Hebei Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited, Gaobeidian Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited v. (Japan) Honda Motor Company Limited, Dongfeng Honda Automobile (Wuhan) Company Limited and Beijing Xinsheng Baili Automobile Trade Company Lim

河北新凯汽车制造有限公司、高碑店新凯汽车制造有限公司与(日本)本田技研工业株式会社、东风本田汽车(武汉)有限公司、北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司侵犯外观设计专利权纠纷管辖权异议案

Hebei Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited, Gaobeidian Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited v. (Japan) Honda Motor Company Limited, Dongfeng Honda Automobile (Wuhan) Company Limited and Beijing Xinsheng Baili Automobile Trade Company Limited

(Objection to Jurisdictional Dispute over Injury of Patent Right for Design)

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court

No. 2 (2005)

Appellant (Defendant in the First Instance): Hebei Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited, domiciled at South Street, Gaobeidian City, Hebei Province.

Legal Representative: Zhang Zhentang, board chairman of the Company.

Authorized Agent: Wang Jincai, lawyer of Hebei Gaobeidian Jinbei Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Wei Jianhua, deputy general manager of the Company.

Appellant (Defendant in the First Instance): Gaobeidian Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited, domiciled at No. 79, South Street, Gaobeidian City, Hebei Province.

Legal Representative: Zhang Xiuying, board chairman of the Company.

Authorized Agent: Wang Jincai, lawyer of Hebei Gaobeidian Jinbei Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Wei Jianhua, deputy general manager of the Company.

Appellee (Plaintiff in the First Instance): (Japan) Honda Motor Company Limited, domiciled at Tokyo, Japan.

Legal Representative: Ogino Dougi, board chairman of the Company.

Authorized Agent: Han Dengying, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Zhang Shouzhi, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.

Appellee (Plaintiff in the First Instance): Dongfeng Honda Automobile (Wuhan) Company Limited, domiciled at Checheng East Street, Wuhan Economic & Technological Development Zone, Wuhan City, Hubei Province.

Legal Representative: Zhou Wenjie, board chairman of the Company.

Authorized Agent: Han Dengying, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Zhang Shouzhi, lawyer of Beijing King & Wood Law Firm.

Defendant in the First Instance: Beijing Xinsheng Baili Automobile Trade Company Limited, domiciled at No. 232, Datun, Andingmenwai, Chaoyang District, Beijing City.

Legal Representative: Yu Gang, general manager of the Company.

With regard to the case of objection to the jurisdictional dispute with (Japan) Honda Motor Company Limited and Dongfeng Honda Automobile (Wuhan) Company Limited, the appellees, as well as Beijing Xinsheng Baili Automobile Trade Company Limited (defendant in the first instance, hereinafter referred to as Xinsheng Baili Company) over the infringement of patent right for design, Hebei Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited and Gaobeidian Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited, the appellants, were dissatisfied with No. 1472 (2004) civil ruling of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Higher Court), and jointly appealed to the present court by alleging: 1. With respect to the ruling of the first instance that Xinsheng Baili Company sold infringing products, the appellees did not provide any evidence, nor was any cross-examination made. 2. The ruling of the first instance did not reply to the challenge put forward by the appellants to the jurisdiction that cases of the first instance on patent disputes should be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's courts instead of the higher people's courts; moreover, Beijing Higher Court's relevant provisions on hierarchical jurisdiction over cases of the first instance on intellectual property rights are illegal, and have violated Article 2 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Disputes”. 3. The appellants submitted a request to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the State Intellectual Property Office for declaring the four patents in question invalid, and the request has been accepted. Meanwhile, the appellants also submitted their application to Beijing Higher Court for suspending the trial. They pleaded the present court to take the aforesaid facts into account in the trial of the present case.

The two appellees argued in the joint defense that: 1. Xinsheng Baili Company sold the infringing products in question, and the court in Beijing should have jurisdiction over the present case. In this regard, the appellees submitted relevant notarized evidence within the time limit for providing evidence in the first instance; since an objection to the jurisdictional power shall be proposed according to law within the period for defense, and the period for defense is earlier than the procedures for cross-examination of evidence within the time limit for providing evidence, it is impossible to make a ruling on objection to jurisdiction on the basis of the cross-examined evidential materials. 2. The provisions of Beijing Higher Court on hierarchical jurisdiction over cases of the first instance on intellectual property rights were formulated in accordance with the Civil Litigation Law and the judicial interpretation thereof, and prescribe that, a case on intellectual property right, with the amount in dispute being CNY 100 million or above, shall be under the jurisdiction of the higher people's court. Therefore, Beijing Higher Court should have jurisdictional power over the present case. 3. The appellants should have no right to request in the second instance of the present case for examination of the appellees' request to Beijing Higher Court for suspension of the trial. 4. The appellants had no justifiable reason to propose the objection to the jurisdictional power, and their purpose of misconstruing the laws and appealing regarding the ruling on objection to the jurisdictional power was to delay the progress of the trial of the present case.

