According to the Supreme People's Court's WeChat public account on September 9, September 14 to 14 is the 9 China Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week, and the theme of this year's publicity week is "Unifying the Big Market and Fair Competition for the Future". On September 11, the Supreme People's Court released the 15 Typical Anti-monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases of People's Courts. A total of 2023 typical cases were released this time, including 9 typical anti-monopoly cases and 14 typical anti-unfair competition cases.
Among the five typical anti-monopoly cases, three cases involving abuse of dominant market position involved four types of abuse, including unfair high prices, restricted transactions, unreasonable trading conditions, and refusal to trade, and two monopoly agreement cases involved vertical agreements and horizontal agreements respectively. The cases involved industries such as medicine, funeral, automobile sales and building materials, all of which are closely related to people's livelihood. The five typical cases mainly reflect the following three characteristics:
First, respond to people's livelihood concerns and resolutely stop monopolistic behaviors that infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises and the people. In the case of refusal to trade in "basic funeral services", the dispute over the vertical monopoly agreement of "General Motors", and the anti-monopoly administrative penalty case of "commercial concrete joint operation", public utilities in the funeral industry who abuse their dominant market position, operators in the automobile sales industry and building materials industry who reach and implement monopoly agreements and other monopolistic behaviors are resolutely stopped or sentenced to full compensation in accordance with the law, so as to effectively safeguard the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises. The above-mentioned cases can show that anti-monopoly justice plays an important role in serving the protection of social livelihood, maintaining the order of fair market competition, and promoting the construction of a unified national market.
Second, strengthen the guidance of rules and promote the fair and efficient trial of monopoly cases in accordance with the law. The "loratadine" API abuse market dominance dispute case for the first time explained the correlation and judgment method between the market blockade effect of the alleged restricted trading behavior and the exercise of patent rights, as well as the basic considerations for the identification and regulation of unfair and high-priced behaviors. "Basic Funeral Services" refusal transaction dispute case, trying to order the public utility with a monopoly position to assume the obligation to resume transactions under legal and reasonable conditions; The objection to the jurisdiction of "batralase" API refusal transaction disputes further clarifies the criteria for determining the jurisdictional connection point of refusal transaction disputes. The judgments of the above cases have guiding value in promoting the accurate application of the Anti-Monopoly Law.
Third, improve the connection mechanism and demonstrate the coordination of the maintenance of fair competition order. The "General Motors" vertical monopoly agreement dispute clarified the burden of proof in civil compensation litigation cases after the anti-monopoly administrative penalty was imposed, and effectively reduced the plaintiff's burden of proof; The anti-monopoly administrative penalty case of "commercial concrete joint venture" refines the criteria for determining horizontal monopoly agreements, and supports the administrative law enforcement of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement departments in accordance with the law. The above-mentioned cases are of positive significance for promoting the harmonization and unification of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement standards and judicial standards, and promoting the formation of synergy in anti-monopoly law enforcement and justice.
The five typical anti-unfair competition cases involved the types of cases including the application of general provisions on unfair competition, confusion, false publicity, infringement of technical secrets and online unfair competition disputes. The areas involved in the case include household appliances, short videos, online games, food and beverage reviews and other daily consumption fields, as well as high-tech fields such as diagnostic reagents. The case mainly reflects the following three characteristics:
First, vigorously safeguard the market order of fair competition and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of business operators and consumers. In the "Siemens" counterfeiting and confusion dispute, the people's court was guided by encouraging honest management, strengthened the protection of well-known brands, and severely cracked down on dishonest trademark attachment and counterfeiting and hitchhiking. When the existing evidence cannot prove the specific amount of the defendant's profit and the plaintiff's loss, but is sufficient to determine that the defendant's infringement profit clearly exceeds the statutory limit of damages, full consideration of factors such as popularity and improper means fully supports the plaintiff's litigation claim and equally protects the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties. In the "Photoexcited Chemiluminescence Analysis System General Liquid" technology secret infringement dispute, the people's court clarified the relationship between technical secret information and its carrier documents, which is of exemplary significance for reasonably allocating the burden of proof and strengthening the protection of technical secrets.
