical equipment and the other used as a switch of electrical equipment. But they have similar structures, similar dimensions, as well as similar mounting positions. In addition, due to the structure, they both have the problem of deformation caused by the attachment. In other words, Reference 1 and the patent at issue pertain to the same technical field. In the invalidation case No. 31773, the patent at issue relates to a fruit and vegetable juice maker having temperature display function. Evidence 8 discloses a mixer. The Reexamination Board holds that Evidence 8 and the patent at issue pertain to the same technical field. Moreover, one skilled in the art can easily conceive the idea of using the mixer of Evidence 8 for processing vegetables or fruits as a juice maker, which is just a choice of the object to be processed, without making creative efforts.
In the case of the charger renting and selling machine, the Reexamination Board asserted that, Evidence 1 and the patent at issue at least pertain to proximate technical fields in view of rechargeable battery. The Reexamination Board did not directly include Evidence 1 and the patent at issue in the same technical field. But, as seen from the expression “at least”, there is still a possibility that the Reexamination Board deems Evidence 1 and the patent at issue to be in the same technical field. Therefore, in this case, the Reexamination Board did not have a clear standard for determining the technical field.
3. Regarding the third dispute
In the case of the charger renting and selling machine, Evidence 1 of the proximate technical field is the most-related prior art reference; and Evidence 3 used in determining technical teachings pertains to the same technical field with the patent at issue. In such case, there is no need to discuss whether there is “clear teaching” in the prior art references. Therefore, this case is not a typical reference for the standard of “clear technical teaching”. The scope of “clear technical teaching” greatly affects the inventiveness standard for utility model. With a greater scope covered by “clear technical teaching”, the number of prior art references in the same or proximate technical field which can be cited to evaluate the inventiveness of the utility model increases; and thus, the inventiveness requirements for utility model become closer to those for invention. If “clear technical teaching” is limited to particular situations, the number of prior art references in the same or proximate technical field which can be cited to evaluate the inventiveness of the utility model will decrease dramatically; and thus, the inventiveness requirements for utility model becomes lower.
In the case of “Gripe Dynamometer”, the Supreme People’s Court asserts that when there is a clear technical teaching in the prior art to prompt a person skilled in the art to look for technical means in a proximate or relevant technical field, the proximate or relevant technical field may be considered. A clear technical teaching is a technical teaching that is explicitly disclosed in the prior art or a technical teaching that can be directly and unambiguously determined by a person skilled in the art from the prior art. Portable digital display electronic scale can be considered as a proximate technical field of the patent at issue. However, as the prior art does not provide explicit technical teachings, the Patent Reexamination Board made a mistake of the applicable law when evaluating the inventiveness of the patent at issue by considering the measuring sensor of the portable electronic scale.
There are different views in the industry about how to understand the judgment of the Supreme People’s Court in the case of “Gripe Dynamometer”. However, based on the fact of the case of “Gripe Dynamometer” that the distinguishing technical feature is disclosed by the prior art reference and plays the same role in the prior art reference, it is insufficient to determine that the prior art reference provides a clear technical teaching.
In many circumstances, the Patent Reexamination Board, the court of first instance, and the court of second instance (Beijing Higher People’s Court) understands the “clear technical teaching” as below: as long as the prior art reference explicitly disclose the technical means of the distinguishing technical feature, and the disclosed technical means plays the same role in the prior art reference as it does in the patent at issue, it should be deemed that the prior art reference provides a clear technical teaching and urges a person skilled in the art to seek for the technical means in the proximate or relevant technical field. In other words, the prior art reference in a proximate or relevant technical field can be directly cited to evaluate the inventiveness of utility model patent.
In March 2018, the Third Civil Trial Court of Beijing Higher People’s Court published the Several Legal Problems to Be Noted in IP-related Trials (2018) and gives the following opinion with regard to the examination criteria for inventiveness.
According to the Guidelines for Patent Examination, the determination of inventiveness of a utility model should generally focus in the technical field of the utility model. However, if the prior art provides a clear teaching, the prior art reference in a proximate or relevant technical field can be considered. In practice, it is rare that the prior art provides a clear teaching. Therefore, this situation can be omitted from the consideration. To sum up, in determining the inventiveness of utility model, not only the prior art reference in the technical field of the utility model, but the prior art reference in a proximate or relevant technical field can be considered.
