It is learned from SAIC that, the Regulations on prohibiting the abuse of Intellectual Property to exclude and limit competitions (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which was issued for public comments since last June, has been formally announced after examination and approval by SAIC executive meeting, and will be implemented from August 1, 2015.

Patent abuseabuse may be priorities for antitrust enforcement

The Regulations specifies that, the abuse of Intellectual Property to eliminate or restrict competition alleged in the provisions means business operators' exercise of Intellectual Property in violation of antitrust law, implementation of monopolistic agreements, abuse of dominant market position and other monopolistic behaviors (except price monopoly behavior).

Antitrust in the field of Intellectual Property is an important part of anti-monopoly enforcement. In recent years, the abuse of Intellectual Property to eliminate or restrict competition is a growing concern of antitrust enforcement agencies.

According to media reports, after several rounds of vigorous law enforcement in automobile, liquor and other industries by Chinese antitrust agencies, the focus of the next stage is determined to be related to the field of Intellectual Property. In this regard, the official from National Development and Reform Commission said recently that, for anti-monopoly regulations on the abuse of Intellectual Property, there are different options for different countries at different periods of time. Currently China needs to emphasize the protection of Intellectual Property, while strengthening the antitrust enforcement of the abuse of Intellectual Property.

It is understood that, pharmaceuticals, automotive after-market, agricultural machinery and other industries are the hardest hit area of Intellectual Property monopoly. It is the trend in the future to implement more aggressive antitrust enforcement in these industries.

It is reported that, in fact, in patent abuse, recently some patented drug pricing issues have been reported to the law enforcement authorities, which are under investigation by relevant departments.

No abuse of dominant position through patent pools

SAIC’s introduction of the Regulations is based on its antitrust functions within the framework of Chinese anti-monopoly law, stipulating the non-price abuse of Intellectual Property to eliminate or restrict competition.

The Regulations specifies the rules for identification and presumption of market dominance involving abuse of Intellectual Property, and set prohibitions on several specific abuses in practice, such as refusal to license Intellectual Property, limited trading, tying sales, adding unreasonable restrictions and differential treatment.

The Regulations also specifies the exercise of Intellectual Property in the patent pool and standards which may constitute monopolistic behavior in specific circumstances. Among them, regarding the patent pool, the Regulations specifies that, patent pool members must not exchange output, market division and other sensitive information on competition through patent pool, to reach monopoly agreements prohibited by Article XIII, Article XIV of the AML.

The Regulations points out that, the patent pool management organization with dominant market position, shall not, without justification, use the patent pool to implement the following abuse of dominant market position to eliminate or restrict competition:

(a) Restricting patent pool members to license patents as independent licensor; (b) restricting patent pool members or licensees to independently or jointly conduct R & D of competing technologies with a third party; (c) compelling the licensee to feed back the improved or developed technology exclusively to the patent pool management organization or members; (d) prohibiting the licensee to question the validity of the joint patent; (e) discriminatory treatment on the trading conditions to members with same conditions or licensee in the same relevant market; (f) other abuse of market dominance identified by SAIC.

The Regulations makes clear of the concept of "patent pool", namely: it refers to the protocol that two or more patent owners jointly license their own patents to a third party. Its form may be a joint venture specifically set up for this purpose, which can also be entrusted to a member or an independent third-party for management.

Maximum fine can be 10% of the sales revenue in the previous year

The Regulations also specifies the punishment. In accordance with the Regulations, when business operators abuse Intellectual Property to eliminate or restrict competition, and constitute monopoly agreements, the industrial and commercial administrative authorities shall order them to stop illegal acts, confiscate the illegal income, and impose a fine of 1-10% of sales revenue in previous year; when no monopolistic agreement is reached, they shall be liable to a fine of less than 500,000 Yuan.

When business operators abuse Intellectual Property to eliminate or restrict competition and constitute abuse of market dominance, the industrial and commercial administrative authorities shall order to stop illegal acts, confiscate illegal income, and impose a fine of 1-10% of the sales revenue in the previous year.

