You are here: Home Media RoomQBPC News

The First Gavel of the SPC Intellectual Property Court from the Perspective of the Rights Holder - Valeo Case Sharing Session IV of the Member Service Journey

Create Time:2020-08-25

On August 19, 2020,  the Quality Brand Protection Committee of the China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment (hereinafter referred to as the "QBPC") held successfully Valeo case sharing and exchange online meeting. More than 40 representatives of member companies participated in the meeting.


Membership Service Committee Vice Chair Penny Sun,ABRO


Member Service Committee Vice Chair Ms. Penny Sun introduced,"Thank you for your active participation. Valeo's Intellectual Property Manager, Mr. Ruibin Shi, will give an introduction of Valeo's intellectual property protection strategies.He and his host attorney Richard Lin will bring you a wonderful review and in-depth study of the "First Gavel" case of Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (SPC)".


Valeo's Intellectual Property Manager Mr. Ruibin Shi


Ruibin began his presentation with a brief introduction of Valeo and its intellectual property protection strategy. Valeo is an automotive supplier and partner to automakers worldwide. Valeo is a high-tech company that develops innovative solutions for intelligent mobility, focusing on intuitive driving and CO2 reduction technologies. With the core of "Innovation", Valeo's IP protection strategy is based on a three-pronged approach: 1. protecting innovation from the beginning and protecting it with the aim of final remedy; 2. proactively defending rights; and 3. developing innovations in a win-win manner.

Next Ruibin shared his views and experience about the "first gavel" case of the SPC Intellectual Property Court from an IP Inhouse perspective. This case involves the issue of infringing the patent rights of inventions about Valeo wiper products.The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court first introduced an advance judgment mechanism-Partial Judgment  for the first instance. on March 27, 2019, the SPC Intellectual Property Court held the opening trial and delivered a verdict in court: the appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld. This means that the case which was heard by the Interllectual Property Court and the relevant intermediate court as the court of first instance can be appealed directly to the Supreme People's Court. This is a major innovation and historical breakthrough in China's IP litigation system. At the same time, it was selected as one of the top ten IP cases in Chinese courts in 2019 announced by the SPC due to its industry influence as well as certain guiding legal application issues and reflecting the SPC's trial philosophy and adjudication method in handling new, difficult and complex cases in the IP field.


Ruibin vividly summarized the characteristics of this case, namely, more court sessions, more trial personnel and more hot-spot issues. The hot issues involved in this case mainly include partial judgment/preceding judgment, first instance verdict and interim injunction, functional limitation, and participation of technical investigators, people's jurors (technical background) and expert witnesses.  Ruibin analyzes and shares his experience on each of these hot issues.


To protect innovation in an innovative way is the concept of the SPC Intellectual Property Court from its inception. Ruibin said: "As the IP in house, during the process of handling cases in collaboration with lawyers and judges, we should also know how to protect innovation in an innovative way. We should not only focus on the big picture, focus on the hot issues, propose innovative solutions, integrate the superior law, legal procedures, judicial system, policy and other perspectives to achieve the purpose of protection. It is also necessary to start from the small to the end. Every word, even the original text of the word, every subordinate technical solution of technical problems, technical effects should be confirmed clearly with the team of lawyers." 

 Fangda Paterners Partner Mr.Richard Lin


Mr. Richard Lin, the host attorney of the case, shared his thoughts on the case and discussed it with Ruibin and the attending members.

The first issue is the application for a partial judgment and an interim injunction. As two different systems, the preliminary ruling and the interim injunction are designed to have the effect of requiring the defendant to cease the infringing acts before a final and complete judgment is rendered. Depending on the circumstances of each case, the right holder may choose to apply for either or both to ensure that the defendant's infringement is stopped in the best possible way.


Then there is the significance and impact of the partial judgment. In this case, it has played the role of stopping infringement in time, avoiding expanding damages, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder, improving judicial efficiency, and saving judicial resources, reflecting the value of this system. At the same time, we should also consider that in the subsequent compensation part of the trial confirmation, the right holder and the host lawyer still need to continue to invest, but also conducive to strategic control.


Regarding the participation of technical experts, Ruibin also reminded the right holders in the previous session that they need to pay more attention to the participation of technical investigators, people's jurors (technical background) and expert witnesses in the first and second trials of this case have played a great role. Richard analyzed from a lawyer's point of view that technical experts have a great influence on the determination of facts so that the lawyers and right holders need to be prepared to clarify legal issues as well as actively present technical views.


Richard also shared his experience in participating in smart court, AR glasses showing details of exhibits, synchronized circling technology by role, electronic transfer, electronic delivery and other high technology used in court proceedings, reflecting the perfect integration of technology and law.


Representatives from Clariant, Caterpillar, United Technologies, and other member companies asked specific questions about functional limitations, defendant selection strategies, evidence fixing, and damages. They had in-depth exchanges and interaction with the two speakers.


Member driven, members sharing, and jointly helping protect intellectual property, the meeting has been successfully completed. Look forward to meeting you next time.