The above opinion of the Supreme People’s Court, although weak in legal validity, represents the opinion of most examiners and judges, and thus is worth studying.
There is also a view that “clear technical teaching” actually includes two requirements: on one hand, it is required that the reference document explicitly discloses the technical means; on the other hand, it also requires that the reference document explicitly teaches or suggests to use the disclosed technical means in the most-related prior art, or, although such teaching or suggestion is not disclosed in the reference document, it can be unambiguously determined from the reference document. For example, except the distinguishing technical feature, the prior art reference in the proximate or relevant technical field may further contain an explicit disclosure that teaches one skilled in the art to use the disclosed technical solution in the technical field of the utility model. Such disclosure may be, for example, “the present disclosure is not only applicable for the cover plate, but widely applied to cover plate members for covering various openings provided in construction machinery” (see No. 1890 XZZ (2014) of Higher People’s Court), “a rotational speed control device for electrical drive apparatus for fluid loads of blowers, pumps, etc.” (see No. 70 XZ (2016) of Supreme Court), and so on.
The above two views actually both acknowledge that the inventiveness requirement for utility model should be lower than that for invention, but diverge from each other with regard to how much the standard should be lowered.
In China, the legal effect of utility model patent right is the same as the invention. During enforcement, if the infringement is confirmed, the patentee of utility model enjoys the same remedy and damages as the patentee of invention. If the inventiveness standard for utility models is excessively low, it will be difficult to invalidate patent applications of very low innovation level. Such inequality between rights and obligations is unfair to the public and will inevitably limit the dissemination and utilization of technology, which has an adverse effect on scientific and technological progress and social development. Of course, the inventiveness standard for utility models should not be too high, either. Otherwise, the incentive effect of the patent law on technological innovation will be harmed. Therefore, it is very significant for the patentees and the public that the inventiveness standard for utility model patents is accurately and reasonably determined.
This article sorts out different viewpoints on the three disputes in determining the inventiveness of utility model patents with reference to the invalidation of “Charger renting and selling machine”. Although the invalidation case and the typical significance advocated by the CNIPA do not seem settle these three disputes, and does not raise clearer criterion for determining the inventiveness of utility model, it can at least be seen that the CNIPA attaches great importance to the criterion for determining the inventiveness of utility model. It remains to be seen how the criterion for determining the inventiveness of utility models develop in the future.
Analysis on the Protection of Trade Secret from the Perspective of the Revision of Anti-Unfair Competition Law
Sai CHEN Chinese attorney-at-law
Wei Qixue Law Firm
The 10th Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress passed the Decision on the Revisions of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the PRC (AUCL) on 23 April 2019. The revised provisions came into force as of April 23. This revision was unexpected as before the Decision, there was neither solicitation of opinions nor any news. Moreover, the current AUCL was revised at the 30th session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress on November 4, 2017, and came into effect on January 1, 2018. It is rare in China's legislative practice to amend a law for the second time within such a short period as 1 year. Seeing from the content, this revision is mainly focused on trade secrets. In light of the revised Trademark Law as well as the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Management and the implementation Regulations of the China-foreign Joint Venture Law, which were revised within a month previously, it is not difficult to conclude that this revision is made in order to address the IPR problems that have been criticized in the context of the China-US trade war.
In the China-US trade war, the US demanded a lot on the IP legal system and IP protection of China, among which the problem of trade secret infringement has been emphasized all along. This not only reflects the importance of trade secrets in IPR protection, but also shows that domestic and foreign companies do not sufficiently understand the legal system as well as the protection and remedies relating to trade secrets in China.
This article intends to introduce the Chinese legal system relating to the constitutive requirements, infringement determination and remedies for trade secret infringement with a view to this revision of AUCL, and proposes suggestions on the protection of trade secrets with reference to the author’s practical experience in dealing with trade secret cases.
1. Regarding this revision of AUCL
1.1 The main changes in the revision
This revision mainly involves four articles covering the following three aspects.
(i). Article 9: Timely expanding and expressly prescribing the definition of trade secrets, the scope of infringers as well as infringement means and acts
In Article 9, “technical information and operational information” in the definition of trade secret is amended as “technical information, operational information and other business information”, so as to add a miscellaneous provision.
