During an appeal hearing of a patent ownership dispute, the Supreme People's Court identified a prior concluded copyright ownership and infringement case between two involved parties. The effective civil judgment from that copyright case had directly affected the outcome of the ongoing patent dispute, though evidence suggested the copyright ruling was erroneous. The Court therefore exercised its authority to review the copyright case. Upon retrial, the court ermined that the parties in the copyright case had colluded maliciously, fabricated infringement claims, and initiated false litigation with the aim of intervening with the patent dispute and unlawfully appropriating other party’s patents. This conduct seriously disrupted court proceedings and judicial order. Consequently, the Supreme People's Court revoked the original copyright judgment, imposed maximum judicial fines of 100,000 RMB on each party for false litigation, and referred criminal clues to the relevant authorities. Both fined parties have paid their penalties, and public security organs have initiated investigations. The retrial ruling elaborated on key factors for identifying false litigation and proposed judicial measures for penalizing such acts, offering significant guidance for handling similar cases in practice.
Natural person Y left Company A and joined Company B within the same month, holding the position of technical engineer at both companies. Within one month of joining Company B, Y filed a patent application in his own name for the technical drawings at the center of the dispute. Company A subsequently initiated a patent ownership lawsuit, claiming that the patent filed by Y within one year of his departure constituted a service invention, and therefore the patent should belong to Company A. Concurrently, H, a shareholder of Company B, claimed copyright ownership over the technical drawings and filed a copyright infringement suit, alleging that the drawings used in Y's patent application infringed his copyright. Following a trial by the Supreme People's Court, the retrial judgment determined that the copyright case between H and Y constituted false litigation. The court ultimately ruled that the patent belonged to Company A. The fundamental facts of the two related cases are summarized as follows:
Copyright Ownership and Infringement Dispute between H and Y
(Upon review, this case was identified by the Supreme People's Court as false litigation.)
H claimed copyright ownership over the technical drawings in question. Y, formerly employed at Company A, left Company A and joined Company B within the same month. H held a shareholder position in Company B. Shortly after joining Company B, Y contacted a patent agency regarding the application and subsequently filed the patent in his own name. H claimed that the drawings used in the patent were substantially identical or highly similar to his own and therefore initiated copyright infringement proceedings against Y. In his defense, Y stated that H was not a proper plaintiff, contending that the technical drawings constituted a service invention and that the copyright belonged to Company B. In support of his claim, H submitted a statement from Company B certifying that the drawings were his personal work, completed before his employment with Company B, not a service work.
The first-instance court ruled that the technical drawings constituted a work under copyright law. Based on the CD containing the technical drawings submitted by H, chat records with a Taobao merchant for 3D printing them, and Company B's statement that the drawings were H's personal work, the court recognized H as the copyright owner. It found that Y's unauthorized use of the drawings in the patent application infringed H's copyright. The first-instance judgment ordered Y to compensate H for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses totaling 15,000 yuan. Neither party appealed, so the judgment took effect directly.
Upon learning that the patent ownership dispute between Company A and Y was still pending, H applied to join that lawsuit as a third party with an independent claim. Relying on the effective copyright judgment confirming his status as copyright owner, H claimed ownership of the patent.
Patent Ownership Dispute between Company A and Y, with Third Party H
Before joining Company B, Y was an employee of Company A. He joined Company B in the same month he left and filed the patent application within one month of joining. Company A claimed the patent, applied for by Y within one year of leaving, was a service invention belonging to the company. Y argued it was his personal invention, not a service invention.
H obtained the effective copyright judgment before the patent ownership case hearing and joined the lawsuit as a third party with an independent claim, asserting ownership of the patent based on the first-instance copyright judgment. The first-instance court in the patent case ruled that the patent belonged to Company A. Both Y and H appealed.
During the appeal, the Supreme People's Court reviewed the already concluded copyright case and conducted a comprehensive examination. The Court not only corrected the first-instance court's finding that H was the copyright owner but also identified that the copyright litigation between H and Y was a false litigation.
Upon review, the Supreme People's Court found that H was unable to provide the original electronic files of the technical drawings, and the 3D printing records failed to substantiate that the drawings provided to the Taobao merchant were his original creation. These pieces of evidence lacked the capacity to mutually corroborate to prove the drawings were H's original work or establish his authorship and copyright. Moreover, after Company A initiated a patent ownership lawsuit against Y, Y and H maliciously colluded to fabricate H's status as copyright owner of the patent drawings and Y's infringement facts, filing a separate copyright lawsuit to counter Company A's claims and delay the patent case proceedings. Throughout the litigation, they collaborated to allow H to quickly obtain an effective judgment confirming his copyright ownership and successfully join the patent dispute. Their ultimate objective was to leverage the effective judgment to establish H’s copyright and Y’s infringement, thereby unlawfully appropriating the patent that should belonged to Company A. The Supreme People's Court’s retrial judgment concluded that the copyright case between H and Y constituted false litigation, based on the following facts and grounds:
First, the ties of interests between H and Y provided a clear basis for potential collusion. Having known each other for years, their relationship extended beyond mere acquaintance. Notably, Y, together with Y’s wife, H, and others, had co-founded Company C. Even during the ongoing copyright and patent disputes with Company A, Y and his wife transferred their shares in Company C to H, after which they continued to work in the company, which was now solely owned by H. This conduct clearly contradicts normal logic.