SAIC official said, antitrust and Intellectual Property protection have a common goal, namely, to promote competition and innovation (Source: Legal Daily)

"The growth of IP administrative cases of first instance is most significant, reaching 243.66%, mainly due to that with the implementation of the revised trademark law, administrative cases of trademark grant and confirmation increase dramatically, up to 9190 cases, accounting for 92.67% of the IP first instance cases accepted nationwide." said Song Xiaoming, the presiding judge of the Third Court of Civil Trial of Supreme People's Court.

In 2014, Intellectual Property Courts were established in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. As of the end of February, 2015, the Intellectual Property Court has accepted 2832 cases, of which 2219 are first instance cases and 613 are second instance cases; 1630 are civil cases and 1202 are administrative cases.

"The establishment of Intellectual Property Court is a fundamental and institutional measure for judicial reform. With attention by relevant authorities, the Intellectual Property Court was established in a short time, making a major breakthrough in the history of the judicial protection of Intellectual Property in China.” said Song Xiaoming

When it comes to the work in 2015, Tao Kaiyuan, Vice President of the Supreme People's Court pointed out that, the court will focus on promoting the following four areas: first, to study and deploy initiatives related to further playing the leading role in protecting intellectual property rights; second, to legally and properly hear all types of intellectual property cases, strengthen IPR trial supervision, further standardize law application, and unify judgment standards; third, relying on the IP judicial protection research center of the Supreme People's Court, to vigorously carry out research, focus on solving difficult problems in judicial practice, promptly draft and introduce judicial interpretation and judicial policy, to improve the IPR judicial protection system with Chinese characteristics; fourth, to strengthen the guidance of specialized courts for intellectual property, discover, standardize and improve the operational mechanism of intellectual property court. （Source: People’s Daily）

In response to the difficulties in discharging burden of proof, long period for enforcement, high cost, low compensation and poor results in China's patent infringement cases, this revision will launch five major initiatives to strengthen patent protection.

First, for the "difficulties in discharging burden of proof" issue, when the parties and rights holders have tried to provide evidence of infringement, while some related books and materials are still in the hands of the infringer, the court may order the infringer to provide the related information. If the infringer does not provide that, the court can issue judgment of the amount of compensation, with reference of claims by the right-holder.

Second, for the "long period of infringement dispute" issue, from the legal perspective, it is proposed to regulate on the enforcement of administrative decision on patent disputes, and judicial confirmation of administrative conciliation agreement.

Third, for the "low compensation" issue, it is proposed to provide punitive damages for deliberate infringement, for example, the amount of compensation can be increased to two to three times.

Fourth, for the "high cost, poor effect" issue, it is recommended to take appropriate measures in terms of administrative punishment, to stop deliberately group or repeated violations promptly.

Fifth, for the infringement realized through Internet, it provides that the network providers and network service providers shall take responsibilities, to achieve convergence supporting in the legal system. （Source: People’s Net-Intellectual Property Channel）

The trend of substantial growth in the number of cases has eased, and the overall number of cases accepted tends to be stable; new types of difficult cases continue to increase, with more cases need to clarify the legal boundaries or fill the legal gaps;

Patents and other technical cases still account for a large proportion in the overall number of cases, with higher proportion of cases for basic legal rules of interpretation like determination of patent administrative cases involving technical issues, and many patent civil cases involving infringement judgment rules, new types of legal issues like combination of patent and standards, and identification of implied license began to emerge;

New varieties of plant cases continued to show growth, with legal implications developing toward the deep area of contrast of variety identity; trademark cases overall increased steadily, trademark civil cases were basically stable while the proportion of trademark administrative cases further increased, and the number of new types of trademark cases increased, which involved the judgment of legitimacy and significance of three-dimensional trademarks for rights;

The overall growth rate of copyright cases dropped, with legal implication returning to the basic system and basic concept of copyright such as the determination of protected objects and proof of ownership; there's a large proportion of cases involving network technology and new business models among competition cases, while trade secrets and counterfeiting cases continued to increase, and Supreme People's Court for the first time concluded monopoly cases. （Source: China News Net）

Supreme People's Court made a final ruling on the case in February 2014. The case has a huge impact on the Internet field, with large disputed amount. Therefore, Xi Xiaoming, a second-level judge and the vice president of the Supreme People’s Court, personally served as presiding judge for the trial. Since then, the case has been known as the first case of anti-unfair competition in the Internet field.

