The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court: Unauthorized Use of "White Bags" to Sell Infringing Seeds Can Be Subject to Triple Punitive Damages

In this case, the plaintiff, a certain company in Anhui (hereinafter referred to as "Anhui Company"), holds the exclusive implementation right for the "Huaimai 44" wheat plant variety within Anhui Province. Between 2019 and 2020, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant, Lixin County Guang Company, with seed production. Subsequently, the plaintiff further authorized the defendant to sell propagation materials using packaging bags provided by the plaintiff, which were labeled with the variety name, and collected variety right usage fees and packaging bag usage fees. In September 2021, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, without permission, used unmarked and unlabeled "white bags" to sell "Huaimai 44" propagation materials. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for infringement of plant variety rights, requesting that Lixin County Guang Company and its shareholder, Hu Mouguo, cease the infringement and bear joint and several liability for compensation.

The Supreme People's Court, in its second-instance ruling, found that Lixin County Guang Company, despite being fully aware of the plaintiff’s exclusive implementation right over the wheat variety in Anhui Province, still sold the authorized variety using unmarked and unlabeled packaging. The court deemed the infringement serious and determined that punitive damages should apply. In calculating the compensation amount, the court noted that, in the licensing of plant variety rights, the provision of packaging bags labeled with the variety name by the licensor and the collection of related fees constitute a key means of realizing economic benefits. Accordingly, the court comprehensively calculated the packaging bag fees, the agreed variety right usage fees, and the defendant’s production and sales circumstances, establishing a base compensation amount of 106,000 yuan. 

Given the severity of the infringement, the court ultimately imposed triple punitive damages. Additionally, during the cooperation with the plaintiff, the company’s shareholder, Hu Mouguo, repeatedly used personal accounts for transactions and utilized the collected funds for daily expenses, resulting in a commingling of assets. As such, he was held jointly and severally liable.

ZLWD Commentary：

The ruling by the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court in this case strengthens the judicial protection of plant variety rights, particularly by applying triple punitive damages in instances of serious infringement, demonstrating robust support for intellectual property rights holders. This judgment not only underscores the economic interests of variety rights holders, including the revenue derived from packaging bag usage fees, but also clarifies the legal consequences of malicious infringement, serving as a significant precedent for the standardized development of the agricultural seed industry market. 

Furthermore, the court's determination that the company shareholder, Hu Mouguo, bears joint and several liability due to the commingling of assets highlights the regulation of conduct that abuses corporate entity status to evade responsibility, helping to prevent malicious actors from exploiting the corporate form to avoid legal accountability.

The People’s Court of Wuhan East Lake New Technology Development Zone Concludes a Copyright Dispute Case Involving "AI-Generated Images": AI-Generated Images May Reflect the Personalized Expression of AI Users and Can Be Protected Under Copyright Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Wang Mou, is a creator of artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC). On May 17, 2024, Wang Mou posted a note featuring an image created using a certain AI application ("Mou AI") on the Xiaohongshu platform. On May 26, 2024, Wang Mou registered the copyright for this work. In June 2024, Wang Mou discovered that Wuhan Mou Technology Co., Ltd. had used an identical image in an advertisement for an AI painting training camp sale course posted via its Douyin account. Based on this, Wang Mou filed a lawsuit with the court, alleging that the defendant company had infringed the copyright of the image in question.

The People’s Court of Wuhan East Lake New Technology Development Zone held that, in the process of creating with AIGC software, the keywords used by Wang Mou corresponded to the elements and effects in the image, establishing a certain "mapping relationship" between the generated image and his creative activities. During the process of setting and adjusting keywords, parameters, stylistic lighting effects, and selecting the final image, Wang Mou exercised a degree of "control and foreseeability" over the generated work. This creative process reflected Wang Mou’s conception, techniques, and aesthetic choices, embodying his personalized expression. Consequently, the court determined that the image in question, generated by Wang Mou using AIGC software, falls within the artistic domain and constitutes an intellectual creation with original expression, capable of being manifested in a tangible form, thus qualifying for protection under the Copyright Law.

Ultimately, the first-instance court discretionarily ordered Wuhan Mou Technology Co., Ltd. to compensate Wang Mou 4,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. This judgment has taken effect.