Moreover, an item is added to include “all individuals, legal person and unincorporated organization” in addition to “business operators”, in the liability subjects for trademark secret infringement, according to the Article 9 of the revised AUCL.
As for the infringement means and acts, “computer trespass” is added as one of the inappropriate means to obtain trade secrets in Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 9; “violation of agreement” is expressly provided as “violation of confidentiality obligations” in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 9; and the situation that “solicit, seduce or assist others to obtain, disclose, use or allow a third party to use the trade secrets in violation of confidentiality obligations or of the trade secret owner’s confidentiality requirement” is added into paragraph 4 of Article 9.
(ii). Article 17 and Article 21: Increasing the penalties for trade secret infringement
Article 17 introduces the punitive damages for malicious infringement and lifts the ceiling limit for statutory damages. “Where trade secret infringement is committed with maliciousness, if the situation is severe, the damages shall be determined as the amount of or up to five times
Analysis on the Protection of Trade Secret from the Perspective of the Revision of Anti-Unfair Competition Law
the amount of the actual loss of the right owner incurred by the infringement or the infringer’s gains from infringement.” At the same time, the ceiling amount of the statutory damages is increased from RMB 3 million to RMB 5 million.
In addition, Article 21 included the confiscation of illegal gains as one of the administrative penalties, increasing the cap penalty from RMB 500,000 and RMB 3 million to RMB 1 million and RMB 5 million, respectively. Hence the administrative liabilities are strengthened.
(iii). The newly added Article 32: specifying the allocation of burden of proof in civil litigation case of trade secret infringement, stipulating the means of proof of “accessibility + similarity” used in legal practice in explicit terms
It is prescribed in the newly added provision that, in the civil trial procedures of trade secret infringement, where the right owner of trade secret produces prima facie evidence proving his confidential measures for the asserting trade secret and reasonably demonstrating that the trade secret is infringed, the accused infringer shall prove that trade secret asserted by the right owner does not constitute the trade secret under the Law.
If the right owner of trade secret adduces preliminary evidence to prove the infringement of his trade secret and produces one of the following evidence, the accused infringer shall prove the non-existence of the infringement:
a. There is evidence that the accused infringer has access or opportunities to obtain the asserted trade secrets and the information used is substantially identical to the asserted trade secrets;
b. There is evidence that the asserted trade secrets have been used or disclosed, or are at risk of being used or disclosed, by the accused infringer;
c. There is other evidence showing that the asserted trade secrets are infringed by the accused infringer.
1.2 Impact and significance of the revision
It can be said that this revision is of significance, but exerting limited influence on the practical level, as it mainly makes the consensuses reached in judicial practice explicitly stipulated.
(i). The revision of Article 9
The newly added miscellaneous provision of “other business information” in the definition of trade secret intends to protect the business information that meets the constitutive requirements of trade secret but is hard to be classified as technical information and operation information as trade secret. In judicial practice, the information that is highly technology-related is often classified as technical information while other kinds of information are classified as business information. There is little information that is difficult to be classified. Moreover, the classification of trade secrets into two categories has practical significance; that is, the jurisdiction over each category of information is different. The first instance of infringement disputes related to technical secrets shall be under the jurisdiction of the IP court or the IP tribunal while the second instance shall be under the unified jurisdiction of the Supreme People's Court (SPC). Infringement disputes related to trade secrets other than technical information are general IP related cases same as trademark infringement cases where no well-known trademarks are involved and other cases of unfair competition, of which the first instance shall be heard by a basic or intermediate people's court with jurisdiction over general IP cases and the second instance shall be under the jurisdiction of a corresponding higher court. Generally the case will not be brought before the SPC.
The inclusion of other natural person, legal person and unincorporated organizations into the subject of the liability for trade secret infringement by Article 9 is mainly to cope with the situation where the infringement is committed by an employee or a former employee rather than business operators. In practice, the major way of trade secret disclosure in trade secret infringement cases is employees. Trade secrets infringement cases involving employees and former employees dominate above 90% of the total number of trade secret cases. Although the liability subject of trade secret infringement was constraint to “business operators” in the AUCL before the revision, in judicial practice, it is a consensus that the natural persons such as employees can also be held liable according to AUCL. And there is no dispute over this issue.
