In 2024, Procuratorial Authorities in China Accepted and Reviewed for Prosecution 33,805 cases against Individuals Involved in IPR Crimes and Rights Holders Filed 1,085 Incidental Civil Litigations
Date: 21 February 2025
In 2024, prosecutorial authorities at all levels across China accepted and reviewed for prosecution 33,805 cases against individuals involved in intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement crimes, marking a year-on-year increase of 10.2%. In terms of case types, IPR infringement criminal cases were still predominantly cases relating to trademarks, copyright, and trade secrets, all of which have seen rapid growth. The reverse linkage between administrative and criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights has been continuously strengthened. After prosecutorial authorities made non-prosecution decisions in IPR criminal cases, they submitted 1,280 prosecutorial opinions to administrative authorities for administrative penalties, involving 1,770 individuals.
The Director of the Intellectual Property Prosecution Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) stated that prosecutorial authorities have focused on emerging business models and fields such as community group buying, online marketing, and live streaming sales, and have rigorously cracked down on the production and sale of counterfeit food, drugs, daily chemical products, clothing, bags, as well as pirated books, toys, software, and other products used in people’s daily lives, that are the subject of IPR infringement crimes.
Meanwhile, prosecutorial authorities have continued to advance the work of criminal incidental civil litigation in IPR cases: in 2024, of the IPR infringement criminal cases prosecuted by prosecutorial authorities at all levels across China, 1,085 incidental civil litigations were initiated by rights holders, effectively reducing the cost of rights protection and reducing the litigation burden on rights holders.
Source: The SPP
https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202502/t20250221_684746.shtml
https://www.spp.gov.cn/xwfbh/wsfbh/202503/t20250309_688590.shtml
最高检：2024年全国检察机关共受理审查起诉侵犯知识产权犯罪33805人，保障权利人依法提起附带民事诉讼1085件
日期：2025-02-21
2024年，我国全国各级检察机关受理审查起诉侵犯知识产权犯罪33805人，同比上升10.2%。从案件类型看，侵犯知识产权刑事案件仍以侵犯商标权犯罪为主，侵犯著作权犯罪和侵犯商业秘密犯罪数量增长较快。知识产权行刑反向衔接工作不断加强，检察机关对知识产权刑事案件作出不起诉决定后，向行政机关提出检察意见移送行政处罚1280件共1770人。
最高人民检察院知识产权检察办公室主任表示，检察机关聚焦社区团购、网络营销、直播带货等新业态新领域，依法严厉打击制售假冒食品、药品、日化用品、服装箱包以及盗版书籍、玩具、软件等与人民群众日常生活息息相关的侵犯知识产权犯罪。与此同时，检察院持续推进知识产权刑事附带民事诉讼工作：2024年，全国检察机关提起公诉的侵犯知识产权犯罪案件中，保障权利人依法提起附带民事诉讼1085件，有效降低维权成本，减轻权利人诉累。
资料来源：中华人民共和国最高人民检察院
新闻链接：https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202502/t20250221_684746.shtml
https://www.spp.gov.cn/xwfbh/wsfbh/202503/t20250309_688590.shtml
First Decision at Second Instance in Copyright Infringement Case Involving AI-generated Text-to-Video Content. Defendant Ordered to Pay Compensation of RMB 800,000 (Approx. US$ 111,482)
Date: 14 February 2025
The Plaintiff in this case, a technology company, is the holder of the right of dissemination via information network for the popular television series Joy of Life. It discovered that software developed by the Defendant, a network company, included an "AI one-click video generation" feature. By inputting relevant content, users could cut the film and television work into 3 to 7-second short videos, which were then stored on the server and directly provided to users. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant had, without its authorization, "cut" the Joy of Life film and television work into video clips, either generating them independently or providing them to users as materials to create new videos, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's right of dissemination via information network to the Joy of Life.
After hearing the case, Kaifu Primary People's Court, Changsha, held that the Defendant, without the Plaintiff's authorization, had provided users with 3 to 7-second clips of Joy of Life through the AI feature of its developed software and uploaded these clips to its server, enabling the public to access them independently. This constituted an infringement of the Plaintiff's right of dissemination via information network. Furthermore, as a provider of generative artificial intelligence services, the Defendant had failed to fulfill its duty of care in not establishing an effective intellectual property infringement risk prevention mechanism to stop the dissemination of infringing content. It had also failed to take timely measures to prevent the infringement, as evidenced by the fact that clips of Joy of Life could still be searched and played using the Defendant's software until the time of the court hearing.