Second, continue to explore and improve data protection rules to ensure the high-quality development of the digital economy. In recent years, the people's courts have insisted on attaching equal importance to regulation and development, giving full play to judicial functions, properly hearing cases of unfair competition in data rights, actively exploring judicial rules for big data protection, and reasonably dividing the ownership and boundaries of data rights and interests. In the "Brush Treasure APP" unfair competition dispute case, the people's court explored and clarified the legal nature and independent economic value of non-original data collection, protected the legitimate rights and interests of short video platform operators in the collection, storage, processing and transmission of data, continuously met the judicial needs of new formats and new models, and provided services to ensure the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy industry.
Third, actively create an honest and trustworthy market environment, and standardize and guide the healthy development of the Internet. The people's courts actively adapt to the new situation and new requirements of the development of the Internet industry, and ensure the healthy development of new Internet technologies, new formats and new models on the track of rule of law by giving play to the normative and exemplary guiding role of adjudication, so that the results of Internet development can better benefit the people. In the unfair competition dispute case of "Dailian Gang App", the people's court found that the commercial training behavior of bypassing the anti-addiction mechanism for minors and undermining the game operation mechanism constituted an act of unfair competition as stipulated in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which was of positive significance to the fair competition order of the Internet industry, the healthy development of the game industry and the protection of social public interests. In the case of unfair competition disputes involving "order speculation", the people's courts promptly and effectively stopped false publicity that affected the healthy and orderly development of the platform economy, protected the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and escorted the standardized and orderly development of the platform economy.
Typical cases of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition in people's courts in 2023
1. "Loratadine" API abuse market dominance dispute case - properly handle the relationship between intellectual property protection and anti-monopoly
【Case No.】Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhong No. 1140 [Yangtze River Pharmaceutical Group Guangzhou Hairui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yangtze River Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and Hefei Medical Industry Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Hefei Enrite Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Nanjing Haichen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. abuse of market dominance dispute]
【Basic facts of the case】Yangzijiang Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as Yangzijiangfang) sued that it was a manufacturer of loratadine tablets, an anti-allergy drug with the trade name "Beixue". Hefei Medical Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. owns the patent related to loratadine, and for a long time, the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively referred to as medical workers) have been the only suppliers of the raw materials of loratadine necessary for the production of "Beixue". In addition to the production of loratadine APIs, the medical industry also produces loratadine hard capsules. Therefore, the medical worker and Yangtze Jiangfang are not only the supply and demand sides of the APIs involved in the case, but also the competitors of the preparations involved in the case. Taking advantage of its dominant position in the API market involved in the case, the medical party restricted Yangtze River to purchase the APIs involved in the case from it, significantly increased the price of the APIs involved in the case, and forced the Yangtze Party to accept other commercial arrangements unrelated to the API transactions involved in the case under the threat of stopping the supply of the APIs involved in the case, causing huge losses to the Yangtze River Party, constituting an abuse of market dominance such as restricted transactions, unfairly high prices, tie-in sales, and attaching unreasonable conditions within the meaning of the Anti-Monopoly Law, and requested that the medical party be ordered to stop abusing its dominant market position. and compensate Yangtze River for losses and reasonable expenses of rights protection of 1 million yuan. The court of first instance held that the medical worker had abused its dominant market position such as restricting transactions, unfairly high prices, and attaching unreasonable trading conditions, and ordered the medical worker to immediately stop the above acts and compensate Yangzijiang for more than 6800 million yuan. Both parties appealed. The medical worker believes that it does not have a dominant position in the relevant market and has not committed an abuse of market dominance, and requests that the original judgment be revoked and Yangtze Jiangfang's litigation claim dismissed according to law; Yangtze Jiangfang believed that the amount of compensation in the first trial was too low, and requested that the award be changed to more than 7800 million yuan.