Regarding the infringement means and infringement acts, it is true that the inclusion of “computer trespass” keeps pace with the highly computerized society; but, because of the miscellaneous prescription of “or other improper means” in Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 9, the improper acquisition of trade secrets by computer trespass can also be held accountable according to the law even before this revision. The newly added paragraph 4 in Article 9 stipulates the situation of “solicit, seduce or assist others to obtain, disclose, use or allow a third party to use the trade secrets in violation of confidentiality obligations or of the trade secret owner’ s confidentiality requirement” is beneficial for the
regulation on indirect infringers. But such acts could be held liable before this revision based on Article 9 “Instigating and helping others to commit infringements shall bear joint and several liability with the perpetrator” of Tort Liability Law.
In addition, “violation of the agreement” is clearly defined as “violation of confidentiality obligations” in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 9, which further covers the situation of violations of statutory confidentiality obligations. The provisions before the revision are more focused on the agreement and the rights holder's requirements. In practice, where there is no clear agreement but the confidentiality obligation is statutory, the plaintiff would often claim the implied confidentiality agreement and confidentiality requirements. But the revision will undoubtedly make the legal provisions more rigorous.
(ii). Revision of Article 17 and Article 21
Increasing penalties and compensation is a major trend of law amendments in recent years, which is also closely related to economic development.
With regard to the compensation for unfair competition, the calculation method prescribed by AUCL is consistent with that in infringement cases relating to patents and trademarks. The newly added provisions of Article 17 with regard to punitive damages for malicious infringement and increased cap of compensation are also consistent with the amendments to the Trademark Law promulgated on the same day. It is believed that the same change will be made in the subsequent amendments to the Patent Law.
As for the punitive damages for malicious infringement, not only the related provisions are added in this revision, but the punitive damages as high as five times have been introduced. This is rare in the legal systems of all countries in the world, and demonstrates China's determination on strengthening its IP protection. As far as judicial practice is concerned, the earliest introduction of punitive damages in China was the amendment to the Trademark Law in 2013. However, since the implementation of the amended Trademark Law on May 1, 2014, there have been few cases applying punitive damages. The main reason is that the loss of the right owner and the interests of the infringer which are the grounds for calculating the penalties are difficult to calculate accurately. In the absence of the base number, it is certainly difficult to calculate a number by multiplication. Therefore, in most cases, maliciousness will be taken into account for a relatively high discretionary statutory compensation.
In this revision, the upper limit of statutory compensation has also increased accordingly. For right owners, it means more chances to obtain higher statutory compensation. However, it does not necessarily mean that the compensation in all cases will increase correspondingly. The court will still make the discretion according to the specific circumstances of the case. In each case, the right owner should still actively produce evidence to gain protection to an extent as far as possible.
(iii). Revision of Article 32
The newly Article 32 mainly specifies the burden of proof in civil litigation. It is rare in Chinese legislation that the method of producing evidence is stipulated in such details at the legal level.
As specified in the first paragraph of Article 32, if the right owner provides preliminary evidence to prove that confidential measures have been taken for the claimed trade secret and reasonably indicates that the trade secret has been infringed, the alleged infringer shall prove that the trade secrets claimed by the plaintiff does not constitute trade secret stipulated by law. Trade secrets have three constitutive requirements, namely, non-publicity, commercial value and the adoption of confidentiality measures. Commercial value is often self-evident; and nonpublicity is a negative fact. Therefore, in judicial practice, when the right owner claims a trade secret, to produce the evidence of the confidential measures having been taken is the key point. The alleged infringer can submit counter-evidence on non-publicity. Therefore, the first paragraph is also a rule established based on the constitutive requirements for the trade secret and the features of evidence.
The second paragraph of Article 32 specifies the evidence producing of infringement act. Item 1 of this paragraph corresponds to the principle of “accessibility + similarity”, which is the basic principle of evidence producing in trade secret infringement cases in judicial practice. Accessibility means that the alleged infringer has access to the trade secret or has a chance to obtain the trade secret. Similarity means that
the information used by the alleged infringer is essentially identical to the trade secret. Item 2 of this paragraph specifies the situation where the direct evidence of trade secret infringement is provided, in which situation it is not required to determine the infringement according to the principle of “accessibility + similarity”. Item 3 of this paragraph is the miscellaneous provision.