Xinsheng Baili Company did not show its opinions regarding the present case.

It was verified by the present court after trial: When Beijing Higher Court served the bill of complaint to the two appellants on November 30, 2004, it also served 16 items of evidence submitted by the two appellees when the lawsuit was brought. Among the items of evidence, Evidence Item 7 (No. 05752 [2004] Notarial Deed of Beijing Municipal Notarial Office) and Evidence Item 8 (No. 05753 [2004] Notarial Deed of Beijing Municipal Notarial Office) were used to prove that Xinsheng Baili Company sold the infringing products in question, i.e., automobiles with the factory plate model as HXK6491E. In the second instance, the two appellants acknowledged that they received the aforesaid evidence, but refused to put forward further cross-examination opinions on the ground that the notary did not appear in the court.

It was further verified that, the two appellants proposed their joint objection to jurisdiction during the period for submitting the statement of defense in the first instance, with their grounds as follows: 1. The infringing products in question, i.e., the automobiles with the model as HXK6491E, were manufactured by Hebei Xinkai Automobile Manufacture Company Limited which was domiciled at Hebei Province, so according to the relevant judicial interpretation, the present case shall be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court of Shijiazhuang Municipality, Hebei Province. 2. In accordance with relevant provisions of the judicial interpretation, the cases of the first instance on patent disputes shall be under jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court, hence it was inappropriate for Beijing Higher Court to have accepted the present case. The appellants did not mention in their objection to jurisdiction the issue of whether Xinsheng Baili Company was the seller of the infringing products sued in the present case.

The present court holds:(I) On the basis for determining the territorial jurisdiction in the present case, i.e., whether Xinsheng Baili Company was the seller of the infringing products in the present case. To determine the jurisdiction, the court only made preliminary examination when accepting the case. Once the relevant evidence conforms to legal provisions formally, the case may be accepted according to law. But after the case is accepted, if the defendant proposes an objection to jurisdiction according to law, the court accepting the case shall fully examine the factual basis and legal basis for determining the jurisdiction, including examining and ascertaining the relevant evidence.

In the present case, whether Xinsheng Baili Company was the seller of the infringing products in question involves the issue of factual basis for determining whether Beijing Higher Court had hierarchical jurisdiction over the present case. Beijing Higher Court failed to convene the parties to examine and check relevant evidence, which was inappropriate. However, under the circumstance that the defendants did not deem it as the fact and ground of their objection to jurisdiction, Beijing Higher Court's ruling regarding the said fact and the ground was not an essential error.

During the second instance, the present court convened both parties to find the said fact. On one hand, the two appellants refused to put forward further cross-examination opinions regarding the notarial documents submitted by the two appellees to prove that Xinsheng Baili Company was the seller of the infringing products in the present case on the ground that the notary refused to appear in the court; on the other hand, they said clearly that no evidence could be submitted in this regard. In fact, the two appellants' ground for refusing to acknowledge the relevant notarial document is not sufficient, is short of legal basis, and shall be deemed as the waiver of their right to have the evidence further cross-examined. In accordance with Article 67 of the Civil Litigation Law, Item (6) of Paragraph 1 of and Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation”, when the party concerned had no contrary evidence enough to reverse the notarial proof, the people's court could deem the facts notarized through statutory procedures as the evidence for ascertaining the facts of the case.

Therefore, the present court ascertains that the notarial document provided by the appellees may prove that Xinsheng Baili Company was the seller of the infringing products in question. In accordance with Article 6 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Disputes”, i.e., “where the manufacturer and the seller are sued as joint defendants, the people's court at the place of selling shall have jurisdiction”, the relevant court in Beijing, where the seller of the infringing products in question is located, shall have territorial jurisdiction over the present case. Although some of the aforesaid appellate grounds of the two appellants were tenable, the court's territorial jurisdiction over the present case cannot be changed accordingly. The two appellees' defending opinions that it is impossible to make the ruling on the objection to the jurisdiction on the basis of the cross-examined evidential materials are not tenable, but they do not affect the present court's determination of the jurisdiction in the present case, either.

