*AI-generated translation, for reference only.

Keywords: civil procedure; infringement of invention patent rights; objection to jurisdiction; prior ruling

Case Facts

Hua[REDACTED] Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Hua[REDACTED] Company") is the patent holder of Invention Patent No. 201611014962.8, entitled "Offset Decoding Device, Offset Encoding Device, and Image Filtering Device" (hereinafter the "Patent-in-Suit"). The Patent-in-Suit constitutes a standard-essential patent under the ITU-T H.265 (HEVC) standard. Ya[REDACTED] Information Services (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Electronic Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Information Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Digital Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd., [REDACTED] Information Company, and Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, without authorization from Hua[REDACTED] Company, manufactured, sold, offered for sale, exported, used, and imported products compliant with the ITU-T H.265 (HEVC) standard in large quantities, thereby implementing the technical solution of the Patent-in-Suit and infringing Hua[REDACTED] Company's patent rights.Within the period for filing a defense, Ya[REDACTED] Information Services (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Electronic Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Industrial Information (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Information Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., and Ren[REDACTED] Digital Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. raised objections to the court's jurisdiction and requested that the case be transferred to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for trial. On April 12, 2023, the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province rendered Civil Ruling (2022) Su 05 Min Chu No. 913-1, dismissing the objections to jurisdiction raised by the above-mentioned five defendants.Ya[REDACTED] Information Services (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Electronic Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Information Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., and Ren[REDACTED] Digital Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. appealed. One of the grounds of appeal was that the court of first instance had not yet completed service of the litigation documents on Ya[REDACTED] Company, Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, and Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd. when it rendered the first-instance ruling. Based on the judicial view established by the Supreme People's Court in Civil Ruling (2022) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 398, a court's issuance of a ruling on an objection to jurisdiction prior to completing service on some of the parties constitutes a procedural violation. The first-instance court's approach manifestly impaired the procedural rights of Ya[REDACTED] Company, Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, and Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd., thereby constituting a procedural violation. On July 13, 2023, the Supreme People's Court rendered Civil Ruling (2023) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 242, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original ruling.

Judge's Opinion

The court's effective ruling held as follows: Where a case involves multiple defendants, each defendant may separately exercise its own litigation rights to raise an objection to jurisdiction; the court seized of the case may, on the condition that doing so does not affect the litigation rights of the other defendants, issue a ruling on a jurisdiction objection raised earlier by some of the defendants. In Civil Ruling (2022) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 398, the Supreme People's Court held that the jurisdiction objection ruling rendered by the court of first instance in that case should be revoked and the case remanded to the court of first instance for retrial; the primary reason was that the court of first instance in that case had issued a jurisdiction objection ruling transferring the entire case to another court for trial before completing service of litigation documents on all parties, and had listed only the plaintiff and the objecting defendant(s) as parties in the jurisdiction objection ruling, thereby failing to safeguard the right to be informed and the right to express opinions of the other parties who had not yet received the litigation documents — a procedural deficiency that could not be remedied at the appellate stage. In other words, the core principle established in Civil Ruling (2022) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 398 is that, where the Supreme People's Court determines in the course of reviewing a jurisdiction objection that the entire case should be transferred to another court for trial, it must, prior to issuing the transfer ruling, safeguard the procedural rights of all parties to be informed and to express their opinions.However, the circumstances of the present case differ from those in Civil Ruling (2022) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 398. The first-instance ruling in this case dismissed the jurisdiction objections raised by some of the defendants. Although the court of first instance had not yet completed service of litigation documents on all defendants at the time it rendered the first-instance ruling, the court of first instance determined that it had jurisdiction over the case and that the case did not need to be transferred to another court. Therefore, even though service on Ya[REDACTED] Company, Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, and Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd. had not yet been completed at the time the first-instance ruling was rendered, this did not affect those three companies' subsequent exercise of litigation rights upon receipt of the litigation documents. The objections raised by Ya[REDACTED] Information Services (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Electronic Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Ren[REDACTED] Information Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., and Ren[REDACTED] Digital Technology (Kunshan) Co., Ltd. in their grounds of appeal fell within the scope of the litigation rights of the other defendants — namely Ya[REDACTED] Company, Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, and Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd. — and those four companies had no standing to assert litigation rights claims that should have been raised by Ya[REDACTED] Company, Ya[REDACTED] Service Company, and Ren[REDACTED] Computer Industry Co., Ltd.

Judgment Digest

Where a case involves multiple defendants, each defendant may separately exercise its own litigation rights to raise an objection to jurisdiction; on the condition that doing so does not affect the litigation rights of the other defendants, the court seized of the case may issue a prior ruling on a jurisdiction objection raised earlier by some of the defendants.

Related Index

*Articles 29 and 36* of the *Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* (The provisions applicable to this case are *Articles 29 and 36* of the *Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* as effective January 1, 2022)

*Article 24* of the *Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China* (Fa Shi [2022] No. 11)

First Instance: Suzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province, Civil Ruling (2022) Su 05 Min Chu No. 913-1 (April 12, 2023)

Second Instance: Supreme People's Court, Civil Ruling (2023) SPC IP Civ Jurisdiction Final No. 242 (July 13, 2023)