Although Article 32 is essentially to explicitly prescribe the method of evidence producing in judicial practice, it does not cause substantial change. However, the clarification of the allocation of the burden of proof provides legal basis for the right owner, which is conducive to the relief of the difficulties of evidence producing.
2. Protection of trade secrets
In light of this legal revision, China's protection of trade secrets can be deemed as relatively advanced in legislation. But there are various difficulties in the implementation of the law. It remains an attention-calling problem of companies to strengthen the protection of trade secrets.
2.1 Constitutive requirements of trade secret
It is generally believed that in China, trade secrets are subjected to three constitutive requirements, which is roughly the same as in most countries.
(i). Non-publicity (Secrecy)
It means that the information is not generally known or easily available to the relevant personnel in the field.
As mentioned above, non-publicity is a negative fact. The judicial interpretation enumerates situations against non-publicity from an opposite perspective, including:
1. The information is the general knowledge or industry practice for the person in his technical or economic field;
2. The information only involves product’s size, structure, material, simple combination of components, etc. which can be directly obtained by the relevant public by observing the product after the product enters the market,;
3. The information has been publicly disclosed by public publications or other media;
4. The information has been disclosed through public reports, exhibitions, etc.;
5. The information is available from other public sources;
6. The information is easy to obtain without certain costs.
The information listed above obviously does not constitute a trade secret. It is worth noting that, information accessible from industry survey reports, etc., for example, although can be obtained from public sources, acquiring such information obviously requires necessary efforts of searching, collecting, and sorting. Such information as sorted and obtained at certain costs may be determined as non-public.
(ii). Commercial Value (Practicality)
It means that the relevant information has realistic or potential commercial value and can bring competitive advantages to the right owner. As mentioned earlier, the commercial value of information is often self-evident. In practice, right owners usually do not need to work hard to prove this. There are very few cases where the asserted trade secret is not recognized due to lack of business value, but indeed there were precedents.
For example, in the trade secret infringement case involving PowerScan Company Limited and its legal person Xiaoming SUN, both the courts of the first instance and the second instance have clearly determined that there are two parts of information having no commercial value: the information of early transactions and the information of early trading practices. The court believes that the equipment model sold in an early stage of the company is an early model that was used long before the alleged infringement, and the accused infringer did not use the above-mentioned early equipment model to compete for the project. Therefore, the sales price and the parameters of the equipment sold in the early stage do not have commercial value in this case, thus do not constitute trade secrets. As for the early trading practice, the court holds that the trading practice has changed along with the changed policy, and thus the trading practice in early projects no longer have a commercial value. It is worth noting that in the case, the judgment stated that “there is no commercial value in this case and does not constitute a trade secret of the case”. It can be seen that whether the information has a commercial value is determined based on the specific circumstances of a case.
(iii). The adoption of confidentiality measures
The adoption of confidentiality measures refers to the reasonable protection measures which match with specific circumstances such as the commercial value of the information taken by the right owner to prevent information leakage. Whether the right owner has taken confidential measures should be determined based on the features of the information carrier involved, the willingness of the right owner to keep confidential, the identifiability of the confidentiality measure, and the difficulty for others to obtain the information through proper means.
The judicial interpretation further enumerates the circumstances in which it is deemed that the right owner has taken confidentiality measures:
1. The access to the confidential information is limited to to the relevant personnel who must know it;
2. Precautions are taken such as locking the carrier of the confidential information
3. Secrecy mark is provided on the carrier of the confidential information
4. Passwords or codes are used for the confidential information
5. Non-disclosure agreement is signed
6. Confidentiality requirements are imposed on visitors to confidential machines, workshops, etc.
7. Other reasonable measures are taken to ensure the confidentiality of information
Confidentiality measures one of the key points for the evidence producing of the right owner. From the perspective of the difficulty of proof, it is easier to provide a confidentiality mark on the carrier, sign non-disclosure agreement, and establish a confidentiality system relating to confidentiality measures. The enterprises should also pay close attention in this regard.