Secondly, H initiated litigation by fabricating his "copyright owner" status and inventing infringement allegations. He and Y actually engaged in malicious collusion. Key supporting points include:
1) Evidence submitted by H was not sufficient enough to prove his copyright ownership. Knowing this, he still proceeded to sue based on fabricated claims, demonstrating clear malicious intent.
2) H filed a copyright lawsuit against Y shortly after Company A initiated patent ownership proceedings against Y. In the patent ownership case, Y could not be reached for service of process, so the court issued a public notice as an alternative method of service. However, H was still able to learn about the existence of the patent ownership lawsuit in a timely and precise manner. Instead of immediately applying to intervene in the ongoing patent case before the same court, H chose to file a separate copyright infringement lawsuit in a different court. Such course of action defies common sense. Moreover, his explanation for how he was able to accurately target the specific patent details and promptly initiate the copyright lawsuit lacks persuasiveness.
3) In the copyright case, Y did not raise any substantive objections against the copyright evidence submitted by H (all of which consisted of electronic materials highly susceptible to alteration, forgery, or manipulation). In effect, Y tacitly cooperated with and supported H’s litigation claims.
4) In the litigation process clearly demonstrated Y’s intent to delay the patent ownership lawsuit initiated by Company A and to coordinate closely with H.
5) During the first-instance proceedings, both H and Y were fully aware that Company A had already filed a patent ownership case against Y. However, they deliberately withheld this crucial information from the court, intentionally concealing facts that could significantly affect the outcome of the copyright trial, this also is a clear indication of malicious intent.
6) Following the enforcement of the first-instance judgment, Y has not yet fulfilled the awarded compensation obligations. Moreover, given that both H and Y continued to work together at Company C, H has taken no active steps to demand performance from Y, which constitutes abnormal conduct by both parties.
Finally, H and Y colluded maliciously with the aim of intervening with the outcome of Company A's patent ownership lawsuit against Y, in order to appropriate the patent belonging to Company A. The following points illustrate this:
1) Y possessed the technical capability to develop the patent in question, and the technology involved is related to the field in which he previously worked at Company A. Therefore, Y is the actual designer of the technical drawings and the true inventor of the patent. The patent in question is thus a service invention of Company A. H claimed to be the copyright owner of the technical drawings, but in terms of development capability, although H could briefly explain the working principles and inventive aspects of the patent, he was unable to answer basic technical questions in the relevant field. It is therefore difficult to conclude that H had the necessary R&D capability.
2) Y was fully aware that the patent was a service invention belonging to Company A. Nevertheless, he conspired with H with the aim of seizing the patent. To intervene with the patent ownership case, Y deliberately delayed its proceedings, concealed information about the copyright lawsuit, and cooperated with H to quickly secure an effective first-instance judgment. Their goal was to leverage the judgment to claim patent ownership and to counter Company A’s legitimate claims, ultimately attempting to appropriate the patent that rightfully belong to Company A.
False litigation constitutes a form of obstruction of civil proceedings. In judicial practice, determining whether parties have engaged in false litigation typically involves assessing several key factors: 1) whether there is evidence of malicious collusion between the parties; 2) whether the parties’ actions amount to fabricating facts and initiating litigation based on those falsehoods; and 3) whether the purpose of their collusion is to harm national interests, public interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of others. This includes situations where parties collude with the intent to harm such interests through litigation or mediation, as well as instances where one party unilaterally invents the fundamental facts of a civil case and files a lawsuit with the People’s Court to pursue such harmful ends.
Such behavior disrupts judicial activities, obstructs the proper administration of justice, undermines judicial authority and public trust, and misallocates judicial resources. All of these acts are considered obstruction of civil proceedings. In response, the People’s Court shall reject such claims and may, depending on the severity of the circumstances, impose fines or detention. Where the conduct constitutes a criminal offense, criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law.
The effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court concerning false litigation imposes severe judicial penalties, including substantial fines, on parties found to have engaged in such conduct. At the same time, given that the actions involved constitute suspected criminal offenses, the Court promptly transferred the relevant criminal clues to the competent public security authorities.
This ruling holds significant referential value for determining what constitutes false litigation and serves as an important warning to litigants involved in judicial proceedings. The firm stance and resolute measures taken by the People's Courts to rigorously combat malicious collusion and false litigation not only effectively deter potential offenders but also contribute to fostering integrity in society and reinforcing judicial authority.
(2025) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zai No. 1
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