Ultimately, Kaifu Primary People's Court, Changsha, ruled that the Defendant had infringed the Plaintiff's right of dissemination via information network and ordered it to cease the infringement immediately and compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 800,000 (approx. US$ 111,482). The Defendant, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, filed an appeal. The Changsha Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
Source: Kaifu Primary People's Court, Changsha
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/vyv0veTgu5BY_-YyMGtKvQ
全国首例AI文生视频侵权案二审审结，被告被判赔人民币80万元
日期：2025-02-14
本案原告某科技有限公司是热播剧《庆余年》的信息网络传播权人，原告发现被告某网络公司开发的一款软件中包含“AI”一键成片功能，用户输入相关内容后，可将影视作品切成3到7秒的短视频，存到服务器上直接向用户提供。原告认为，被告未经其许可将《庆余年》影视作品“剪切”成视频片段，自行生成或者提供给用户作为素材生成出新的视频，侵犯了原告对《庆余年》作品享有的信息网络传播权。
长沙开福法院经审理认为，被告未经原告授权，通过其开发的软件的AI功能向用户提供了3到7秒的《庆余年》片段，并将片段上传至其服务器，使公众能够自主获得的行为构成信息网络传播权侵权。此外，被告作为生成式人工智能服务提供者，未尽到应尽的注意义务，也没有建立有效的知识产权侵权风险防范机制阻止侵权内容的传播，且没有及时采取措施阻止侵权行为，具体表现为直到开庭前，被告软件中仍然能搜索并播放《庆余年》的片段。
最终，长沙开福法院认定被告侵犯了原告的信息网络传播权，判令被告立即停止并赔偿科技公司经济损失及合理支出共计80万元。被告不服一审判决提起上诉，长沙中院二审维持原判。
资料来源：长沙开福法院
新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/vyv0veTgu5BY_-YyMGtKvQ
Hangzhou Internet Court Clarifies That Generative AI Platforms Failing to Fulfill Their Reasonable Duty of Care Shall Bear Liability for Contributory Infringement
Date: 10 February 2025
The Plaintiff in this case is the copyright holder of the Ultraman series of images. The Defendant operates an AI platform that provides Checkpoint base models and LoRA models, and supports services such as image-to-image generation and online model training. Users can upload Ultraman images to the platform, select a base model, adjust parameters for training, and generate Ultraman LoRA models. Other users can further utilize these models to generate images that are substantially similar to the Ultraman images by inputting prompt words. In addition, the generated LoRA models and images based on these models can be searched, applied, downloaded, published, or shared in the platform's homepage "Recommended" section, and "IP Works" column. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Internet Court, requesting the Court to rule that the Defendant's actions infringed its right of dissemination via information network and constituted unfair competition.
After reviewing the case, the Hangzhou Internet Court determined that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant had jointly provided the infringing works with users. Further, it was not directly engaging in acts that fell within the scope of the copyright holder's exclusive rights; thus, there was no direct infringement. Taking account of various factors, however, the Court concluded that the Defendant was liable for contributory infringement. The factors taken into account included the nature and profit model of the generative artificial intelligence service, the popularity of the copyrighted works and the obviousness of the alleged infringement, the potential infringement consequences, and whether reasonable measures to prevent infringement had been actively taken. It concluded that the Defendant derived direct economic benefits from the creative services provided by the platform and that it had corresponding obligations to exercise due diligence. The Ultraman works have a considerable level of popularity, and the infringing images were directly displayed on the cover or example images of the LoRA models. Given that the platform could output stable character image features and the infringement had already shown a clear trend of spreading, the Defendant's failure to take necessary measures to prevent infringement constituted contributory infringement.
The unfair competition claim was not successful. The Defendant's service aimed to expand the application scenarios and features of generative artificial intelligence, providing users with personalized creative services and improving creative efficiency. It did not violate the principles of good faith and business ethics. Considering the neutrality of artificial intelligence technology and the avoidance of double evaluation of infringing acts, the Hangzhou Internet Court ruled that the alleged actions did not constitute unfair competition.
In summary, the Hangzhou Internet Court ruled that the Defendant was liable for contributory infringement of the Plaintiff's right of dissemination via information network and ordered it to compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable expenses amounting to RMB 30,000 (approx. US$ 4,139).