It is the fifth time, since 2009, that the case by Unitalen has been selected into Top Ten IPR cases of Supreme People's Court, including: "BMW" trademark infringement and unfair competition into Top Ten IP cases in 2009; "LAFITE" trademark infringement and unfair competition and JAC confirmation of trademark non-infringement both into Top Ten IP cases in 2011; Sany well-known trademark case into top ten IP cases in 2012; Power Dekor well-known trademark protection into Top Ten IP cases in 2013. In addition, Ashland patent infringement and trade secret case by Unitalen was selected into the eight typical IP cases in 2013 released by Supreme People's Court, and many cases by Unitalen have repeatedly been named as the annual 50 typical cases by the Supreme People's Court.

This was a complex case. Unitalen litigation team cooperated fully with the principals with professional standards and attitude, and eventually won in the case. The case also provides a good reference precedent for similar cases in the field of Internet.

Appendix: the Supreme People's Court [case briefs] and [typical significance] for the case.

"360 koukou bodyguards" software business defamation dispute

Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. vs Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute appeal [Supreme People's Court (2013) M.S.Z.Z. No. 5 Civil Judgment]

[Case briefs] Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (collectively, Qihoo, etc.) developed the "360 koukou bodyguards" software specifically for QQ software of Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (collectively, Tencent, etc.), promoting its comprehensive protection of QQ software users on relevant websites, which is available for download. After installing the koukou bodyguards software, it will automatically undergo a medical examination of QQ software, to alert the user in red of serious health problem in QQ, and provide font repair help in green, while including "computer in danger without 360 security guards; upgrading QQ security center; stopping QQ scanning my files "as dangerous items; when killing QQ Trojan, it shows "if you do not install 360 security guards, you will not be able to use Trojan killing function", and provides installation and download services of 360 security guards in green function key; after font repair, the koukou bodyguards will replace QQ software security interface communication into the koukou bodyguards interface. Tencent cited litigation with the reason that the above-mentioned acts have constituted unfair competition. Guangdong Higher People's Court decided in the First Instance that Qihoo's acts constituted unfair competition; it deliberately fabricated and spread false information against Tencent operations, which damaged the business and product reputation of the company, constituting commercial defamation. Then it concluded that Qihoo shall make public apology to eliminate the effects, with compensation for economic losses and reasonable disbursements totaling 5 million Yuan. Qihoo refused to accept and proposed an appeal. Supreme People's Court upheld the view in the second instance that, in the market competition, operators are usually free to choose business mode based on market needs and consumer demands, which is a necessary requirement of the market economy. The business model combining free platform and advertising or value-added services by Tencent was the usual mode of operation of the Internet industry when the dispute arose, which was also in line with the phase characteristics of China's Internet market. This business mode is not violating legal principles and the prohibitions of unfair competition, and Tencent behavior to pursue business interests should be protected, while others may not harm its legitimate interests with improper interference. Qihoo's foregoing acts destroyed the security and integrity of QQ software and services, interfering with the legitimate business activities and undermining the legitimate rights and interests. The fundamental purpose of Qihoo's foregoing acts is to sell and promote 360 security guards through derogatory means of QQ software and services, based on the large amount of QQ users, thereby increasing market trading opportunities and gaining competitive advantage, which is an essentially unfair behavior to use other people's market outcomes, for its own business opportunities to gain competitive advantage, violating the principles of good faith and fair competition and constituting unfair competition. The Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical significance] In this case, the Supreme People's Court made clear the rules for identifying commercial defamation acts in the Internet markets, and the fundamental element was that whether the operator's related behavior damaged the competitor's business reputation or merchandise reputation in a misleading way. The Supreme People's Court pointed out that, when the operator made commercial comment or criticize others for competition purpose, it shall especially fulfill its duty of care; the healthy development of the Internet shall be guaranteed by an orderly market environment and clear rules of market competition, free competition and freedom to innovate must not infringe the legitimate rights and interests of others, which is boundary limitation. The Supreme People's Court made clear the relationship between technological innovation, free competition and unfair competition in the Internet market in this case, which is a milestone for the relevant Internet companies to carry out orderly competition and promote optimal allocation of market resources.