The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that although the medical practitioner has a dominant market position in the market of loratadine APIs in China, its dominant market position has been weakened to a certain extent because it faces strong indirect competition constraints from the downstream second-generation antihistamine preparation market, and the existing evidence is difficult to prove that it has abused its dominant market position. First, loratadine falls within the scope of patent protection of the medical party, and the medical party's restriction that Yangtze River can only purchase the patented APIs involved in the case from it within a certain period of time and scope is a legitimate exercise of the patent right, and the resulting market blockade effect does not exceed the statutory exclusive effect of the patent, and does not constitute an act of restricting transactions without legitimate reasons. Second, taking into account the internal rate of return after the price increase and the matching degree of price and economic value, the initial price of the patented API involved in the case is more likely to be a promotional price, and the subsequent large price increase may be a reasonable adjustment of the promotional price to the normal price, and the price increase alone is significantly higher than the cost increase is not enough to determine the unfair high price behavior. Third, the existing evidence is not sufficient to prove that the medical party has explicitly or implicitly traded the off-case project with the sale of the patented APIs involved in the case, so it is difficult to determine that there is an act of attaching unreasonable trading conditions. The Supreme People's Court made a final judgment, revoked the first-instance judgment, and revised the judgment to dismiss Yangzijiang's litigation claim.
【Typical Significance】This case is a monopoly case involving the field of APIs, which clarifies the basic considerations for determining and regulating the indirect competition constraints from the downstream market when judging the dominant market position of intermediate input operators, the correlation and judgment method of the market blockade effect of the sued restricted trading behavior and the exercise of patent rights, unfairly high prices and unreasonable trading conditions. The case made useful explorations in properly handling the relationship between patent protection and anti-monopoly, taking into account encouraging innovation and protecting market competition, and making good use of economic analysis to assist in judging monopolistic behavior, which is of positive significance for promoting the accurate application of the Anti-Monopoly Law and effectively safeguarding fair competition in the pharmaceutical market.
2. "Basic funeral service" refusal transaction dispute case - the determination of the refusal of the transaction behavior of the public utility enterprise and the assumption of legal responsibility
【Case No.】Supreme People's Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhong No. 242 [Quanzhou Licheng Lisheng Funeral Service Co., Ltd. and Quanzhou Jiying Funeral Service Co., Ltd. Refusal Transaction Dispute]
【Basic facts of the case】Quanzhou Licheng Lisheng Funeral Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lisheng Company), which is mainly engaged in funeral intermediary services, sued and claimed that Quanzhou Jiying Funeral Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jiying Company) is a public enterprise that provides basic funeral services such as cremation of remains, because Lisheng Company reported Jiying Company's illegal fees, Jiying Company refused to apply for cremation business on behalf of the deceased's relatives, violating the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law prohibiting administrative monopoly. It requested that Jiying Company be ordered to resume handling relevant business for Lisheng Company and compensate 8,<> yuan for economic losses. The court of first instance held that Lisheng had not proved that Jiying was the subject of administrative monopoly regulated by the Anti-Monopoly Law, and ruled to dismiss all of Lisheng Company's claims. Dissatisfied, Lisheng filed an appeal, claiming that Jiying's refusal was a refusal to abuse its dominant market position prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law.
The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the basic funeral service market in which Jiying Company is located belongs to the upstream market, and the funeral intermediary service provided by Lisheng Company is derived from the basic funeral service, and the funeral intermediary service market in which it is located belongs to the downstream market. The alleged monopolistic behavior occurred in the basic funeral service market and had an impact on the funeral intermediary service market. As a public utility enterprise with a unique position in the basic funeral service market in the downtown area of Quanzhou, the basic funeral services provided by Jiying Company are indispensable and specific services for Lisheng Company to carry out funeral intermediary services, and Lisheng Company has no alternative choice. Jiying Company's refusal to handle relevant business for Lisheng Company resulted in Lisheng Company being completely excluded from the funeral intermediary service market in the downtown area of Quanzhou, excluding and restricting competition in the funeral intermediary service market, harming the interests of the relatives of the deceased as consumers within the meaning of the Anti-Monopoly Law, and constituting a refusal to trade prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. Since its establishment, Lisheng Company has been engaged in funeral intermediary services, and there is a long-term and stable transaction relationship with the basic funeral service provider, and the resumption of the original transaction is not an imposed transaction obligation. The final judgment of the Supreme People's Court revoked the first-instance judgment and changed the judgment of Jiying Company to resume the cremation business of Lisheng Company on behalf of the deceased's relatives under the condition that it complied with relevant laws, regulations and industry management norms; At the same time, according to the nature, extent, circumstances and duration of Jiying's refusal to trade, it was determined that Jiying Company compensated Riseng for the loss caused to Lisheng Company by its refusal of trading, and fully supported Lisheng Company's compensation claim.
