Editing Intellectual property in China (section)

==Cases==
The first major dispute on violation of intellectual property rights was filed in April 1992 by [[Wang Yongmin]], the inventor of [[Wubi method|Wubi]], against [[Dongnan Corporation]].<ref name="qq">[http://tech.qq.com/a/20070813/000181.htm 分析：王永民败诉五笔字型专利案真相] In 腾讯网, 13 August 2007.</ref>

In March 1992 Chinese authorities found that Shenzhen reflective materials institute had copied 650,000 Microsoft Corporation holograms. The institute was found to be guilty of trademark infringement against Microsoft and was fined US$252. Losses to Microsoft as a result of the infringement are estimated at US$30&nbsp;million.<ref>Gregory, A. (2003). The Impact of China's Accession to the WTO. In Cass, D, Barker, G., and Willims, B (Eds.), China and the World Trading System (Pg. 330). NY: Cambridge University Press.</ref>

In the 1994 ''Disney v. Beijing Publishing House'' case dealt with how a Chinese court would apply international agreements in copyright disputes.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=216}} The dispute resulted when Disney licensed its copyright to a licensee, who in turn violated the license agreement by improperly licensing copyright material to Beijing Publishing House''.''<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=216}} Disney sued for copyright infringement, but the licensing agreement pre-dated the 1992 China-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding that first provided for reciprocal copyright protection between the two countries.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=216}} The court decided to apply the MOU to the dispute and to construe it as a treaty, ordering Beijing Publishing House to pay damages to Disney.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=216–217}}

In 2001, the China Environmental Project Tech Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against American company Huayang Electronics Co. and Japanese FKK after those companies profited using a CEPT patented technique for using seawater in a fuel gas desulphurization process.<ref>{{Cite web |title=CEPT prevails in 8-year legal saga. |work=Intellectual Property Protection China |date=26 February 2010 |url=http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/casesarticle/cases/caseothers/201002/616526_1.html |access-date=17 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141004062540/http://www.chinaipr.gov.cn/casesarticle/cases/caseothers/201002/616526_1.html |archive-date=4 October 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of CEPT, the court failed to issue an injunction because the infringing process was being used to generate electricity and an injunction would interfere with the public interest. The court instead awarded RMB 50 million to CEPT.<ref name="MWE China Law Offices"/>

In 2007, [[CHINT Group]] Co. Ltd sued French low-voltage electronics manufacturer [[Schneider Electric|Schneider]] for infringement of a circuit breaker utility model patent. The Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled in CHINT's favor, awarding RMB 334.8&nbsp;million to the Chinese manufacturer, the highest amount ever in a Chinese IP case. After Schneider appealed to the High Court of Zhejiang province, the courts mediated the issue and the parties settled for RMB 157.5&nbsp;million.<ref name="MWE China Law Offices">{{Cite web |title=Top Ten Chinese Intellectual Property Cases of 2009 |publisher=MWE China Law Offices |date=10 August 2010 |url=http://www.mwe.com/info/news/wp_c0810a.pdf}}</ref> In its judgement, the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court labeled the case "the no. 1 case of patent infringement in China". At the EU–China summit 2007, [[EU Trade Commissioner]] [[Peter Mandelson]] said, "I regard the SCHNEIDER case as a test case of the level playing field in China on intellectual property protection that we want to see".<ref>{{Cite web |author=Yang, Harry. |title=CHINT v. SCHNEIDER on Patent Infringement |work=China Intellectual Property Magazine |date=2 January 2008 |url=http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/en/journal-show.asp?id=258}}</ref>

In 2014, [[Tencent]] sued its major competitor [[NetEase]] alleging copyright infringement.<ref name=":Zhang" />{{Rp|page=102}} Tencent used its leverage from the suit to convince NetEase to sublicense music rights from Tencent.<ref name=":Zhang" />{{Rp|page=102}} The sub-licensing arrangement that resulted then became a model used by other online music platforms in China.<ref name=":Zhang" />{{Rp|page=102}}

In 2016 [[The Lego Group|the Lego group]] sued a manufacturer in China over copyright infringement involving sales worth more than 330 million RMB. In 2020 a Shanghai court sentenced nine individuals to three to six years of prison time and fines of up to 90 million RMB.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-02 |title=樂高告贏中國「樂拼」 天價罰金出爐 |url=https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%A8%82%E9%AB%98%E5%91%8A%E8%B4%8F%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B-%E6%A8%82%E6%8B%BC-%E5%A4%A9%E5%83%B9%E7%BD%B0%E9%87%91%E5%87%BA%E7%88%90-150553543.html |access-date=2024-09-06 |website=Yahoo News |language=zh-Hant-TW}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=涉案3亿元的侵犯著作权案公诉后，乐高集团给检察院送来锦旗_浦江头条_澎湃新闻-The Paper |url=https://m.thepaper.cn/wifiKey_detail.jsp?contid=6888068 |access-date=2024-09-06 |website=m.thepaper.cn}}</ref>