ZLWD Commentary：

The ruling by the People’s Court of Wuhan East Lake New Technology Development Zone holds significant implications for the copyright recognition of AIGC works, clarifying that, under specific circumstances, AI-generated works can be protected under the Copyright Law. The key to this decision lies in its emphasis on the creator’s "control and foreseeability" over the work during the AIGC process, manifested through keyword selection, parameter adjustments, and other means of personalized expression. This standard avoids a mechanical rejection of the copyright eligibility of AI-generated works while providing a reference for the adjudication of similar cases in the future. However, the relatively low compensation amount in this case indicates that, while affirming the attribution of rights to AIGC works, the court remains cautious in determining the scope of damages. This case foreshadows potential directions for the legal protection of AIGC works in the future, though more explicit legislation or judicial interpretations are still needed to further refine the standards.

The Hangzhou Internet Court Clarifies That Generative AI Platforms Failing to Exercise Reasonable Duty of Care Should Bear Liability for Aiding Infringement

In this case, the plaintiff is the copyright holder of the Ultraman series characters, while the defendant operates a certain AI platform ("Mou Mou AI Platform") that provides Checkpoint base models and LoRA models, supporting services such as image-to-image generation and online model training. It was found that users could upload Ultraman images to the platform, select a base model, adjust parameters for training, and generate an Ultraman LoRA model. Other users could then use this model to generate images substantially similar to the Ultraman character by inputting prompt words. Furthermore, the generated LoRA models and images derived from them could be searched, applied, downloaded, posted, or shared via links on the platform’s homepage, "Recommendations" section, and "IP Works" category. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Internet Court, requesting a ruling that the defendant’s actions infringed its right of information network dissemination and constituted unfair competition.

Upon review, the Hangzhou Internet Court determined that there was no evidence proving the defendant jointly provided infringing works with users or directly engaged in acts controlled by exclusive copyright rights, thus ruling out direct infringement. The court comprehensively considered factors such as the nature and profit model of generative AI services, the prominence of the copyrighted work and the obviousness of the alleged infringement, the potential consequences of the infringement, and whether reasonable measures were proactively taken to prevent infringement. The court found that the defendant directly profited from the creative services offered by the platform and thus bore a corresponding duty of care. Given the considerable fame of the Ultraman works and the fact that infringing images were prominently displayed as cover images or sample images for the LoRA models, the defendant failed to take necessary measures to prevent infringement despite the platform’s ability to consistently output recognizable character features and the evident risk of widespread infringement. This constituted aiding infringement.

Additionally, the defendant’s services aimed to expand the application scenarios and functionalities of generative AI, providing personalized creative services and enhancing efficiency for users, without violating principles of good faith or business ethics. Considering the neutrality of AI technology and the need to avoid redundant evaluation of infringing acts, the Hangzhou Internet Court concluded that the alleged conduct did not constitute unfair competition. In summary, the court ruled that the defendant was liable for aiding infringement of the right of information network dissemination and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff 30,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Hangzhou Internet Court’s ruling establishes that generative AI platforms must bear liability for aiding infringement when users utilize their tools to generate infringing content and the platform fails to fulfill its reasonable duty of care. In this case, due to the high recognition of the Ultraman character, the obviousness of the infringement, and the platform’s failure to implement effective preventive measures, the court found the defendant liable for aiding infringement and awarded 30,000 yuan in compensation, though it did not deem the conduct unfair competition. This judgment delineates the legal responsibility boundaries for AI platforms, providing a judicial basis for regulating AIGC content.

The National Intellectual Property Administration Adjusts the "Rules for Reviewing Priority Examination of Patent Applications"

The National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently adjusted the "Rules for Reviewing Priority Examination of Patent Applications," systematically optimizing the priority examination mechanism for patents in strategic emerging industries. 

According to the revised requirements, the primary classification number of a patent application must fall within the scope of the "Reference Table of Strategic Emerging Industries Classification and International Patent Classification (2021)," the "Green Technology Patent Classification System," the "Key Digital Technology Patent Classification System (2023)," or the "Patent Classification System for Technologies Related to the 'New Trio' (2024)." These encompass national priority industries such as energy conservation and environmental protection, next-generation information technology, biotechnology, high-end equipment manufacturing, new energy, new materials, new energy vehicles, and intelligent manufacturing. By refining classification standards and review processes, this adjustment aims to channel innovation resources toward national strategic industries.

ZLWD Commentary：

This adjustment optimizes the review rules for priority examination of patent applications, reflecting the state’s strong emphasis on strategic emerging industries. By specifying the applicable scope of patent classification numbers, it enhances the precision of the review process, facilitating the rapid implementation of key technologies. However, this adjustment may also impose higher threshold requirements on certain innovators, particularly for emerging technologies not yet included in the classification systems, which could face challenges in qualifying for priority examination.