【典型意义】本案明确了具有独占地位的公用企业，如果是交易相对人开展生产经营活动不可或缺的特定服务的唯一提供者，判断其拒绝交易行为的反竞争效果时应综合评判对上下游市场竞争的影响，以及是否损害消费者的利益。同时，本案对拒绝交易行为的救济措施以及拒绝交易行为造成损失的认定标准进行了探索。本案裁判对保障基本民生，规范殡葬行业的市场竞争秩序，预防和制止具有独占地位的公用企业实施垄断行为具有积极意义。
3.“通用汽车”纵向垄断协议纠纷案——反垄断后继民事诉讼中的举证责任分配及赔偿责任认定
【案号】最高人民法院(2020)最高法知民终1137号〔缪某与上汽通用汽车销售有限公司、上海逸隆汽车销售服务有限公司纵向垄断协议纠纷案〕
【基本案情】上海逸隆汽车销售服务有限公司(简称逸隆公司)系上汽通用汽车销售有限公司(简称通用公司)上海地区经销商之一。2014年，缪某从逸隆公司购买涉案车辆。2016年，上海市物价局作出处罚决定书，认定在2014年分销汽车过程中，通用公司存在与上海地区经销商达成并实施限定向第三人转售商品最低价格垄断协议的事实，责令其立即停止违法行为，并处以上一年度销售额4%的罚款。缪某认为，其在2014年从逸隆公司处购买涉案车辆时，正是通用公司实施上述纵向垄断协议期间，且购买价格也是涉案处罚决定认定的垄断价格，其合法权益受到了涉案垄断行为的侵害，故提起诉讼，请求判令通用公司赔偿其购车损失1万元及维权合理开支7500元，逸隆公司对上述损失承担补充赔偿责任。一审法院认为，在案证据尚不足以证明通用公司最低限价对逸隆公司具有拘束力，不足以认定通用公司与逸隆公司实施了限定向第三人转售商品最低价格的垄断协议，判决驳回缪某的诉讼请求。缪某不服，提起上诉。
最高人民法院二审认为，反垄断执法机构认定构成垄断行为的处理决定在法定期限内未被提起行政诉讼或者已为人民法院生效裁判所确认，原告在相关垄断民事纠纷案件中据此主张该垄断行为成立的，无需再行举证证明，但有相反证据足以推翻的除外。本案中，在缪某提交了已经发生法律效力的涉案处罚决定书后，其仅需要证明通用公司与逸隆公司系涉案处罚决定书认定的垄断行为实施者，以及缪某因通用公司与逸隆公司达成并实施了涉案处罚决定书认定的垄断行为而受到损害。根据涉案处罚决定书及在案事实，缪某以垄断价格购买了涉案车辆，应当认定通用公司与逸隆公司共同实施了侵权行为。本案系消费者作为受害人提起的后续民事赔偿诉讼，赔偿金额应当为经营者之间限定的非竞争价格与竞争价格之间的差额。缪某购买涉案车辆时支付的垄断价格与涉案行政处罚决定作出后涉案车辆市场价格的差额为1.2万元，缪某请求赔偿1万元经济损失具有一定合理性。最高人民法院终审判决，撤销一审判决，改判支持缪某全部诉讼请求。
【典型意义】本案系反垄断执法机构作出行政处罚后，消费者就垄断行为主张损害赔偿的民事诉讼。本案裁判明确了反垄断后继民事诉讼中原告的举证责任，有利于切实减轻原告举证负担，有效强化反垄断民事救济，对于完善反垄断领域行政执法和司法衔接机制具有现实意义。
4.“商砼联营”反垄断行政处罚案——实施横向垄断协议的认定
【案号】最高人民法院(2023)最高法知行终29号〔重庆江都建材有限公司与重庆市市场监督管理局反垄断行政处罚案〕
【基本案情】重庆江都建材有限公司(简称江都公司)与案外人重庆建典混凝土有限公司(简称建典公司)是重庆市丰都县内仅有的两家商砼生产企业，两公司为避免展开价格战于2019年4月达成固定商品价格、分割销售市场、分配商砼方量和销售利润的协议，此后双方互派人员到对方企业现场监督，确保协议得到执行。重庆市市场监督管理局于2019年10月对江都公司、建典公司涉嫌垄断行为启动调查，认定两公司达成并实施固定销售价格、分割商砼销售市场的行为违反反垄断法，对江都公司(对建典公司另案处理)作出处上一年度销售额5%共计12149260.88元罚款的行政处罚决定。江都公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销前述行政处罚决定。一审法院判决驳回江都公司的诉讼请求。江都公司不服，提起上诉。
最高人民法院二审认为，“固定或者变更商品价格”“分割销售市场”均属于典型的横向垄断协议类型，在实践中的表现形式具有多样性，约定价格变动幅度、采用标准公式或算法计算价格的、未经协议方同意不得变更价格等亦属于“固定或者变更商品价格”；约定划分市场份额、销售对象、销售收入、销售利润等亦构成“分割销售市场”。江都公司和建典公司达成固定商品价格、分割销售市场的协议并予以实施，直接导致所在区域没有价格竞争，明显具有排除、限制价格竞争的效果。被诉行政处罚决定对江都公司的行为定性准确，作出程序合法，处罚结果符合过罚相当原则。最高人民法院终审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。
【典型意义】本案通过分析当事人达成并实施横向垄断协议的具体表现形式，细化了“固定或者变更商品价格”“分割销售市场”等横向垄断协议的认定标准，对于人民法院依法监督和支持反垄断行政执法部门的行政执法，共同维护市场公平竞争具有积极意义。
5. “巴曲酶”原料药拒绝交易纠纷管辖权异议案——拒绝交易纠纷的管辖确定
【案号】北京知识产权法院(2022)京73民初1136号〔北京托毕西药业有限公司与先声药业集团有限公司、江苏先声药业有限公司拒绝交易纠纷管辖权异议案〕
【基本案情】北京托毕西药业有限公司(简称托毕西公司)向北京知识产权法院起诉称，托毕西公司是我国唯一具有巴曲酶注射液生产资质和生产能力的企业，先声药业集团有限公司(简称先声集团公司)和江苏先声药业有限公司(简称江苏先声公司)在中国巴曲酶浓缩液原料药(简称巴曲酶原料药)销售市场占有100%份额。2021年1月，国家市场监督管理总局作出处罚决定，认定先声集团公司和江苏先声公司拒绝与托毕西公司进行交易构成拒绝交易的垄断行为。此后，江苏先声公司与托毕西公司签订2022年购销合同，但拒绝履行，导致托毕西公司自2022年4月起一直处于停产状态。托毕西公司请求判令先声集团公司、江苏先声公司立即停止滥用市场支配地位的垄断行为；连带赔偿托毕西公司经济损失及合理费用合计2亿元。先声集团公司对本案管辖权提出异议，认为没有证据证明被诉拒绝交易行为实施地为北京，也无证据证明托毕西公司住所地为侵权结果发生地，北京知识产权法院对本案无管辖权。
北京知识产权法院认为，拒绝交易行为的侵权结果发生地应是拒绝交易行为所直接产生的结果发生地。行政处罚决定已经认定，先声集团公司拒绝向下游制剂企业销售原料药，使下游制剂企业因无原料药供应而停产。由此可知，本案被诉拒绝交易行为对托毕西公司直接产生的结果是其作为下游制剂企业因没有原料药而停产，托毕西公司的生产工厂位于北京市，故托毕西公司因被诉拒绝交易行为而遭受的直接侵权结果发生地为北京市。北京知识产权法院裁定驳回先声集团公司的管辖异议。先声集团公司不服，提起上诉。最高人民法院终审裁定，驳回上诉，维持原裁定。
【典型意义】垄断行为损害反垄断法保护的市场公平竞争秩序、消费者利益和社会公共利益等法益。本案通过侵权结果发生地确定拒绝交易纠纷的管辖连结点，对拒绝交易类垄断案件的管辖确定具有参考价值。
