Chinese Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Apple
By Patrick Zheng | Charles Qin
In an ongoing patent infringement case between Qualcomm and Apple,[1] the Fuzhou Intermediate Court granted Qualcomm’s request for interim injunction against Apple, banning the import and sale of old iPhone models in China, after finding that the tech giant’s infringement on two patents held by Qualcomm may lead to irreparable harm.
Introduction
An injunction is a remedy which prohibits a party from doing an act or restrains from doing a threatened act, or mandatorily requires a party to do an act. Injunctive relief has existed in China for many years, particularly in the realm of admiralty and intellectual property rights, although the PRC Civil Procedure Law did not formally endorse it until 2012.[2] Injunction is classified into one type of “preservations” along with preservation of asset and evidence, with a nomenclature of “preservation of act”.
It should be noted at the outset, that the so-called free standing injunction has not yet been introduced into Chinese law, so that Chinese court will not award an interim injunction in support of foreign court or arbitral proceedings.
Pursuant to Articles 100 and 101 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, parties may apply for an interlocutory injunction in the course of court proceedings or an injunction before the commencement of a trial. The court shall in principle hear the application inter parte, while ex parte application may be granted in case of urgency or inter parte hearing will otherwise defeat the goal of injunction. [3]
Decision
This case concerned alleged patent infringement regarding resizing images and using touch-based navigation apps. Qualcomm, an American microchip maker, requested an injunction against Apple on the import and sale of iPhones using the relevant patented technology in China to the Fuzhou Intermediate Court[4](“Court”). The Court first found that the evidence submitted by Qualcomm sufficed to prove the alleged patent infringement on a prima facie basis. The Court went on and analyzed the necessity of granting the injunction. It pointed out that there was a possibility of causing irreparable harm to Qualcomm in the absence of such relief because:
1. It would be difficult to calculate damages later as a result of the ongoing patent infringement;
2. Qualcomm would unavoidably suffer greater harm should the injunction not granted; and
3. It was likely to cause irreparable harm to the business cooperation established between Qualcomm and other mobile phone manufactures.
In light of the foregoing, the Court considered that the actual infringement was continuous, while it may take some time before a final decision on the merits can be rendered. In addition, Qualcomm had provided a bank guarantee as its undertaking to damages in case the injunction should not have been granted. Therefore, the Court granted the injunction requested.
Comment
Article 81 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law deals with preservation of evidence, and Article 100 empowers the court to make orders to preserve assets, or order the parties to do or refrain from doing certain acts at the request of the parties concerned, or when the court considers necessary. Article 101 further provides that an injunction may be requested if the circumstance is urgent, and the requesting party would suffer irreparable harm otherwise. A recent judicial interpretation[5] issued by the PRC Supreme Court further clarifies the factors the court should take into account when granting or denying an injunctive relief:
1. Whether there is factual and legal basis for the injunction, including whether the intellectual property right to be protected is valid; (this is very similar to the first limb of the tests delineated in the seminal American Cyanamid decision,[6] i.e. whether there is a serious issue to be tried underlying the claim for an injunction)
2. Whether it would impose irreparable harm to the plaintiff or it would be difficult to enforce the subsequent judgment; (this is similar to the second threshold of American Cyanamid that whether damages will be an adequate remedy)
3. Whether the harm caused to the plaintiff outweighs that to the respondent; (this is the similar balancing exercise conducted by common law judges)
4. Whether the injunction would be against public interest (public policy);
5. Whether the plaintiff has given an undertaking as to damages; and
6. Other factors that should be taken into account.
The judicial interpretation clarifies that “irreparable harm” under Article 101 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law means that: (1) infringement upon business reputation, right of privacy and etc. that would not be recovered; (2) uncontrollable act which imposes greater harm on the plaintiff; (3) substantial reduction on the market shares; and (4) other irreparable harm.
Under English law, because an injunction is normally claimed upon the basis of an equitable, as opposed to a legal, right, the conduct of the plaintiff may be such as to preclude success at trial in respect of injunctive relief, e.g. for want of clean hands in making the claim. Unlike English law, there is no distinction between equity and law in China, so Chinese court does not require the plaintiff to come to the court with “clean hands”. With respect to ex parte application, there is no requirement such as “full and frank disclosure” on the part of the plaintiff.
Chinese law is also strict with undertaking in damages, a mandatory requirement under the new judicial interpretation,[7] which is often required to be solidified. In case the court finds for the respondent, a plaintiff who seeks an interim injunction, particularly a pre-action one, will almost always have to give an undertaking to the court in the form of cash, bond, bank guarantee or etc., with the amount largely at the court’s discretion. It also should be noted that the Chinese law includes another threshold of the public policy, namely, whether the grant of an injunction is detrimental to the public interest.
The issuance of the new judicial interpretation manifests the PRC Supreme Court’s desire to keep in line with the international practice in terms of injunctive relief. It remains to be seen how the standards will come into play in the future.
【Endnote】
[1] Qualcomm Inc. v Apple Inc., Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court, (2018)闽01初1208号.
[2] Wenyan Ding, Application and Review of Civil Preservation of Act, People’s Judicature(Application) Issue 34 (2017), available at: http://yyfx.court.gov.cn/news/xq-622.html
[3] Article 5, Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Deciding Interim Measures in Intellectual Property and Competition Cases (in force from January 2019), Fa Shi [2018] No. 21.
[4] The Intellectual Property Division within the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court was established in 2017 and is allowed to hear intellectual property cases across regions in mainland China. (See the Reply of the Supreme People’s Court titled Fa [2017] No. 236)
[5] Article 7, supra note 3. Please note that this judicial interpretation will come into effect from 1 January, 2019. By then, it will replace the judicial interpretation of Fa Shi [2001] No. 20 which was applied by the Fuzhou Intermediate Court concerning interim injunction of patent infringement in the present case.
[6] American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396.
[7] Article 11, supra note 3.
Authors:
✎ 往期分享
Chinese Court Narrowly Construes Scope of Arbitration Agreement
SPC Gives Effect to All Terms in Contractual Interpretation
Llinks Review | SPC Further Clarifies on Liquidated Damages
通力法评 | 公司对外担保中交易相对人审查义务之界限——对最新司法解释讨论稿的思考
通力法评 | 股东协议效力在司法实践中的认定
通力法评 | 私募基金托管人的责任边界——基于司法案例及仲裁案例的视角
长按下图识别二维码关注我们
© 通力律师事务所
本微信所刊登的文章仅代表作者本人观点, 不代表通力律师事务所的法律意见或建议。我们明示不对任何依赖该等文章的任何内容而采取或不采取行动所导致的后果承担责任。如需转载或引用该等文章的任何内容, 请注明出处。