Disclaimer:
1. This report has selected and edited certain cases based on research value and reference significance, but this does not represent the report’s endorsement of the court’s views and its judgment results;
2. This report may contain errors or misunderstandings in the selection and editing of judgments or news information, and all editorial responsibilities are borne by the editorial department.
Supreme Court Ruling: Copyright Holders of Software Using GPL Open Source Code Without Open Sourcing Have the Right to Claim Infringement by Others
—— Case of Yibang Company, Qiao Company vs. Wangjing Company and Liu, Wu, and Xie in Computer Software Copyright Dispute
[Key Points of the Judgment]
1. Although the software in question involves the GPLv2 license agreement, since the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software is not a party to this case, based on the principle of contractual relativity, it is inappropriate to examine whether the software in question is wholly or partially bound by the GPLv2 agreement, whether Wangjing Company violated the GPLv2 agreement, and whether Wangjing Company should bear any breach or infringement liability. Furthermore, regarding whether the software in question is bound by the GPLv2 agreement, this issue involves whether the underlying system software is bound by the GPLv2 agreement, whether the upper functional software constitutes an “independent and separate program” under the GPLv2 agreement, the isolation techniques, communication methods, and content used between the two, as well as the general understanding and industry practices regarding the transmissibility of the GPLv2 agreement in the software field. In the absence of the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software as a party to this case, it is also difficult to ascertain the aforementioned series of facts related to the GPLv2 agreement. Moreover, Yibang Company and Qiao Company have no evidence to prove that Wangjing Company has waived its copyright under Chinese copyright law regarding the software in question through the GPLv2 agreement. Furthermore, even assuming that Wangjing Company has caused the software in question to have rights defects due to a violation of the GPLv2 agreement, such assumed defects do not affect Wangjing Company’s right to seek infringement relief against the accused behavior in this case.2. The software in question has not been open-sourced, the copyright holder believes that its software is not bound by the GPLv2 agreement, and the accused infringer raises a non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement in the infringement dispute. Whether the software developer has violated the GPLv2 agreement and whether they hold the software copyright are two relatively independent legal issues that should not be conflated to avoid unreasonably depriving or restricting the software developer’s copyright based on their original contributions. However, it should be noted that the final determination of the accused behavior constituting infringement and supporting part of Wangjing Company’s claims does not indicate that Wangjing Company will be exempt from any breach and/or infringement liability it should bear in potential future breach and/or infringement lawsuits.3. It is particularly noteworthy that the software in question is an independent software developed based on the OpenWRT system software, so when calculating infringement losses in this case, it should focus on the proportion of the secondary development part by Wangjing Company in the overall software work, reasonably isolating the already open-sourced part of the OpenWRT system software and only calculating the part of the software in question where Wangjing Company has original expression. Since the OpenWRT system software is a relatively mature communication control software, and many developers have contributed to it, the amount of code written is substantial. From the amount determined in the first-instance judgment, the first-instance court has already considered this, which aligns with the aforementioned proportional principle, and the Supreme People’s Court confirms this.
[Source of the Case]
Jiangsu Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2018) Su 05 Min Chu 845 No. Civil JudgmentSupreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Court Zhi Min Zhong 51 No. Civil Judgment
[Parties Involved]
Appellants (First-instance Defendants): Zhejiang Yibang Communication Technology Co., Ltd.Appellants (First-instance Defendants): Suzhou Qiao Network Technology Co., Ltd.Respondent (First-instance Plaintiff): Wangjing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.First-instance Defendants: Liu, Wu, and Xie
[Case Summary]
Wangjing Company invested in the research and development of the software in question, and on June 5, 2014, obtained the “Wangjing Technology OfficeTen1800 System Software V1.8” computer software copyright registration certificate from the National Copyright Administration, which recorded the completion date of development as July 5, 2013, the first publication date as November 25, 2013, and the method of rights acquisition as original acquisition. Liu and Wu were both former employees of Wangjing Company. Wangjing Company signed labor contracts and confidentiality agreements with Liu and Wu, who later left the company.On January 5, 2016, Wangjing Company purchased an enterprise gateway produced by Yibang Company from Yibang’s distributor. Upon comparison, it was found that the software running results of the device contained special markers of Wangjing Company’s software source code, and there were other identical indicators in the software running results. Subsequently, Wangjing Company discovered that after Liu and Wu left, Yibang Company contacted them and hired them as employees. Liu and Wu were nominally employed by Qiao Company but were essentially developing gateway software directly for Yibang Company, with Qiao Company being directly managed and controlled by Yibang Company.Wangjing Company filed a lawsuit, claiming that the four defendants infringed on the software copyright in question, seeking compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 3 million yuan, as well as an apology and elimination of the impact.