The European Patent Office Releases Database of Professional Representatives

In accordance with the guidelines on digital transformation and transparency outlined in the European Patent Office (EPO)’s "Strategic Plan 2028," the EPO published a complete list of professional representatives on its website on February 3, 2025, presented in a newly improved, searchable database format.

Each professional representative is provided with the same basic dataset, allowing users to filter representatives by criteria such as city, name, and representative number, enabling easy searches based on various standards. This database is built upon the list of approximately 14,000 professional representatives registered with the EPO. Going forward, all professional representatives registered with the EPO will be included in this database, replacing the previous practice of publishing monthly updates to the list of representatives in the Official Journal.

ZLWD Commentary：

The European Patent Office’s launch of the professional representatives database demonstrates its resolute commitment to digital transformation and enhancing transparency. This initiative not only improves the accessibility of information but also optimizes the efficiency of matching patent applicants with representatives. However, the practical effectiveness of the database remains to be seen, particularly in areas such as ensuring real-time updates, avoiding data delays or errors, and safeguarding the privacy rights of representatives. In the future, if the EPO can refine its functionalities based on user feedback, this move could serve as a significant reference for the digitization of intellectual property services globally.

The Changsha Kaifu Court Concludes the Nation’s First AI-Generated Video Infringement Case

In this case, the plaintiff, a certain technology company, holds the right of information network dissemination for the popular TV series Qing Yu Nian (Joy of Life). The plaintiff discovered that a software developed by the defendant, a certain network company, included an "AI" one-click video generation function. After users input relevant content, the software could segment the TV series into short clips of 3 to 7 seconds, store them on the server, and provide them directly to users. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, without authorization, "segmented" the Qing Yu Nian footage into video clips, either generating new videos independently or providing them to users as material for further generation, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s right of information network dissemination over the work.

The Changsha Kaifu Court, upon review, held that the defendant’s unauthorized provision of 3-to-7-second clips of Qing Yu Nian through the AI function of its software, uploaded to its server and made available for public access at their discretion, constituted an infringement of the right of information network dissemination. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant, as a provider of generative artificial intelligence services, failed to fulfill its due duty of care and did not establish an effective mechanism to prevent intellectual property infringement risks or curb the dissemination of infringing content. Specifically, the defendant took no timely measures to stop the infringement, as evidenced by the fact that, up until the court hearing, clips of Qing Yu Nian remained searchable and playable within the defendant’s software.

Ultimately, the Changsha Kaifu Court ruled that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff’s right of information network dissemination, ordering the defendant to immediately cease the infringement and compensate the technology company 800,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, the defendant appealed, but the Changsha Intermediate People’s Court upheld the original ruling in the second instance.

ZLWD Commentary：

The Changsha Kaifu Court’s ruling on this AI-generated video infringement case clarifies the legal responsibilities of generative AI in content editing and dissemination, further solidifying the judicial stance on copyright protection. This case highlights the legal risks of AI technology in the secondary creation of film and television content, emphasizing that AI platform operators must fulfill a reasonable duty of care and establish effective mechanisms to prevent infringement. Looking ahead, striking a balance between encouraging technological innovation and protecting copyrights remains a critical issue for both the legal and industrial sectors to explore collaboratively.

DeepSeek Faces Trademark Dispute in the United States

In January, when DeepSeek’s company submitted a trademark application for "DeepSeek" to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), it discovered that a Delaware-based company named Delson Group had registered the identical trademark just 36 hours earlier. Delson Group claimed it had been selling AI products under the "DeepSeek" name since 2020. Public records reveal that Delson Group has initiated over 24 trademark disputes, involving companies such as GSMA and Tencent, and has registered trademarks of Chinese brands like "Geely" and "China Mobile," raising suspicions of trademark squatting. 

Legal experts note that the U.S. adheres to the "first-to-use" principle, meaning that if Delson Group can prove its use of the trademark since 2020, DeepSeek may face infringement risks. Intellectual property attorney Josh Gerben analyzed that Delson Group could even sue DeepSeek on grounds of "reverse confusion," potentially preventing DeepSeek from using the brand in the U.S.

ZLWD Commentary：

DeepSeek’s trademark dispute in the United States underscores the complexities of brand protection under the U.S. "first-to-use" principle, while also exposing the issue of "trademark squatters" exploiting legal loopholes for profit. Delson Group’s history suggests a pattern of targeting well-known corporate trademarks, which could challenge DeepSeek’s market strategy in the U.S. and raises questions about the fairness of trademark law. If DeepSeek cannot substantiate prior use of the trademark, it may face the risk of rebranding or costly settlements. This case serves as a reminder to Chinese enterprises to proactively register trademarks in overseas markets to avoid similar predicaments.

The Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration issued the "Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Industrial Intellectual Property Operation Centers (Provisional)"

Recently, the Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration issued the "Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Industrial Intellectual Property Operation Centers (Provisional)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines"). The "Guidelines" define the positioning of industrial intellectual property operation centers as an important component of the intellectual property operation system, clarifying their construction objectives of promoting the deep integration of technological innovation and industrial innovation, and serving the high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and self-improvement of industries.

They also outline the functional roles of building an operation ecosystem, aggregating essential resources, and serving high-quality creation, high-benefit transformation, collaborative innovation, and risk prevention and control of industrial intellectual property. The "Guidelines" aim to guide and regulate the construction, management, and operation of industrial intellectual property operation centers, so as to fully leverage their positive roles and better support and serve the high-quality development of industries.

The Office of the National Intellectual Property Administration emphasizes that industrial intellectual property operation centers should not only meet the innovation needs of the construction entities themselves but also be committed to serving the innovation needs of coordinated development among upstream and downstream industrial chains, various entities in industry-university-research collaboration, and inter-regional coordination.

Based on their own industrial status and resource advantages, they should fully exert their radiation and driving effects. They should not only highlight their public welfare attributes in serving a wide range of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation entities but also actively expand market-oriented and high-end value-added services, proactively explore new operation service models with industrial characteristics and leading effects, and accelerate the construction of an intellectual property transformation and application ecosystem.

ZLWD Commentary：

The issuance of the "Guidelines" has far-reaching significance and a positive impact on promoting the improvement and development of China's industrial intellectual property operation system, enhancing industrial innovation capabilities and core competitiveness, and accelerating the construction of an intellectual property transformation and application ecosystem.

The "Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes" 

came into force on February 1, 2025

Effective from February 1, 2025, the "Measures for Administrative Adjudication and Mediation of Patent Disputes" (hereinafter referred to as the "Mediation Measures") issued by the National Intellectual Property Administration have been officially implemented. The "Mediation Measures" primarily focus on the handling of patent disputes, with the core objective of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of patent owners and the public. The measures first clarify the basic principles and procedures for departments in charge of patent management when handling patent infringement disputes and mediating patent disputes, including jurisdiction provisions, recusal systems, and case-handling procedures, providing a clear legal framework for the resolution of patent disputes.

Furthermore, the "Mediation Measures" stipulate in detail the criteria for judging patent infringement, including the scope of patent protection, the principle of full coverage, the principle of estoppel, etc. These provisions help ensure that patent infringement disputes are handled fairly and promptly. At the same time, the measures also emphasize the importance of administrative mediation and specify the principles, procedures, and the preparation and validity of mediation agreements, providing parties with an alternative way to resolve patent disputes.

In addition, the "Mediation Measures" strengthen the requirements for informatization construction, encouraging departments in charge of patent management to enhance data integration and information sharing, thereby improving the efficiency and quality of patent dispute handling.

ZLWD Commentary：

The "Mediation Measures" reinforce the role of administrative means in intellectual property protection. By simplifying procedures and clarifying rules, they help resolve patent disputes quickly, reduce the cost of enterprise rights protection, and further stimulate innovation vitality.

Meishe Technology won a series of copyright infringement lawsuits against ByteDance over code copying in its 8 products, including Douyin

On February 13, 2025, Meishe Technology issued a statement via its WeChat Official Account announcing its final victory in a series of copyright infringement lawsuits against ByteDance's products, including Douyin, over code copying. 

The Supreme People’s Court of China rendered a final judgment that affirmed the first-instance 

ruling on the infringement while overturning the initially low compensation amount. 

The second-instance judgment ordered Douyin’s parent company and its affiliates to immediately cease infringing the copyright of Meishe’s SDK software, issue a public apology to Meishe Technology, and required Douyin and one of its employees to stop infringing Meishe’s technical secrets. The court awarded total compensation of approximately 82.668 million yuan (RMB) for economic losses and reasonable expenses across nine cases."

ZLWD Commentary：

Enterprises should strengthen their awareness of intellectual property protection, improve technical compliance and internal control management, formulate reasonable legal strategies for rights protection and litigation, respect market competition rules, and enhance their sense of business ethics, in order to better cope with market competition and intellectual property challenges.