In 2018 [[Micron Technology]], a U.S. memory chip maker, accused Chinese competitor [[Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit|Fujian Jinhua]] and Taiwanese manufacturer [[United Microelectronics Corporation|UMC]] of stealing chip designs.<ref name=":02">{{Cite news |last=Lawder |first=David |date=2018-10-30 |title=U.S. restricts exports to Chinese semiconductor firm Fujian Jinhua |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-semiconductors-idUSKCN1N328E |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107131721/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-semiconductors-idUSKCN1N328E |archive-date=2020-11-07 |access-date=2020-10-31 |work=[[Reuters]] |language=en}}</ref> The U.S. [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] (DOJ) announced an indictment against Fujian Jinhua and UMC.<ref name=":12">{{Cite news |author= |date=2019-01-10 |title=China chipmaker Fujian Jinhua pleads not guilty to US theft charges |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fujian-jinhua-china-court-idUSKCN1P4080 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107120951/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fujian-jinhua-china-court-idUSKCN1P4080 |archive-date=2020-11-07 |access-date=2020-10-31 |work=[[Reuters]] |language=en}}</ref> In October 2020, UMC pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a fine in exchange for cooperating with the DOJ.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-10-29 |title=Taiwan's UMC to aid US pursuit of Chinese firm in Micron trade-secrets case |url=https://www.scmp.com/tech/gear/article/3107531/taiwans-umc-aid-us-pursuit-chinese-chip-maker-fujian-jinhua-over-alleged |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201030125927/https://www.scmp.com/tech/gear/article/3107531/taiwans-umc-aid-us-pursuit-chinese-chip-maker-fujian-jinhua-over-alleged |archive-date=2020-10-30 |access-date=2020-10-31 |website=[[South China Morning Post]] |language=en}}</ref> In February 2024, US District Judge [[Maxine M. Chesney]] in [[San Francisco]] acquitted Fujian Jinhua of the charge in a non-jury verdict, judging that the prosecutor failed to provide sufficient evidence.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-02-29 |title=Chinese firm Fujian Jinhua cleared of US allegations that it stole trade secrets |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinese-firm-fujian-jinhua-cleared-us-allegations-that-it-stole-trade-secrets-2024-02-28/ |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-02-28 |title=Chinese chip maker cleared of spying charges in US criminal trade secrets case |url=https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3253436/chinese-chip-maker-cleared-spying-charges-us-criminal-trade-secrets-case |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240228190922/https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3253436/chinese-chip-maker-cleared-spying-charges-us-criminal-trade-secrets-case |archive-date=2024-02-28 |access-date=2024-02-29 |website=[[South China Morning Post]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=3 March 2024 |title=U.S. Defeat in Micron Trade-Secrets Case Reveals Struggle Countering Beijing |url=https://www.wsj.com/tech/micron-chipmaker-ip-theft-trial-verdict-6f839f15 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240304232801/https://www.wsj.com/tech/micron-chipmaker-ip-theft-trial-verdict-6f839f15 |archive-date=2024-03-04 |access-date=2024-03-05 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

In September 2019, Levi's won final judgment in [[Beijing Intellectual Property Court|Guangzhou IP Court]] on a [[trademark infringement]] in [[Guangzhou, China]]. The case centred on the "arcuate design on two pockets at the back of jeans", which has been protected in China since its registration there in 2005. The company won damages and costs in addition to a ban on future infringements. The infringer's ignorance of the trademark was no bar to punishment.<ref name="lex19">{{cite news |title=LEVI's Prevails in Double Arcs Trademark Infringement Case |url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1c49b0f4-9482-4ef0-91f9-eb2a2d7fb78a |agency=lexology |publisher=Law Business Research |date=16 September 2019}}</ref>

In 2021 Belgian artist Christian Silvain sued Chinese artist Ye Yongqing for plagiarism. Since the 1990s, Ye's works have taken on composition and motifs similar to those of Silvain. On 24 August 2023, the [[Beijing Intellectual Property Court]] awarded €650,000 ($696,000) in damages to Silvain, the highest amount so far for cases related to fine arts in China, and ordered Ye to make a public apology in the ''[[Global Times]]''. It was still lower than what Silvain had hoped for, but as of September 2023 his lawyers had not appealed the ruling for a larger sum.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawson-Tancred |first=Jo |date=2023-09-05 |title=A Renowned Chinese Artist Has Been Found Guilty of Brazen Plagiarism After He Made Millions From Copying a Belgian Artist's Work |url=https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ye-yongqing-christian-silvain-plagiarism-2358025 |access-date=2023-10-25 |website=Artnet News |language=en-US}}</ref>