[Judgment Observations]
The first-instance court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is: (1) Whether Wangjing Company enjoys the copyright of the software in question; (2) Whether the five defendants have infringed the copyright of the software in question; (3) If infringement is established, how the five defendants should bear liability for infringement.(1) Whether Wangjing Company owns the copyright of the software in questionWangjing Company’s development of the software in question is supported by systematic and complete research and development records, and Wangjing Company has also obtained the “Wangjing Technology OfficeTen1800 System Software V1.8” computer software copyright registration certificate from the National Copyright Administration, which should confirm its software copyright. Qiao Company and Wu claim that the software developed based on the OpenWRT system software should be subject to the constraints of the GPLv2 agreement, and the rights belong to the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software open-source code. This involves the copyright ownership of software developed based on the open-source framework of the OpenWRT system software, which should distinguish different situations. Modifications, optimizations, and developments based on open-source products should determine copyright ownership according to the open-source agreement; however, if only calling open-source products or conducting secondary development based on open-source products, and the developer’s creative labor is sufficient to constitute an independent work, then the developer enjoys their own copyright. Qiao Company and Wu’s claim that there is no copyright or that the copyright belongs to the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software lacks basis. Secondly, whether the GPLv2 agreement should be followed for open-sourcing. According to the relevant provisions of the GPLv2 agreement, the licensed object of the GPLv2 agreement is the copyright-protected program approved under the GPLv2 agreement and derivative products or revised versions based on that program. However, it cannot be simply assumed that all software related to that program must be open-sourced. Qiao Company’s evidence only proves that the software of the accused gateway contains open-source code but does not prove that the gateway software is merely a use of open-source code (modifications or deletions). There is no evidence in this case to show that the software in question contains GPLv2 agreement open-source code in all directories. Moreover, the source code of the software in question is not public, and there are no prerequisites for Qiao Company to use third-party open-source programs and build derivative software products under the GPLv2 agreement.(2) Whether the five defendants have infringed the copyright of the software in questionMultiple employees of Qiao Company consistently stated in police interrogation records that Qiao Company referenced and partially copied the software in question during the development of the gateway software. The Shanghai Oriental Computer Judicial Appraisal Institute was commissioned to conduct three appraisals regarding the similarity between the OfficeTen1800-c produced by Wangjing Company and the EB-MIG-2100G produced by Yibang Company, the similarity of the software source code of the OfficeTen1800-c device produced by Wangjing Company and the software developed by Qiao Company and produced by Yibang Company, and the similarity of the non-open-source parts of the source code of the software in question and the accused software. The conclusions showed similarity rates of 87.5%, 96%, and 90.2%, respectively; the appraisal also found that the special signaling in the call process of the EB-MIG-2100G produced by Yibang Company contained the unique “OfficeTen” text of Wangjing Company, and the documents of the EB-MIG-2100G contained the name “itibia” of Wangjing Company. Based on the above evidence, it is sufficient to make a factual judgment that the accused software partially copied the software in question.(3) How the five defendants should bear liability for infringementThe evidence in this case sufficiently proves that Qiao Company and Yibang Company have a commonality in the development and copying of the source code of the accused infringing gateway product. This is not limited to signing the “Technical Development Contract”; both parties have an unusually close relationship in various aspects such as the establishment of Qiao Company, personnel recruitment, fund usage, and project decision-making, and there is a connection in terms of goals, actions, and interests in the development and copying process of the accused infringing gateway product’s source code. Therefore, Qiao Company and Yibang Company should bear joint infringement liability for the accused infringing behavior of the gateway software developed by Qiao Company and the copying of that gateway software by Yibang Company, as well as the manufacturing and selling of the gateway products.Regarding Liu, who is a hardware engineer and does not engage in software development. Liu worked at Qiao Company, and his recruitment and management work is considered a job-related behavior. Wangjing Company claims that Liu infringed its software copyright, which lacks factual and legal basis, and the first-instance court did not support this claim.Regarding Wu, Wangjing Company claims that Wu illegally logged into Wangjing Company’s server to download the source code, but Wu provided evidence that after leaving the company, Wangjing Company’s staff contacted him for technical issues and provided him with relevant login usernames and passwords, during which he downloaded the relevant gateway source code. This indicates that Wangjing Company provided source code downloads to its former employees without the constraints of