2.2 Remedies for trade secret infringement
When a case trade secret infringement is raised, there are civil, administrative, and criminal remedies under the Chinese laws and regulations. In addition, the right owner may also resort to private remedies by warning or negotiating with the infringer. In fact, our firm has settled a number of trade secret infringement disputes by sending warning letters or by negotiation. In these cases, after the collection of evidence is completed, we sent a warning letter to the infringer and negotiated with the infringer about the terms of settlement. Finally, an agreement was reached on the conditions of stopping the infringement, eliminating the influence of the infringement, and compensating for the losses. Such a solution costs less time and money, and can be used as a first step of remedy measures. However, if the infringer was obstinate, it is necessary to resort to public remedy means and take tough measures.
(i). Administrative approach
The administrative approach is a unique solution in China. Through this method, the right owner may file a complaint to a governmental department that performs industrial and commercial administrative duties at or above the county level against the acts violating the provisions of the AUCL with regard to trade secrets. Based on the current institutional reform, most of the official departments that perform the industrial and commercial administration duties at or above the county level are the local market supervision bureaus.
One of the major advantages of the administrative approach is that the administrative organs can take the following measures to conduct investigations, which is far more effective than the survey and evidence collection performed by the right owners on their own.
1. Entering the business premises suspected of unfair competition to conduct inspections;
2. Inquiring the operators, interested parties and other relevant units and individuals under investigation, and asking them to explain the situation or to provide other information related to the investigated acts;
3. Inquiring and duplicating agreements, account books, receipts, documents, records, business correspondences and other materials and documents related to the suspected unfair competition;
4. Sealing up or distraining property related to the suspected unfair competition;
5. Checking the bank account of the operator suspected of unfair competition.
Once the administrative organ determines that the accused infringer violates the law, it may impose an administrative punishment on the infringer, including ordering to stop the illegal act, confiscation of illegal income, and imposing a fine of RMB 100,000 or more and no more than RMB 1 million; if the consequences are severe, the fine may reach RMB 500,000 or more and no more than RMB 1 million.
However, the right owner cannot directly claim damages in the administrative approach. Another difficulty is that it is not easy to persuade the administrative organ to establish a case. The right owner still needs to collect a large amount of evidence in the early stage.
(ii). Civil Litigation
Civil litigation is a common means, through which a lawsuit is filed before a court of competent jurisdiction to investigate the infringer’s civil liability including stopping the infringement and paying damages.
In this revision, the amount of statutory damages for civil compensation has been raised, and the rules for producing evidence in civil litigation clarified. Thus, the advantages of civil litigation as a remedy to resolve disputes is further strengthened.
Furthermore, the right owner can also obtain and collect evidence through procedures such as evidence preservation. In judicial practice, in trade secret infringement cases, the request for evidence preservation is highly likely to be supported by court given the difficulty of the burden of proof of the right owner. In the civil cases of trade secret infringement our firm has attended, our requests for evidence preservation were approved by the court. The court preserved a large number of drawings and data materials in the infringer’s factory, which laid the foundation for our final victory.
The weakness of civil litigation is that it takes a long time and is costly, and the investigation methods and strength of evidence preservation by court are weaker than that in administrative and criminal litigation.
If the infringement is serious and the loss incurred is more than RMB 500,000, criminal liability could be held. Specifically, the plaintiff can report the case to the public security organ. Alternatively, the plaintiff may file a criminal private prosecution, which, however, still needs a large amount of evidence to be collected. Therefore, when criminal remedy is employed, it is more common to report the case to the police.
The criminal punishment is obviously more deterrent to the infringer. If the damages caused by the infringer are more than RMB 500,000, the infringer will be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of no more than three years or criminal detention as well as or alternatively be fined; if the losses incurred exceeds RMB 2.5 million, the infringer will be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of no less than three years and no more than seven years as well as be fined. Moreover, the criminal investigation methods are far more powerful than civil and administrative investigations. Although it is difficult to directly claim damages in criminal cases, it is possible to reach a settlement at the criminal trial stage or to file a civil compensation lawsuit after the criminal judgment is made. Civil litigation will be smoother based on the criminal judgments in which the crime has been recognized by court.
However, criminal remedies are only applicable to the cases where the situations are serious and the loss has reached the level where the criminal responsibility could be investigated. In addition, it is not the case that the public security organ will establish a case as long as it is reported. The right owner also needs to provide a considerable amount of evidence to prove that the criminal act is highly possible to exist. For example, usually, it is necessary to provide an appraisal opinion issued by a judicial appraisal agency approving the secrecy of the trade secret claimed by the right owner for the public security organ to establish a case.