6.“西门子”仿冒混淆纠纷案——仿冒混淆行为的认定
【案号】最高人民法院(2022)最高法民终312号〔西门子股份公司、西门子(中国)有限公司与宁波奇帅电器有限公司、昆山新维创电器有限公司等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案〕
【基本案情】核准注册在洗衣机商品上的涉案注册商标“西门子”由西门子股份公司(简称西门子公司)及西门子(中国)有限公司(简称西门子中国公司)享有专用权，经过长期使用具有较高知名度。西门子公司及西门子中国公司的字号“西门子”亦具有一定的影响。宁波奇帅电器有限公司(简称奇帅公司)在其生产销售的洗衣机产品、产品外包装及相关宣传活动中使用了“上海西门子电器有限公司”标识；个人独资企业昆山新维创电器有限公司(简称新维创公司)销售了前述被诉侵权产品。西门子公司及西门子中国公司以奇帅公司、新维创公司的前述行为侵害了其注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争为由提起本案诉讼，请求赔偿经济损失1亿元及合理开支163000元。江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，奇帅公司、新维创公司的行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，全额支持了西门子公司及西门子中国公司的赔偿请求。奇帅公司等不服，提起上诉。
最高人民法院二审认为，奇帅公司在洗衣机机身上、商品外包装及宣传活动中使用“上海西门子电器有限公司”，分别对西门子公司构成商标侵权及反不正当竞争法第六条第二项、第四项规定的不正当竞争行为。鉴于奇帅公司在诉讼中拒不提供与侵权行为相关的财务资料，一审法院将在案的媒体报道内容作为销售总额的计算依据，并按照十五分之一计算被诉侵权产品的销售额占比，进而确定赔偿额的做法并无不当。虽现有证据无法证明侵权获利及侵权损失，但足以认定奇帅公司因生产、销售被诉侵权产品而获得的利益明显超过反不正当竞争法第十七条第四款规定的法定赔偿最高限额，综合考虑西门子公司及西门子中国公司企业名称具有较高的知名度，奇帅公司具有明显的主观恶意、侵权规模、侵权持续时间，并结合洗衣机产品的利润率等因素，一审确定的赔偿数额并无不当。最高人民法院二审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。
【Typical significance】This case is a typical case of cracking down on counterfeiting and confusion. In this case, the people's court held that the use of a logo identical or similar to the trade name and registered trademark in the name of an enterprise that had a certain influence on others as a trade name, and engaging in business activities, constituted an act of unfair competition under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. At the same time, where the existing evidence cannot prove the specific amount of profits from infringement and actual losses, the people's court has refined the factors to be considered in determining the amount of compensation. The judgment of this case has exemplary significance on the determination of confusing behavior, the calculation of compensation amounts, and other issues of legal application.
7. Infringement dispute over technical secrets of "general liquid of photoexcited chemiluminescence analysis system" - determination of technical solutions that constitute technical secrets
【Case No.】Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhong No. 1889 [Kemei Boyang Diagnostic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Cheng and Chengdu Aixing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Technology Secrets Dispute]
【Basic facts of the case】Kemei Boyang Diagnostic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Boyang Company) is the confidential holder of the "photoexcited chemiluminescence analysis system general liquid" technology. After leaving the former employee of Boyang Company, a certain engineer entered Chengdu Aixing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aixing Company) and disclosed the aforementioned technical secrets to Aixing Company. Aixing uses the aforementioned technology to secretly produce in vitro diagnostic kits and sell them. Boyang filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Cheng and Aixing constituted infringement of their rights and interests in technical secrets. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ordered Cheng and Aixing to stop infringing on the technical secrets involved in the case in the first instance and jointly compensate Boyang Company for economic losses of 100 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 30,<> yuan for rights protection. Cheng and Aixing were not satisfied and filed an appeal.