a labor contract, which clearly indicates a management loophole. Therefore, the first-instance court did not accept Wangjing Company’s claim that Wu illegally logged into Wangjing Company’s server to download the source code. As for Wu providing the source code of Wangjing Company’s gateway during the development process at Qiao Company, this behavior does not directly constitute copyright infringement. Evidence in the case shows that members of the software development team at Qiao Company referenced Wangjing Company’s gateway source code during the software code development, and the gateway system software compiled by Qiao Company contains partial copies of Wangjing Company’s software, while Yibang Company further copied that software on the gateway products developed by Qiao Company. These behaviors are all business activities, and the relevant infringement liability subjects should be Qiao Company and Yibang Company. Wangjing Company’s claim that Wu infringed its software copyright lacks sufficient evidence.In summary, Qiao Company and Yibang Company, without Wangjing Company’s permission, partially copied the software in question, constituting infringement, and should bear civil liability to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses. Since the infringement of copyright in this case does not involve the personal rights of the copyright holder, the first-instance court did not support Wangjing Company’s claim for an apology. Wangjing Company’s claim that Yibang Company should publicly eliminate the impact on its official website can be supported. Regarding compensation for losses, according to the provisions of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Law), if copyright or rights related to copyright are infringed, the infringer should compensate the rights holder for their actual losses; if actual losses are difficult to calculate, compensation can be based on the infringer’s illegal gains. The amount of compensation should also include reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringement. If the actual losses of the rights holder or the illegal gains of the infringer cannot be determined, the people’s court shall determine compensation of no more than 500,000 yuan based on the circumstances of the infringement. In this case, Wangjing Company provided evidence of a profit forecast audit report made by an accounting firm for the bidding product, but this audit report is based on “hypothetical evidence” and is difficult to accept. Moreover, regarding the specific situation of the bidding project, the bidding rules determine the shares of the first and second candidates based on 70% and 30% of the bidding procurement quantity, but Wangjing Company is not among the top three candidates, and its claimed profit forecast lacks realistic possibility. As for the infringer’s illegal gains, due to the lack of relevant evidence, it is difficult to calculate. Therefore, the first-instance court determined the amount of infringement compensation based on the specific circumstances of the infringement, focusing on the following factors: 1. The gateway software developed by Qiao Company, commissioned by Yibang Company, contains partial copies of the software in question, and the main benefit of this behavior is to save development time and avoid development difficulties; 2. There is a real market competition interest between the copyright holder and the infringer, and the economic value of the products involved in the accused software is high; 3. The accused infringing behavior shows a strong degree of planning; 4. The software in question is developed based on the OpenWRT system software, which has a certain degree of similarity; 5. The accused infringing behavior occurred between 2015 and 2016, and there have been no ongoing or new disputes regarding the gateway software between the two parties since then; 6. The rights holder has actually paid a considerable amount of expenses to stop the infringement. Based on the above considerations, it was determined that Qiao Company and Yibang Company should compensate 500,000 yuan.Additionally, regarding Xie, who is a natural person and sole shareholder of Qiao Company, Xie provided evidence from an auditing agency that concluded no financial commingling was found between Xie and the company’s assets during the period from May 28, 2015, to May 31, 2020. In this case, Wangjing Company’s claim that Xie should bear joint liability for Qiao Company’s debts lacks basis, and the first-instance court did not support it.The first-instance court ruled according to the provisions of the Copyright Law, Articles 3, 8, 10, 48, 49, and the Software Protection Regulations, Article 24, Paragraph 1, Item 1, as follows:1. Zhejiang Yibang Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Qiao Network Technology Co., Ltd. shall immediately stop infringing the copyright of the “OfficeTen1800 System Software” of Wangjing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.;2. Zhejiang Yibang Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Qiao Network Technology Co., Ltd. shall jointly compensate Wangjing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 500,000 yuan;3. Zhejiang Yibang Communication Technology Co., Ltd. shall publish a notice on its official website regarding the infringement matter to eliminate the impact (the publication period shall not be less than 15 consecutive days, and the content must be reviewed by the court);4. Wangjing Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.’s other litigation requests are dismissed.The Supreme People’s Court held that this case is a dispute over the infringement of computer software copyright, and the duration of the accused infringing behavior is after the implementation date of the amended Copyright Law of 2010 (April 1, 2010) and before the implementation date of the amended Copyright Law of 2020 (June 1, 2021), and this case should apply the amended Copyright Law of 2010. Based on the parties’ claims and defenses and the facts of the case, the focus of the dispute in the second instance is: (1) Whether Wangjing Company enjoys the copyright of the software in question; (2) Whether Yibang Company and Qiao Company have jointly committed infringement; (3) Whether the non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement raised by Yibang Company and Qiao Company is valid; (4) If infringement is established, whether the civil liability determined by the first-instance court is appropriate.