2.3 Response to the leakage of trade secrets
Generally there are two kinds of situations when a company notices the leakage of its trade secrets. Firstly, it was found that the company’s confidential information was improperly accessed. For example, in the technical secret infringement dispute of Lilly Company (U.S.) and Lilly (China) R&D Company v. Huang Mengyu, Lilly noticed that its employee Huang Mengyu logged into the server and downloaded the company's core technical secrets. The companies took immediate measures. However, it is more often that companies did notice the leakage of its secret information and only began to investigate whether its trade secret has been disclosed when the same / similar products or information are suddenly found on the market.
In either case, once the company's trade secrets are disclosed, the immediate action to be taken is to investigate and check. The way and the
scope of information leakage should be determined; the path of information leakage should be shut down immediately. Priority should be given to making up for the losses and preventing greater losses. The way of investigation varies from company to company. But, basically, the investigation starts from persons who have access to the confidential information and his approaches.
For the infringement act that has already occurred, it is advised to choose an appropriate remedy according to the infringement act, scope and the collected evidence. As mentioned above, each remedy has advantages and disadvantages. It is necessary to choose the most suitable method in specific situations. But evidence collection is essential regardless of which means is adopted.
For the right owners, evidence collection can be performed in terms of the following aspects:
1. Content of rights: carrier of trade secrets (drawings, technical documents, customer lists, etc.)
2. Ownership of rights: technical documents of the development process or a contract stipulating the ownership of rights, etc.
3. Secrecy measures for the claimed trade secrets: confidentiality agreements, confidentiality regulations, etc.
4. Accessibility of the suspected infringer to secret information: for example, a labor contract or other commission contract, etc. signed when the infringer was still a employee or had a cooperative relationship
5. Evidence that the information used by the alleged infringer being identical or similar to the trade secret: the evidence to support this claim is the most difficult, especially when it involves the technical secret information related to production method and equipment. The information used by the alleged infringer often exceeds the right owner’s legal reach of evidence collection. At this point, some prima facie evidence may be collected, for example, by notarized purchase of the defendant’s products so as to explain that the production methods and equipment are likely to be similar based on the similarity of the products. It is also workable to hunt clues from the public promotional material of the alleged infringer, especially from the content about company’s technical strength and production method.
After the above-mentioned evidence is collected as far as possible, a lawsuit may be brought to the court. If the evidence is not sufficient, a request for evidence preservation can be filed. Alternatively, a complaint may be filed with the administrative organ, or a case may be reported to the public security organ when it is serious.
2.4 Advice on trade secret protection
Although the law stipulates remedies for trade secret infringement, there are three major hurdles in afterward remedy. Firstly, the evidence is difficult to collect. Evidence such as confidentiality measures, ownership of rights and labor contracts are often missing or absent due to the negligence in enterprise management. If the infringement is conducted secretly, the evidence of infringement is mastered by the infringer, which is even more difficult to obtained even by means of evidence preservation. Secondly, the determination of infringement is also difficult. Technical secret infringement cases are highly technology-related and specialized. With great controversy in whether the business information constitutes a trade secret as well as complicated evidence, in trade secret infringement cases, regardless of the means of remedy, it is difficult and takes a relatively long time to determine the infringement. Thirdly, effective protection is a further difficulty. Although the cessation of infringement will be ordered according to the remedy, it is hard to assure that infringer will not continue to use the trade secret that is already under the control of the infringer. Moreover, producing evidence in the civil litigation may cause a secondary disclosure of the trade secret. As for the liability for damages, it is the fact that the amount of compensation for the plaintiff remains low because the loss is difficult to calculate.
Therefore, it is more important to take precautionary measures than seeking for afterward remedies. The following measures are recommended:
(i). Improve the management system of trade secrets
It is recommended to formulate trade secret management rules to classify and manage the trade secrets of the company, so as to limit the disclosure of trade secrets to a necessary extent. Confidentiality marks should be clearly marked on the carriers of trade secrets and should be properly stored and managed.
F16 Tower C, Beijing Global Trade Center, 36 North Third Ring East Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing 100013 P. R. China Tel: +86-10-5825-6366 (office) Fax: +86-10-5957-5201 (office) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.lindapatent.com ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――