Source: Hangzhou Internet Court
杭州互联网法院明确生成式AI平台未尽到合理注意义务时应承担帮助侵权责任
日期：2025-02-10
本案原告系奥特曼系列形象的著作权人，被告运营某某AI平台，提供Checkpoint基础模型和LoRA模型，支持图生图、模型在线训练等服务。经查，用户可在该平台上上传奥特曼图片，选择基础模型并调整参数进行训练，生成奥特曼LoRA模型，其他用户可进一步使用该模型，通过输入提示词生成与奥特曼形象实质性相似的图片。此外，生成的LoRA模型及基于该模型生成的图片可在平台首页、“推荐”及“IP作品”栏目中被搜索、应用、下载、发布或分享链接。原告为此诉至杭州互联网法院，请求法院判令被告的行为侵害其信息网络传播权并构成不正当竞争。
杭州互联网法院经审理认定，本案中无证据证明被告与用户共同提供侵权作品，其并未直接实施了受著作权专有权控制的行为，故不构成直接侵权。法院综合生成式人工智能服务的性质和营利模式、权利作品的知名度和被诉侵权事实的明显程度、可能引发的侵权后果以及是否积极采取了预防侵权的合理措施等方面，认为被告系从平台提供的创作服务中直接获得经济利益，负有相应的注意义务；奥特曼作品具有相当的知名度，且侵权图片直接在LoRA模型封面图或示例图直接被展示，被告在可以输出稳定的角色形象特征、侵权扩散后果已呈明显态势的情形下，未采取必要措施预防侵权，构成帮助侵权。
此外，被告的服务旨在扩展生成式人工智能的应用场景和功能，为用户提供个性化创作服务并提升创作效率，未违反诚信原则和商业道德，考虑到人工智能技术的中立性以及不应对侵权行为进行重复评价，杭州互联网法院认定被诉行为不构成不正当竞争。综上，法院认定被告构成侵害信息网络传播权的帮助侵权，判决被告赔偿原告经济损失及合理费用3万元。
资料来源：杭州互联网法院
新闻链接：
Trina Solar Sues CSI Solar in Jiangsu High People's Court for Patent Infringement, Seeking Record-High Damages in PV Industry Patent Dispute in China
Date: 11 February 2025
On the evening of 11 February 2025, Trina Solar, a leading photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturer in China, announced that it had filed two patent infringement lawsuits against another well-known PV module company, Changshu Canadian Solar (CSI Solar), in the Jiangsu High People's Court, and that the cases had been accepted for trial. The damages claimed in the two cases amounted to RMB 607 million (approx. US$ 84.6 million) and RMB 451 million (approx. US$ 62.8 million) respectively, a total claim amount of RMB 1.058 billion (approx. US$ 147.4 million). This marks the highest damages claim in a patent dispute between Chinese PV enterprises to date.
Specifically, Trina Solar stated in the announcement that the PV modules and other products manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by CSI Solar and its subsidiaries infringed its two patents: No. ZL201710975923.2 for "Solar Cell Module" and No. ZL201510892086.8 for "Solar Cell and Its Manufacturing Method".
On 12 February, CSI Solar responded to the two cases, stating that it had submitted invalidation requests to the CNIPA in respect of the two patents. It also stated that it believed that its products and processes did not infringe the two patents in question, and that Trina Solar's lawsuit lacked a factual and legal basis.
Over the past year, patent infringement disputes between the two enterprises have continued to escalate. In May 2024, Trina Solar applied to the Shanghai Yangshan Customs to detain certain PV products of CSI Solar on suspicion of patent infringement. After CSI Solar submitted a release application and provided non-infringement explanations, the goods were cleared and released. In October 2024, CSI Solar filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Trina Solar in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, claiming damages of RMB 100 million (approx. US$ 13.9 million). As of 24 February, all aforementioned cases are still under judicial review, and no judgments have been rendered.
Source: Official Announcements Made by Trina Solar and CSI Solar
https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H2_AN202502101642942339_1.pdf?1739219496000.pdf
天合光能在江苏高院诉常熟阿特斯专利权侵权，索赔金额创下中国光伏企业专利纠纷最高记录
日期：2025-02-11
2025年2月11日晚，中国光伏组件巨头天合光能发布公告，称其在江苏高院对另一家光伏组件知名企业常熟阿特斯提起两件专利侵权诉讼已获立案受理。两件案件的索赔额分别为6.07 亿元和4.51 亿元，合计索赔额达10.58 亿元，这一索赔额创下了中国光伏企业专利纠纷的最高记录。
天合光能在公告中称，常熟阿特斯及其子公司共同实施的制造、许诺销售和销售的光伏组件等产品侵犯了其第ZL201710975923.2 号发明专利 “太阳能电池模块”和第 ZL201510892086.8 号发明专利“太阳能电池及其制造方法”两项专利。2月12日，常熟阿特斯对两案作出回应，称其已就两项涉案专利向国知局提交了无效宣告请求，同时认为自身产品和工艺并不侵犯两项涉案专利，天合光能的起诉缺乏事实和法律上的依据。
近一年来，天合光能与常熟阿特斯之间的专利侵权纠纷不断。2024年5月，天合光能以涉嫌侵犯专利权为由，对常熟阿特斯的部分光伏组件产品向上海洋山海关提出扣货申请。经常熟阿特斯提出放行申请并说明不侵权理由后，货物顺利通关放行；2024年10月，常熟阿特斯在苏州中院起诉天合光能专利权侵权，并向天合光能索赔1亿元。截至2025年2月24日，以上案件均在审理进程中，尚未有判决结果产生。
资料来源：天合光能、常熟阿特斯披露公告
新闻链接：
https://pdf.dfcfw.com/pdf/H2_AN202502101642942339_1.pdf?1739219496000.pdf