(1) Whether Wangjing Company enjoys the copyright of the software in questionThe Copyright Law, Article 3, states: “The works referred to in this law include literary, artistic, and scientific works created in the following forms: (8) computer software.” The Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 2, states: “The works referred to in the Copyright Law are intellectual achievements with originality that can be reproduced in some tangible form in the fields of literature, art, and science.” The Software Protection Regulations, Article 2, states: “The computer software referred to in these regulations (hereinafter referred to as software) refers to computer programs and their related documents”; Article 5, Paragraph 1, states: “Chinese citizens, legal persons, or other organizations enjoy copyright for the software they develop, regardless of whether it is published, in accordance with these regulations”; Article 7, Paragraph 1, states: “The software copyright holder may apply for registration with the software registration agency recognized by the State Copyright Administration. The registration certificate issued by the software registration agency is preliminary proof of the registration matters.”In this case, the software in question is the gateway product system software named “OfficeTen” developed by Wangjing Company, which can achieve specific network functions required for the operation of communication operators. Wangjing Company obtained the “Wangjing Technology OfficeTen1800 System Software V1.8” computer software copyright registration certificate from the National Copyright Administration on June 5, 2014, which recorded the completion date of the software development as July 5, 2013, the first publication date as November 25, 2013, and the method of rights acquisition as original acquisition. Furthermore, according to the facts established by the first-instance court, the detection and comparison results from the Shanghai Oriental Computer Judicial Appraisal Institute show that there are as many as 1,694 non-open-source files in the subdirectories of the software in question, which can corroborate Wangjing Company’s claims regarding the substantial costs invested in research and development, indicating that Wangjing Company invested significant costs in developing the software in question. Therefore, it can be concluded that the software in question has originality and can be reproduced in tangible form, constituting a work under copyright law and should be protected by law. Others may not copy, modify, or distribute the software in question without Wangjing Company’s permission; otherwise, it will constitute an illegal act of infringing the copyright of the software in question.(2) Whether Yibang Company and Qiao Company have jointly committed infringementFirst, regarding whether the accused behavior infringes the copyright of the software in question. The Software Protection Regulations, Article 8, Paragraph 1, states: “The software copyright holder enjoys the following rights: (3) the right to modify, which means the right to add, delete, or change the order of instructions or statements; (4) the right to copy, which means the right to make one or more copies of the software; (5) the right to distribute, which means the right to provide the original or copies of the software to the public by sale or gift.” Article 23 states: “Unless otherwise provided by the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China or these regulations, those who engage in the following infringing acts shall bear civil liability for stopping the infringement, eliminating the impact, apologizing, and compensating for losses according to the circumstances: (5) modifying or translating the software without the permission of the software copyright holder.” Article 24, Paragraph 1, states: “Unless otherwise provided by the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, these regulations, or other laws and administrative regulations, those who engage in the following infringing acts shall bear civil liability for stopping the infringement, eliminating the impact, apologizing, and compensating for losses according to the circumstances; if it also harms the public interest, the copyright administrative department shall order the infringing act to stop, confiscate illegal gains, confiscate and destroy infringing copies, and may impose fines; if the circumstances are serious, the copyright administrative department may also confiscate materials, tools, and equipment mainly used to produce infringing copies; if criminal law is violated, criminal responsibility shall be pursued according to the provisions of the criminal law regarding copyright infringement and the sale of infringing copies.” In this case, based on the consistent statements of multiple employees of Qiao Company in police interrogation records, Wu’s illegal login to download the source code of the software in question, the appraisal results from the Shanghai Oriental Computer Judicial Appraisal Institute regarding the software in question and the accused software, and the presence of the unique “OfficeTen” text of Wangjing Company and the name “itibia” in the accused software, there are sufficient facts to determine that Qiao Company copied and modified