Case introduction:

The patent holder with patent No. ZL03139760.3 is Shenzhen Chipscreen Biotechnology Co., Ltd. ("Chipscreen"). Chipscreen has been committed to R & D of original drugs and patent medicine, as well as pharmaceutical innovative technologies and services. Chipscreen has undertaken a number of major national and local scientific and technological projects, with a number of international and domestic patents in the field of innovative drugs. In the 2002 Asia-Pacific Life Science and Technology Forum, it was named "one of Asia's ten most promising biological enterprises". After years of research and development, Chipscreen has gained the invention patent with the name of "benzamides histone deacetylase inhibitors and pharmaceutical preparations with differentiation and antiproliferative activity". The patented drug is named as Chidamide, which is subtype selective histone deacetylase inhibitor independently developed by Chipscreen with new chemical structure and the fastest progress internationally, belonging to the new class of targeted anticancer drugs with new mechanism of epigenetic modulators.

For this patent, the American Dr. Hunter Laboratories Ltd. filed a request for invalidation to the Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office. Unitalen accepted the engagement by Chipscreen to respond.

In the proceedings of invalid case, the attorney from Unitalen modified the Markush independent claim of Chipscreen's patent involved, which is to limit the specific structure of enbodyment. Although the way of modifying the claim exemplified in the patent invalidation program in the Guidelines for Patent Examination does not include such modification, the attorney from Unitalen on the one hand gave the earlier judicial precedent with this modification by the Supreme People's Court, at the same time, from the legislative purpose of patent law, interpreting the modification would not make the patent owner obtain unjust enrichment, or harm the public social interest, which was the fact that the patentee positively narrowed the scope of patent protection to benefit the community, so this modification, although not included in the exemplified modifications in the review guideline, does not violate the basic principles for modifications beyond the scope, which should be supported while considering the legislative purpose of the patent law.

Due to technical and legal complexity of the case, and the parties are well-known companies in the industry, therefore the Board of Patent Reexamination formed a five-member collegial group for the hearing of the case.

Eventually, the Board of Patent Reexamination accepted the modification of claim by the attorney from Unitalen, and considered that the existing technology did not give revelation of applying the distinguishing characteristic between the claimed technical program and the closest prior art into the closest existing technology to solve technical problems, therefore, the technical program with modified claims was non-obvious for the skilled person in this field, which was creative, maintaining the validity of the patent involved.

From 2010 onwards, in the period of "4.26" Intellectual Property Awareness Week, the Board of Patent Reexamination will publish an annual review of top ten invalid cases in the previous year. The case was highly concerned by the media, with certain impact on related industries, which also involved complex legal issues and review standards, with broad representativeness and reference, and ultimately was selected.

Case 1: AliPay Won Patent Invalidation against Dentsu

In 2007, Japanese Dentsu Application Co., Ltd. (Dentsu) obtained the invention patent of "trading and clearing management method, and notification method on consumption trends" in China (patent number: 200310118825.5), which relates to the protection of Internet third-party payment operation mode. In the first half of 2011, on the ground of patent infringement, Dentsu litigated against Alipay China Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Alibaba Taobao payment system) and Shenzhen TenPay Technology Limited (Tencent pat network payment system) at Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, and sent warning letters to other six companies in the field of third-party payment.

Alipay filed invalidation request against Dentsu’s invention patent on the ground that Dentsu's claimed patent is essentially a business method, which is not patentable. After examination, the Patent Reexamination Board made the decision in 2014 that Dentsu's invention patent shall be invalid.

As China's first patent invalidation case of third-party payment business method, the case has an important reference for similar cases in the future.

Case 2: U.S. Icon IP Co. Won Patent Infringement Lawsuit

U.S. Icon IP Co. (Icon) is the holder of Chinese invention patents in respect of treadmill with elastic running board named "treadmill device with no tread frame pedal base" (patent number: ZL02808814.X). In 2011, Icon lodged a lawsuit to Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, alleging that resilient treadmill produced by Yibang infringed its invention patent. Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court found that Yibang constituted infringement. Yibang appealed to Beijing Higher People's Court, which revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed all claims by Icon IP company, on the ground that the "framework" formed by the two elongate resilient steel parts and the front-back support parts of the bottom of elastic running board of the accused infringing product is different from technical features corresponding to technical solution of Icon’s patent.