(II) On whether Beijing Higher Court's exercise of hierarchical jurisdiction in the present case was illegal. Article 2 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Disputes” prescribes: “The cases of the first instance on patent disputes shall be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court of the place where the people's government of the competent province, autonomous region, or municipalities directly under the Central Government is located, or of the intermediate people's court appointed by the Supreme People's Court.” The original idea of the provision lies in that the courts of the lowest level that tries cases of patent disputes shall be those appointed intermediate people's courts, but does not exclude the higher people's courts from exercising jurisdiction over the cases of the first instance on patent disputes according to law. The “Provisions on the Hierarchical Jurisdiction for the People's Courts at All Levels in Beijing to Accept Cases of the First Instance on Civil Disputes over Intellectual Property Rights” formulated by Beijing Higher Court on December 17, 2002 prescribe that, a case on civil dispute over intellectual property right (including the case on dispute involving foreign interests) with a disputed value of CNY 100 million or more shall be under the jurisdiction of the higher people's court. This provision is compatible with the Civil Litigation Law and relevant provisions in the present court's judicial interpretation, and may be deemed as the basis for determining the hierarchical jurisdiction in the present case. The amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiffs in the present case in the lawsuit was CNY 100 million, and thus Beijing Higher Court shall have hierarchical jurisdiction over the present case. Neither the appellate ground of the two appellants for their allegation that the higher people's court had no jurisdiction over cases of the first instance on patent disputes nor their appellate ground that the relevant provisions formulated by Beijing Higher Court on jurisdiction by level over cases of the first instance on intellectual property rights were illegal can be tenable. However, it is regretful that Beijing Higher Court did not make any comment on the two appellants' grounds for challenging its jurisdiction.

(III) On whether the request of the two appellants for suspending the proceedings shall be taken into account. The determination of jurisdiction is the premise for the court to settle other procedural issues and all substantive issues of the case, and only after the issue on objection to the jurisdictional power has been resolved does the court need to examine and decide on the issues such as whether the proceedings shall be suspended. In an appellate case on objection to jurisdiction, the issue of suspending the proceedings does not fall within the scope of trial of the present case, and does not have to be examined by the present court.

In addition, the opinions of the two appellees that the two appellants delayed the progress of the trial of the present case with unreasonable objection to jurisdiction are irrelevant to the trial of the present case, and are not supported by the present court, either, because the two appellants exercised their litigation rights according to law.

To sum up, the appellants' major appellate grounds are not tenable. The present court ruled as follows in accordance with Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 153 of and Article 154 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China”:

The appeal shall be rejected, and the original ruling shall be sustained.

The present Ruling shall be final.

Presiding Judge Wang Yongchang

Acting Judge Tai Zhonglin

Acting Judge　 Li Jian

June 28, 2005

Court Clerk Cui Lina

河北新凯汽车制造有限公司、高碑店新凯汽车制造有限公司与(日本)本田技研工业株式会社、东风本田汽车(武汉)有限公司、北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司侵犯外观设计专利权纠纷管辖权异议案

【裁判摘要】
　　(一)对于案件管辖的确定，人民法院在受理立案中仅进行初步审查，只要相关证据在形式上符合法律规定，即可依法决定受理。但在受理案件后，被告方依法提出管辖权异议的，受理案件的法院应当就确定案件管辖权的事实依据和法律依据进行全面审查，包括对有关证据的审查认定。
　　(二)《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第二条关于“专利纠纷第一审案件，由各省、自治区、直辖市人民政府所在地的中级人民法院和最高人民法院指定的中级人民法院管辖”的规定，旨在将专利纠纷第一审案件的最低审级确定为中级人民法院，并未排除高级人民法院依法对专利纠纷第一审案件行使管辖权。　　

