*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

[Basic Facts]

Fujian [REDACTED] Software Development Company and Beijing [REDACTED] Office Software Company are both well-known office software enterprises in China. Fujian [REDACTED] Software Development Company filed suit against Beijing [REDACTED] Office Software Company and Zhuhai [REDACTED] Office Software Company, alleging that a software product of theirs infringed its copyright in its "PDF Generation Development Kit" software. The Fujian company sought an order requiring the defendants to cease infringement, issue a public apology in media outlets of the plaintiff's designation, and jointly compensate its losses and reasonable expenses incurred in combating the infringement.

The Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province rendered a first-instance judgment ordering Beijing [REDACTED] Office Software Company and Zhuhai [REDACTED] Office Software Company to cease infringement, issue a public apology, and pay compensation to Fujian [REDACTED] Software Development Company. Beijing [REDACTED] Office Software Company and Zhuhai [REDACTED] Office Software Company appealed.

The collegial panel of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court, sitting in the second instance, learned that the dispute originated from a technology co-development agreement entered into in 2011, and that the parties had gone from being cooperative partners to litigation adversaries, having initiated nearly ten separate lawsuits in courts across the country. Notably, a computer software development contract dispute that had been heard earlier by the appellate court had already been included in the People's Court Case Database as a reference case. Although both parties had grown exhausted by years of litigation, neither was able to let go of the underlying grievances. Taking the explanation of law and legal reasoning as its entry point, and drawing on the earlier related precedent from the Case Database as a reference, the collegial panel adopted a working approach of "concurrent adjudication and mediation, using judgment to advance settlement." After two public hearings and multiple rounds of coordination and communication — including the participation of a deputy to the National People's Congress — the panel ultimately facilitated a mediation agreement between the parties and traced the dispute back to its source to resolve other potential litigation the parties might have brought concerning the software in question.

Both parties subsequently wrote letters of appreciation. Fujian [REDACTED] Software Development Company stated: "The judgment in the earlier case offered an accurate interpretation of the facts and gave careful consideration to the rights and interests of both parties, particularly with respect to the purpose of the contract and the remedies available for breach, in a manner that was both professional and impartial. In the mediation of the subsequent case, the professionally conducted proceedings brought both sides to a mediated resolution, achieving a win-win outcome." Beijing [REDACTED] Office Software Company stated: "The mediation in this case demonstrated the people's court's profound understanding of and sincere concern for the development of both companies, safeguarding enterprises' rights, maintaining market order, and promoting social harmony." The NPC deputy wrote to commend the proceedings, noting: "The Intellectual Property Tribunal handled the case impartially, protecting innovation efficiently, and the 'three effects' of the adjudication were well achieved."

[Significance]

First, the case upholds the dual commitment to both "defining rights" and "ending disputes." In particular, where the parties stand in a competitive relationship, the first case between them must clearly establish their respective rights and obligations. Only on the foundation of "defining rights" can the court organize the parties to seek the "greatest common denominator" through mediation. Where mediation is not possible, the court should nonetheless provide thorough and comprehensive legal reasoning and render a timely judgment, laying the groundwork for substantive resolution of subsequent disputes. In this case, the basis for achieving settlement through mediation was the impartial judgment in the earlier proceeding.

Second, the case demonstrates persistent pursuit of substantive dispute resolution. Built upon a just determination of rights, the panel firmly embraced the "as if I were the litigant" mindset, explained to the parties at every stage of the proceedings the full range of available dispute resolution options, and articulated the legal, ethical, and factual dimensions of the matter to the fullest extent — striving through mediation to achieve genuine resolution of the dispute.

Third, the case upholds the guiding principle of "win-win and mutual benefit." Throughout the mediation process, the collegial panel gave full consideration to the interests and demands of both enterprises and proposed a solution that balanced those interests. The panel's focus extended not only to resolving the immediate dispute, but also to the possibilities for future cooperation between the parties and encouraging both companies to pursue healthy competition and work together to advance technological innovation and accelerate the development of new productive forces.