In 2013 Icon IP company appealed to Supreme People's Court for retrial. On September 2014, Supreme People's Court concluded that comprehensive consideration shall be taken against the structure, function, deformation mode and other factors when judging certain technical feature. Accordingly, the Supreme Court revoked the second instance judgment and upholding the judgment of first instance.

Technical features determination has been a difficulty in patent cases. During the first and second instance and retrial, the case constantly tangled around technical features. This is considered a typical case by Supreme People's Court on method for judging technical features in patent claims. The analysis and comparison method adopted by the Supreme Court has significant role in guiding future cases.

The following is the detailed case description by Shanghai Higher People's Court.

PPDAI trademark infringement dispute

The trademark infringement dispute by the plaintiff-Hefei Wu Wu Yi Network Technology Services Ltd. v the accused-Shanghai PPDAI Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. [Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (2014) P.M.S(Z) C.Z.No. 68 civil judgments, collegial panel members: Xu Fei, Qian Wenjun, Shao Xun. Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court (2014) H.Y.Z.M.W (Z) Z.Z. No. 187 civil judgment, collegial panel members: Xu Yanhua, Gui Jia, Yi Jia]

[Brief]

The plaintiff-Wu Wu Yi is the right holder of the registered trademark No. 7,188,389, with approved services for financial services, the filing date is February 5, 2009, and the registration is valid from September 28, 2010 to September 27, 2020. The defendant pat pat-prime mortgage company networks The PPDAI (Domain: ppdai.com) operated by the defendant is the first P2P Internet private lending platform in China, whose site domain was registered on April 6, 2007, using "ppdai.com", "PPDAI" and other identifications. Due to its innovative business mode, from January 23, 2008 onwards, the media began to give extensive coverage of business mode of the website. The plaintiff sued PPDAI company for stop using words like "PPDAI".

[Judgment]

Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court upheld that, before application of the trademark (No. 7,188,389) for registration by the plaintiff-Wu Wu Yi, the "ppdai.com", "PPDAI" and other identifications used by PPDAI website have already had certain impact. According to Article 59 of the PRC Trademark Law, before trademark holders apply for trademark registration, if other people have already used the same or similar trademark with a certain influence for the same kind of goods or similar goods, the holder of the registered trademark shall have no right to prohibit the user to continue to use the trademark in their original range. Accordingly, Wu Wu Yi has no right to prohibit PPDAI to continue using the logo in the original range, so it decided to dismiss Wu Wu Yi's request. After the verdict, Wu Wu Yi refused to accept and appealed, but the second instance upheld the conviction.

[Typical significance]

"ppdai.com" is the first private P2P internet lending platform, due to its innovative business mode, the site has drawn wide attention since its inception. This case curbs the acts of bad faith of trademark registration against innovative companies and enhances the awareness of intellectual property protection by innovative enterprises, through legal protection of PPDAI's use of unregistered trademark which has certain influence.

The survey began by MIP since last September, which lasted more than six months, with extensive and in-depth research of Intellectual Property practitioners in more than 80 countries or regions, and finally obtaining the results. Researchers located in London, New York and Hong Kong collected answers from thousands of practitioners, through questionnaires, e-mails, telephone and face to face interviews, resulting in comprehensive and authoritative reference value in the field of Intellectual Property.

After twenty years of tempering, Unitalen has grown into an experienced comprehensive firm in the field of Intellectual Property. In the authoritative data analysis ranking by Intellectual Property Services home and abroad, Unitalen is always among the best. With rich experiences in handling cases and meticulous work style, Unitalen has become a trustworthy partner in the eyes of customers. Achievement is a new starting point and power, and Unitalen will provide quality services for domestic and foreign customers with more professional and efficient work attitude, for better achievement.

Li Yongbo expressed sincere thanks for the support and love from his alma mater, and said that he would make his own efforts to work together for the building of Intellectual Property discipline.

At this academic lecture, Mr. Li, from the level of academic research and practical experience, gave detailed analysis of practices for transfer and protection of innovative technology, which was welcome by the audience.

