The Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China has recently published 10 classic judicial cases on anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition. Among which, 5 of them are relative to foreign-funded enterprise so that Dongjin extracts the key policy information as follows:
- Dispute on infringement of technical secret
- Identification and responsibility for infringement of technical secret
After leaving the former company, using the technical secret of the former company to manufacture and sell product secretly, or use the aforementioned product, constitute infringement. If the product manufacturing method and result follow the process flow of the technical secret, and achieve the technical effect of the technical secret, it is an infringement of the technical secret. For the complex technical facts identified and the application of the law, the site survey can be used to identify the fact of infringement.
- 2. Dispute on licensing contract for use of technical secret
- The handling of criminal and civil overlapping cases of trade secret
Using confidential technical drawings to produce equipment, it belongs to the infringement of trade secret. Civil contract and criminal violation are different, they are not generated from the same legal facts. Suspected criminal behavior should not interfere with the normal civil proceedings, and public security authority cannot refuse to file a criminal case on the excuse of economic dispute.
- Dispute on unfair competition
- Protection against unfair competition of data rights and interests
Data, as a key production factor of the digital economy, have become the important resource for fierce market competition. The ownership of data rights and interests, the boundary of rights and the determination of the illegality of data capturing behavior, are widely concerned by the society. Unauthorized acquisition and use of data constitute unfair competition. The data in the network platform are divided into the data resources as a whole and the single data individual, and the network platforms own different data rights and interests.
- Dispute on unfair competition
- Determination for unfair competition of network fraudulent order boost
In order to punish the black market and underground industry on network, Internet operator who provides paid service for fraudulent order boost violates the principle of good faith and the business ethics, damages the rights and interests of legitimate operators, users and consumers, and disrupts the normal competition, this behavior should be regulated by the anti-unfair competition law. Using network technology to fraudulently increase the number of clicks, views, and readings of websites and product service content information, and to advertise them to obtain the difference in price between the original orders and the transferring orders, constitute unfair competition.
- Dispute on the abuse of market dominance
- Determination of jurisdiction over foreign standard-essential patent monopoly disputes
This case involves the issue of jurisdiction over monopoly dispute concerning abuse of market dominance related to standard-essential patents. It involves both the impact of parallel standard-essential patent infringement dispute between two parties in different jurisdictions around the world to China's court jurisdiction over monopoly dispute, and the issue of whether the doctrine of forum non convenience should be applied when the relevant facts of the monopoly dispute occur abroad. In view of the special nature of the standard-essential patent licensing market, the court of the place where the infringement results occurred shall have jurisdiction over the case when the competition in the relevant domestic market causes a direct, substantial and significant effect of excluding and restricting competition.
If you want to read the complete article, you can refer to the below link (in Chinese only): http://www.shanghaiinvest.com/cn/viewfile.php?id=16737
If you have any question, please contact me.
Mr. Mike Chang (Partner)