the source code of Wangjing Company’s software during the development of the accused software; moreover, based on the established facts in this case, Yibang Company engaged in the sale of the accused software. These acts of copying, modifying, and distributing were all done without Wangjing Company’s permission, infringing on Wangjing Company’s copyright of the software in question. Therefore, the first-instance court’s conclusion regarding the infringement of the copyright of the software in question by the accused behavior has sufficient factual and legal basis, which the Supreme People’s Court recognizes. However, the first-instance court only commented on the accused copying behavior, neglecting to comment on the accused modifying and distributing behaviors, which the Supreme People’s Court supplements. Although Yibang Company and Qiao Company raised objections to the factual determination of their accused behavior, they did not provide sufficient counter-evidence to overturn the aforementioned factual determinations. Therefore, Yibang Company and Qiao Company’s claims that the accused software is entirely a result of independent research and development and that they did not infringe the copyright of the software in question lack factual and legal basis, which the Supreme People’s Court does not support.Secondly, regarding whether Yibang Company and Qiao Company jointly committed the accused behavior. The first-instance court, based on the “Technical Development Contract” signed between Yibang Company and Qiao Company and the close relationship between the two parties in various aspects such as the establishment of Qiao Company, personnel recruitment, fund usage, and project decision-making, determined that there was a connection in terms of goals, actions, and interests in the development and copying process of the accused software. This factual determination has factual and legal basis and is not improper, which the Supreme People’s Court recognizes. Therefore, regarding the accused acts of copying, modifying, and distributing, Yibang Company and Qiao Company are indeed joint infringers, and their accused infringing behavior should be evaluated as a whole. Although Yibang Company raised objections to this, they did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the conclusion of joint infringement, so the Supreme People’s Court does not support Yibang Company’s claims that they did not participate in the development of the accused software and did not engage in any infringing behavior, and that the two companies do not constitute joint infringement.(3) Whether the non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement raised by Yibang Company and Qiao Company is validYibang Company and Qiao Company argue that the evidence in the case is sufficient to prove that the software in question is bound by the GPLv2 agreement, and according to the GPLv2 agreement, Wangjing Company is obligated to publicly disclose the source code of the software in question, therefore, even if Yibang Company and Qiao Company used the source code of the software in question, such use does not constitute infringement. In this regard, the Supreme People’s Court holds that the non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement raised by Yibang Company and Qiao Company cannot be established for the following reasons:First, this case is a dispute over copyright infringement of the software in question, not a contractual dispute. Although the software in question involves the GPLv2 license agreement, since the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software is not a party to this case, based on the principle of contractual relativity, it is inappropriate to examine whether the software in question is wholly or partially bound by the GPLv2 agreement, whether Wangjing Company violated the GPLv2 agreement, and whether Wangjing Company should bear any breach or infringement liability. Secondly, regarding whether the software in question is bound by the GPLv2 agreement, this issue involves whether the underlying system software is bound by the GPLv2 agreement, whether the upper functional software constitutes an “independent and separate program” under the GPLv2 agreement, the isolation techniques, communication methods, and content used between the two, as well as the general understanding and industry practices regarding the transmissibility of the GPLv2 agreement in the software field. In the absence of the rights holder of the OpenWRT system software as a party to this case, it is also difficult to ascertain the aforementioned series of facts related to the GPLv2 agreement. Furthermore, Yibang Company and Qiao Company have no evidence to prove that Wangjing Company has waived its copyright under Chinese copyright law regarding the software in question through the GPLv2 agreement. In other words, even assuming that Wangjing Company has caused the software in question to have rights defects due to a violation of the GPLv2 agreement, such assumed defects do not affect Wangjing Company’s right to seek infringement relief against the accused behavior in this case.In summary, in the infringement dispute where the software has not been open-sourced, the copyright holder believes that its software is not bound by the GPLv2 agreement, and the accused infringer raises a non-infringement defense based on the GPLv2 agreement, whether the software developer has violated the GPLv2 agreement and whether they hold the software copyright are two relatively independent legal issues that should not be conflated to avoid unreasonably depriving or restricting the software developer’s copyright based on their original contributions. However, it should be noted that the final determination of the accused behavior constituting infringement and supporting part of Wangjing Company’s claims does not indicate that Wangjing Company will be exempt from any breach and/or infringement liability it should bear in potential future breach and/or infringement lawsuits.