The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that technical secrets are usually embodied in technical materials such as drawings, process regulations, quality standards, operation guides, experimental data, etc., and that the right holder proves the existence and content of its technical secrets, usually summarizes, summarizes and extracts the technical secret information that needs to be protected on the basis of the carrier documents embodying the above-mentioned technical secrets, and its technical secrets can be either complete technical solutions or part of the technical information constituting the technical solutions. When summarizing, summarizing or refining secret information from its technical data and other carriers, the right holder shall allow its confidential information to be combined with prior art and common knowledge to form a complete technical solution for protection. Technical solutions reasonably extracted by right holders from technical documents such as process regulations, quality control standards and other technical documents unknown to the public may be protected as technical secrets as long as they are not generally known to the public and are easily obtained. Boyang advocated the protection of 8 complete technical solutions as technical secrets. After review, the particulate CV value, particle size and other technical information are recorded in the relevant technical documents, and Boyang Company can reasonably summarize and extract the above technical solutions based on the existing technology and common sense in the field, which can be protected as technical secrets. The second-instance judgment of the Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
【Typical Significance】This case is a typical case to stop the infringement of technical secrets. During the trial of technical secret infringement cases, the characteristics of technical secrets not being known to the public make the problem of ascertaining the content of technical secrets a difficult point in judicial practice. In this case, the people's court clarified that the technical solution claimed by the right holder constituting a technical secret could be a technical solution reasonably summarized, summarized and refined on the basis of technical information recorded in multiple different technical documents that was not known to the public. The judgment of this case is of exemplary significance for reasonably allocating the burden of proof in cases of infringement of technical secrets and effectively improving the judicial protection of the legitimate rights and interests of technical secrets.
