À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Chine

CN031-j

Retour

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Supreme People’s Court of China [2023]: Advanced Codec Technologies, LLC v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Co., Ltd. (2022) ZGFZMZ Nos. 907, 910, 911, 916, 917, and 918

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 2: Standard Essential Patents

 

Supreme People’s Court of China [2021]: OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. and OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch v Sharp Corporation and ScienBiziP Japan

 

Date of judgment: August 19, 2021

Issuing authority: The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China

Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)

Plaintiffs-Respondents: OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd.; OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch

Defendants-Appellants: Sharp Corporation; ScienBiziP Japan

Keywords: SEP, Jurisdiction, Terms of global license

 

Basic facts: The plaintiffs are OPPO Guangdong Mobile Communications Co., Ltd., a global intelligent terminal manufacturer and mobile internet service provider, and its subsidiary, Shenzhen Branch.  The plaintiffs are hereinafter collectively referred to as OPPO.

 

The defendants are Sharp Corporation, a well-known Japanese electrical and electronics company, and its wholly-owned subsidiary ScienBiziP Japan, which is responsible for all Sharp’s SEP license negotiations.  The defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as Sharp.

 

Beginning in October 2018, the parties negotiated licenses of Sharp’s SEPs in the field of wireless communications, through emails and offline meetings in Shenzhen, China.  Failing to reach an agreement, OPPO filed a lawsuit in Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court on March 25, 2020, asking the Court to establish that Sharp had violated its FRAND commitments and to determine the terms of a global license for Sharp’s portfolio of SEPs for 3G, 4G and WiFi.  Sharp filed an objection to the jurisdiction of Chinese courts over the terms of the global license of SEPs involved in this case.

 

The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court dismissed Sharp’s jurisdictional challenge.  Sharp then appealed to the Supreme People’s Court of China.

 

Held: On the question of whether a Chinese court has jurisdiction over the case, the Supreme People’s Court held that, having examined the various factors that may be taken into consideration in determining whether a dispute possesses proper connection with China, Chinese courts have jurisdiction over the case.

 

On the question of whether Chinese courts have jurisdiction to determine the terms of a global license for the SEPs involved in the case, the Supreme People’s Court held that, because of the parties’ demonstrated intent to negotiate a global license for the SEPs, as well as the close connection between the SEP license dispute and China, it is appropriate for a Chinese court to determine the global license terms.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to standard essential patents (particularly, jurisdiction and remedies, with special regard to injunctions and the role of the court in SEP disputes): The Supreme People’s Court held the following:

 

1. Whether the Chinese court has jurisdiction over this case

 

The essence of an SEP license dispute asks the court to determine the specific license terms, so as to urge both parties to conclude or enforce a license agreement.  Therefore, this kind of dispute is relatively more contractual in nature.

 

Considering the aforementioned characteristics of such disputes, and the fact that Sharp is a foreign enterprise without a domicile or a representative office in China, the following factors may be taken into consideration to determine whether the dispute has proper connection with China: the place where the patents involved were granted; the place where the patents are implemented; the place where the patent license agreement was signed or negotiated; the place where the patent license agreement is performed; and the place where the property available for seizure or enforcement is located, etc.  As long as one of the aforementioned places is within the territory of China, the case shall be deemed to have appropriate connection with China, and Chinese courts shall have jurisdiction over it.

 

In this case, the SEP portfolio involves a great number of Chinese patents; the manufacturing activities of OPPO to implement the involved SEPs occurred in China; and the parties had negotiated licenses for the involved SEPs in Shenzhen, China.  Therefore, Chinese courts have jurisdiction over this case, as China is where the patents were granted, the SEPs were implemented, and the licensing of the SEPs was negotiated.

 

2. Whether Chinese courts have jurisdiction to determine the terms of the global license for the SEPs involved in this case

 

Whether it is appropriate for Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court to rule on the terms of the global license for the SEPs should be considered comprehensively based on the facts of the jurisdictional dispute and in combination with the particularity of SEP license disputes.

 

First, all the parties in this case had the intent to reach an agreement on the terms of a global license for the SEPs and had negotiated it.  The scope of the parties’ intention to negotiate constitutes the factual basis for the jurisdiction to determine the terms of the global license for the SEPs involved in this case.

 

Second, the SEP license dispute in this case is more closely connected with China.  Most of the SEPs involved in the license negotiations are Chinese patents; China is the main place of implementation, the main place of business and the main source of revenue of the implementer of the SEPs involved; China is the place where the license negotiations took place; and China is also the place where the property of the patent licensee is available for seizure or enforcement.  It would be more convenient not only to find out the facts of OPPO’s implementation of the SEPs involved, but also to enforce a court decision, if Shenzhen Intermediate Court was to rule on the terms of the global license for the SEPs involved in this case.

 

Finally, it should also be noted that if the parties can reach an agreement on the forum in which the terms of the SEPs’ global license are to be determined, that court certainly has jurisdiction.  However, agreement on forum is not the necessary condition for a court to have jurisdiction over the terms of the SEPs’ global license.  Where the parties demonstrate willingness on global licensing and the case is more closely connected with Chinese courts, it is appropriate for a Chinese court to determine the terms of the global license for the SEPs involved.

 

Relevant legislation: Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (revised in 2017).