(4) If infringement is established, whether the civil liability determined by the first-instance court is appropriateThe Copyright Law, Article 48, Paragraph 1, states: “Those who engage in the following infringing acts shall bear civil liability for stopping the infringement, eliminating the impact, apologizing, and compensating for losses according to the circumstances;… (1) copying, distributing, performing, screening, broadcasting, compiling, or disseminating to the public through information networks without the permission of the copyright holder, except as otherwise provided;…”; Article 49 states: “Those who infringe copyright or rights related to copyright shall compensate the rights holder for their actual losses; if actual losses are difficult to calculate, compensation can be based on the infringer’s illegal gains. The amount of compensation should also include reasonable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringement. If the actual losses of the rights holder or the illegal gains of the infringer cannot be determined, the people’s court shall determine compensation of no more than 500,000 yuan based on the circumstances of the infringement.”In this case, based on the evidence in the case, since both Wangjing Company’s actual losses and Yibang Company and Qiao Company’s illegal gains cannot be determined, the first-instance court comprehensively considered the nature and circumstances of the accused behavior, the high economic value of the software in question, the strong planning of the accused infringing behavior, the fact that the software in question is a result of secondary development based on the OpenWRT system software, the duration of the accused behavior, and the considerable expenses paid by the rights holder to stop the infringement, and determined that Yibang Company and Qiao Company should jointly compensate Wangjing Company 500,000 yuan. This handling is not improper, and the determined amount is not excessively high, and has taken into account factors such as the OpenWRT system software, which the Supreme People’s Court recognizes. Given that Wangjing Company paid 70,000 yuan in attorney fees and 5,000 yuan in notarization fees for this case, the aforementioned 500,000 yuan compensation can be divided into 425,000 yuan for economic compensation and 75,000 yuan for reasonable expenses.It should be noted that the software in question is an independent software developed based on the OpenWRT system software, so when calculating infringement losses in this case, it should focus on the proportion of the secondary development part by Wangjing Company in the overall software work, reasonably isolating the already open-sourced part of the OpenWRT system software and only calculating the part of the software in question where Wangjing Company has original expression. Since the OpenWRT system software is a relatively mature communication control software, and many developers have contributed to it, the amount of code written is substantial. From the amount determined in the first-instance judgment, the first-instance court has already considered this, which aligns with the aforementioned proportional principle, and the Supreme People’s Court confirms this.Additionally, considering the high similarity between the accused software and the software in question, as well as their direct competitive relationship in the relevant market, and the fact that the developers of the accused software were once employed by Wangjing Company, it is necessary to eliminate the negative commercial impact of the accused software on the software in question and restore the relevant market’s recognition of the software in question and its operating entity, Wangjing Company. Therefore, the first-instance court ordered Yibang Company to publish a notice on its official website regarding the infringement matter to eliminate the impact, which is legally justified and not improper, and the Supreme People’s Court maintains this. Yibang Company and Qiao Company raised objections to the first-instance judgment of 500,000 yuan and the order for Yibang Company to eliminate the impact, but they lack sufficient factual and legal basis, which the Supreme People’s Court does not support.In summary, the appeals of Yibang Company and Qiao Company cannot be established and should be dismissed; the first-instance judgment is clear in its facts and correct in its application of the law and should be maintained. According to the provisions of the amended Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China of 2010, Articles 3, 8, 10, 48, 49, the Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 2, the Software Protection Regulations, Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, Paragraph 1, Items 3, 4, 5, Article 23, Item 5, Article 24, Paragraph 1, Items 1, 2, and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1, the judgment is as follows:Dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment.Disclaimer1. This report has selected and edited certain cases based on research value and reference significance, but this does not represent the report’s endorsement of the court’s views and its judgment results;2. This report may contain errors or misunderstandings in the selection and editing of judgments or news information, and all editorial responsibilities are borne by the editorial department.
SHIPA
Recent Activity 1
The 10th “Top Ten Most Research-Value Intellectual Property Judgment Cases in China” Selection ActivityCase recommendations are now openWe welcome all legal professionals in the field of intellectual property to actively recommend 👇
Recent Activity 2
We welcome legal and industry professionals in the new cultural and entertainment field to actively participate 👇