Li Yongbo is a partner of Unitalen Attorneys at Law. Member of International Trademark Association (INTA) Anti-unfair competition committee, former Chairman of INTA China Trademark Affairs Committee, researcher of Law School of University of San Francisco, senior member of China Intellectual Property Research, member of American Bar Association. Li Yongbo is committed to legal issues in the field of intellectual property, and he has represented the US company Ashland, U.S. Icon, German Bosch, French Louis Vuitton, French Montagut and other issues involving patent infringement, trade secret infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition, and other cases. He was awarded the honorary title of "Beijing outstanding Intellectual Property Lawyer" in 2012.

Zhang Yazhou, partner of Beijing Unitalen Law Firm, 2012 Top Ten IP elite lawyers, Civil and Commercial Law Master of Academy of Social Sciences. Zhang Yazhou has dealt with a number of IP legal affairs involving trademark, copyright, unfair competition and technology contracts, with rich judicial experience and professional skills. He has represented German "BMW" trademark and unfair competition case series which were selected as top ten IP cases by Supreme People's Court in 2009; French "LAFITE" trademark infringement and "Lafei", well-known commodity specific name unfair competition case series, JAC confirmation of non-infringement of the registered trademark which were also selected as the top ten IP cases by Supreme People's Court in 2011; "Power Dekor" trademark protection selected as top ten IPR cases by Supreme People's Court in 2013; Tencent v. Qihoo 360 unfair competition selected as top ten IP cases in 2014 by Supreme People's Court. Mr. Zhang's outstanding performance in solving complex and difficult IP litigation, non-litigation cases won wide recognition and praise by the industry and customers.

With innovation and development of lighting technology, coupled with the growing importance of energy saving, LED lighting, as a revolutionary energy-efficient lighting technology, is developing rapidly. For LED lamps, a constant current drive circuit is needed for driving them. However, the LED driver circuit in existing technology has many defects which are difficult to avoid. The new technology developed by Silergy, patent No. ZL201010619845.0, which is titled an invention patent of "Control circuit and control method for a LED driver", uses a more simplified design for circuit structure, which increases the drive stability and service life of the circuit, improving the efficiency of power supply.

The new technology involved in the patent has aroused a great concern in the industry. In just one month after the patent, a third person made the request for invalidation to the Board of Patent Reexamination. On September 28, 2014, the Patent Reexamination Commission of State Intellectual Property Office declared the patent was invalid at all due to its failure of creativity.

After comprehensive analysis, Unitalen and Silergy considered that the decision of invalidation has many factual and legal errors in identification of its creativity, and the patent was in full compliance with creativity standards required by the Patent Law. Therefore, Silergy entrusted Unitalen to file administrative litigation to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to revoke the invalidation decision by Patent Reexamination Board, and asking the Board to re-make the invalidation decision.

On March 13, 2015, the case was put up for trial. During the trial, for the problems existing in the invalidation decision, the attorney of plaintiff, the Board of Patent Reexamination and a third person had a full statement and defense. On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff received the (2015) B.Z.X.C.Z. No. 42 Administrative verdict made by Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the court upheld all the claims of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff-Silergy won in the first instance.

According to the attorney of the case-Kong Fanwen, in fact, the plaintiff had solid grounds, however, because the case involved creativity judgment of an LED drive control circuit, it had high technical complexity. Therefore, how to simplify the complex issues in the administrative proceedings so that the trial judge can fully understand the facts of the case in a very short period of time, has become an important prerequisite for the success of the case. To this end, Unitalen organized a number of lawyers and patent agents with legal or electrical backgrounds to form a legal team, for full participation in the case. And, Unitalen analyzed and discussed every detail of the case in simple terms with the customer's technical team; exploiting the team wisdom, by analogy, the patent-related technology was arranged into familiar content for common people, the obscure technical language was transferred into lively plots, and the technology limitation was transferred into narrative description; striving to use all case materials and hearing presentation of the plaintiff, so that not only personnel with relevant technical background, but those with no electrical backgrounds in the team can fully understand. The unremitting efforts and close cooperation of the client-lawyer team are the prerequisite of success in the first instance.

In addition, the trial judge of Beijing Intellectual Property Court was selected from experienced and excellent IP judges in the three levels of courts in Beijing. As a result, although the relevant technology involved in this case had high technical difficulty, the trial judge could make clear of technical and legal facts in short period of time with their outstanding IP trial experience and ability, fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.