8. Unfair Competition Dispute Case of "Brush Treasure APP" - Determination of Unfair Competition Conduct in Data Scraping
【Case No.】Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) Jing 73 Min Zhong No. 1011 [Unfair Competition Dispute between Beijing Weibo Vision Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Chuangrui Culture Media Co., Ltd.]
【Basic facts of the case】Beijing Weibo Vision Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Weibo Company) operates the short video platform Douyin APP. Beijing Chuangrui Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chuangrui Company) used technical means or manual methods to obtain more than 5,1 video files, more than 127,500 user information, and <> comment content from the Douyin APP without permission, and provided it to the public through the Brush APP. Weibo filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the aforementioned conduct of Chuangrui constituted unfair competition. The Haidian District People's Court of Beijing Municipality held in the first instance that Chuangrui's alleged conduct constituted unfair competition and ordered to compensate Weibo for economic losses of <> million yuan. Chuangrui was not satisfied and filed an appeal.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that the video files, user information, and comment content involved in the case constituted a collection of data on the Douyin platform. This data collection is presented in a non-original way, and the content can be retrieved separately and has independent value. Through legal operation, Weibo Company invests huge human, material and financial resources to collect, store, process and transmit data on the Douyin platform, forming a collection of non-original data including users' personal information, short videos and user comments. The scale agglomeration effect of the data collection can bring huge economic benefits to microcast companies and form a competitive advantage in market competition. The competitive interests formed by the microcast company based on the collection of non-original data involved in the case are not stipulated in the Copyright Law or other special intellectual property laws, and should belong to the legitimate rights and interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. As the main operator of the Brush App, Chuangrui Company adopted improper means to capture and transport the substantive content of the non-original data collection in the Douyin APP, grabbed the competitive resources of the microcast company, weakened the competitive advantage of the microcast company, damaged the welfare of consumers, and destroyed the market competition order of the short video industry. The damage caused by the alleged act is far greater than the benefits obtained by consumers and the public based on the act. Therefore, the alleged conduct of Chuangrui violated the principle of good faith and business ethics, and constituted an act of unfair competition. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in the second instance, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
【Typical significance】This case is a typical case of regulating data scraping behavior. In the era of the Internet and big data, data has become an important means of production. With the development of the data industry and data transactions, legal disputes arising from the collection, processing and utilization of data between enterprises are increasing. In this case, the people's court explored and clarified the legal nature of non-original data collection, distinguished between the rights protected by the Copyright Law and the legal interests of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and protected the legitimate rights and interests of platform operators in the collection, storage, processing and transmission of data. The judgment of this case actively explored the application of anti-unfair competition laws and regulations to the use of data.
9. Unfair Competition Dispute Case of "Substitute Training Gang APP" - Determination of Unfair Competition Conduct in Online Game Commercial Training
【Case No.】Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (2022) Hu 0115 Minchu No. 13290 [Tencent Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. and Foshan Nanhai District Beisheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute]
【Basic facts of the case】Tencent Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tencent Chengdu Company) is the copyright holder of the game "Honor of Kings" and authorizes Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shenzhen Tencent Company) to operate the game exclusively. The game is free to download to users, and the user agreement requires real-name registration, and the account must not be provided to others for commercial use such as training and playing. The game is equipped with "anti-addiction" measures, and minors can only log in to the game within the time period specified by the State Press and Publication Administration. The "Dailian Gang APP" operated by Foshan Nanhai District Beisheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beisheng Company) lures users, including minors, to conduct commercial game training transactions through its platform in the form of "issuing orders and cashback" and setting up special areas, and obtains benefits. The order taker can log in to the game involved in the case without his real identity, and minors can also take orders to obtain other people's game accounts, bypass the "anti-addiction" mechanism to enter the game and earn fees. The "Dailian Gang APP" guarantees transactions through "security margin" and other methods, and takes a certain percentage of them as platform income. Tencent Chengdu and Shenzhen Tencent filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Beisheng Company's aforementioned conduct constituted unfair competition.
The Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court held in the first instance that the "Honor of Kings" game has a fair matching mechanism of "ELO rating system", which attracts and accumulates users according to the competitive level evaluated by game behavior data analysis, and ultimately obtains game revenue, and this competitive advantage should be protected by law. The game involved in the case implements the national requirements on the prevention of addiction of minors' games, and the good reputation obtained based on this should also be protected by law. Beisheng Company organized commercial training services through the "Dailian Gang APP", resulting in the failure of the real-name system of the games involved in the case and the anti-addiction mechanism for minors, obstructing the order of online game operations, detrimental to the governance of the online ecology and the protection of the rights and interests of minors, and harming the public interest. At the same time, the real-name system of the "Honor of Kings" game and the anti-addiction mechanism for minors were bypassed, causing the relevant public to question the compliance operation and social responsibility of enterprises. In addition, the alleged conduct caused other real-name game users to be unable to match opponents and teammates of the same level, unable to obtain a fair competition game experience, increasing the risk of minor players indulging in games, and affecting the physical and mental health of minors. The alleged conduct of Beisheng Company constituted unfair competition. The Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court ordered Beisheng Company to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 98,5 in the first instance. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.
【Typical Significance】This case is a typical case to stop the use of online game commercial training methods to carry out acts of unfair competition. With the rapid development of the online game industry, the legal and social issues caused by commercial training have attracted much attention. In this case, the people's court applied the principle provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and found that the commercial training behavior of bypassing the anti-addiction mechanism for minors and destroying the game operation mechanism constituted unfair competition based on the damage consequences and impropriety of the complained conduct. The judgment of this case is conducive to safeguarding the fair competition order of the Internet industry, the healthy development of the game industry and the social public interest, and also reflects the judicial orientation of protecting the competitive advantages formed through fair, honest and law-abiding operations.
10. Unfair competition dispute case of "credit speculation" - the determination of false publicity by using false transactions
【Case No.】Longhua District People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province (2022) Yue 0309 Minchu No. 2585 [Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. and Wu Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute Case]
【Basic facts of the case】Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hantao Company) operated by "Dianping.com" is a local life information and trading platform that provides users with information services such as merchant information, consumer reviews and consumer discounts, and the platform review rules require users to ensure the authenticity, objectivity and legality of the information when publishing information. Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen) Catering Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Food Taste First Company) operated by Wu is a proxy operation company, which helps operators on the Dianping platform quickly improve their ratings and star ratings by means of false transactions and false positive reviews to obtain platform traffic. Hantao filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Food and Taste First constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. During the litigation process, the company was deregistered first.
The People's Court of Longhua District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province held in the first instance that user reviews are the real advantage of Dianping, and that review data is an important basis for Hantao to obtain user traffic and user stickiness, and Hantao enjoys legitimate rights and interests in the platform data generated based on real consumer evaluation and the commercial value derived from it. Food taste first company uses false transactions, "brushing positive reviews and speculation" and other methods to help operators on the Dianping platform carry out false commercial publicity, quickly improve the operator's ranking and star rating on the Dianping platform, violate the platform evaluation rules, affect the platform credit system, and adversely affect the normal development of the platform's business model, which constitutes an act of unfair competition with false publicity. The People's Court of Longhua District of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, ordered Wu to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 227880,<> yuan in the first instance. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.
【Typical significance】This case is a typical case of cracking down on the use of false transactions for false publicity in the Internet environment. In recent years, the e-commerce field has falsely constituted the volume, transaction volume and user praise through the method of "order speculation", and the phenomenon of improperly seeking competitive opportunities or competitive advantages is more prominent. In this case, the people's court promptly and effectively stopped the false publicity and unfair competition behavior of helping platform operators organize false transactions, "brush praise and speculate on letters" and other methods to improperly obtain traffic, which is conducive to guiding and promoting platform operators to operate in good faith, protect consumers' right to know and choice, and maintain fair competition and orderly development of the platform economy.