中华人民共和国最高人民法院
民事裁定书

(2005)民三终字第2号

　　上诉人(原审被告)：河北新凯汽车制造有限公司。
　　法定代表人：张振堂，该公司董事长。
　　委托代理人：王金才，河北高碑店金杯律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人：魏建华，该公司副总经理。
　　上诉人(原审被告)：高碑店新凯汽车制造有限公司。
　　法定代表人：张秀英，该公司董事长。
　　委托代理人：王金才，河北高碑店金杯律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人：魏建华，该公司副总经理。
　　被上诉人(原审原告)：(日本)本田技研工业株式会社。
　　法定代表人：荻野道义，该社董事长。
　　委托代理人：韩登营，北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人：张守志，北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
　　被上诉人(原审原告)：东风本田汽车 (武汉)有限公司。
　　法定代表人：周文杰，该公司董事长。
　　委托代理人：韩登营，北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人：张守志，北京市金杜律师事务所律师。
　　原审被告：北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司。
　　法定代表人：喻刚，该公司总经理。
　　上诉人河北新凯汽车制造有限公司、高碑店新凯汽车制造有限公司为与被上诉人(日本)本田技研工业株式会社、东风本田汽车(武汉)有限公司、原审被告北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司侵犯外观设计专利权纠纷管辖权异议一案，不服中华人民共和国北京市高级人民法院(2004)高民初字第1472号民事裁定，向本院提起共同上诉称：1．对原审裁定关于北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司销售被控侵权产品的说法，被上诉人未举证，也未经质证。2．原审裁定对上诉人在管辖异议中提出的专利纠纷第一审案件由中级人民法院管辖而不能由高级人民法院管辖的理由未予答复；且北京市高级人民法院关于一审知识产权民事案件级别管辖的有关规定违法，与《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第二条的规定相悖。3．上诉人已就涉案四个专利向国家知识产权局专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求并被受理，上诉人也已向原审法院提出中止审理的申请，请求二审法院在本案审理中一并予以考虑。
　　两被上诉人共同答辩称：1．原审被告北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司销售了被控侵权产品，北京市法院对本案有管辖权。被上诉人对此在一审举证期限内已经提交了经过公证的有关证据；因管辖权异议依法应在答辩期内提出，而答辩期在举证期限内质证程序之前，对管辖权异议的裁定不可能依据已经质证的证据材料作出。2．北京市高级人民法院有关一审知识产权民事案件级别管辖的规定系依据民事诉讼法及其司法解释的规定而制定，其中规定，争议金额1亿元以上的知识产权案件由高级人民法院管辖。据此，北京市高级人民法院对本案有管辖权。3．上诉人无权要求在本案二审中审查其向原审法院提出的中止审理的请求。4．上诉人无正当理由而提出管辖权异议并且曲解法律又就管辖权异议裁定提起上诉，意在拖延本案审理程序。
　　原审被告北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司未就本案提出意见。
　　本院经审理查明：原审法院于2004年 11月30日在向两上诉人送达原告起诉状的同时，已将两被上诉人起诉时提交的十六份证据一并送达，其中证据七(北京市公证处[2004]京证经字第05752号《公证书》)和证据八(北京市公证处[2004]京证经字第05753号《公证书》)用于证明北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司销售了被控侵权产品，即厂牌型号为HXK6491E的汽车。二审中，两上诉人认可其已收到上述证据，但以公证人员未出庭为由，拒绝发表进一步的质证意见。
　　另查明，两上诉人在一审提交答辩状期间对本案管辖权提出共同异议，理由如下：1．被控侵权产品即型号为HXK6491E的汽车系由河北新凯汽车制造有限公司制造，该公司住所地在河北省，依据有关司法解释，本案应由河北省石家庄市中级人民法院管辖。　2．依据司法解释的有关规定，专利纠纷第一审案件由中级人民法院管辖，北京市高级人民法院受理本案不妥。上诉人在管辖权异议中未涉及北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司是否系本案被控侵权产品销售者的问题。
　　本院认为：(一)关于确定本案地域管辖权的依据，即北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司是否系本案被控侵权产品的销售者。对案件管辖的确定，在受理立案中法院仅进行初步审查．有关证据只要在形式上符合法律规定，即可依法决定受理。但在案件受理后被告依法提出管辖权异议时，受理该案的法院应当就确定案件管辖权的事实依据和法律依据进行全面审查，包括对有关证据的审查认定。
　　本案北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司是否系被控侵权产品的销售者，涉及确定原审法院对本案有无地域管辖权的事实依据问题。原审法院未对有关证据召集当事人进行审查核对，有所不妥。但是，在被告并未将此作为其管辖权异议所依据的事实和理由的情况下，原审法院仅针对其异议所依据的事实和理由作出裁定，尚不属实质错误。
　　在二审期间，本院曾召集双方当事人就此事实进行调查，两上诉人一方面以公证人员未出庭为由，拒绝对两被上诉人提交的证明北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司系本案被控侵权产品销售者的公证文书发表进一步质证意见；另一方面又明确表示对此没有任何证据可以提交。两上诉人对有关公证文书不予认可的理由并不充分，也缺乏法律依据，应当视为其放弃对该证据进行进一步质证的权利。依据民事诉讼法第六十七条、《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第九条第一款第(六)项和第二款之规定，在当事人没有相反证据足以推翻公证证明的情况下，人民法院即将经过法定程序公证证明的事实作为认定案件事实的证据。
　　因此，本院认定被上诉人所举公证文书可以证明北京鑫升百利汽车贸易有限公司系本案被控侵权产品的销售者。依据《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第六条关于“以制造者和销售者为共同被告起诉的，销售地人民法院有管辖权”的规定，作为被控侵权产品销售者所在地，北京市有关法院对本案具有地域管辖权。两上诉人的前述上诉理由虽然部分成立，但尚不足以改变对本案的地域管辖。两被上诉人关于对管辖权异议的裁定不可能依据已经质证的证据材料而作出的答辩意见，亦不成立，也不影响本院对本案管辖的确定。
　　(二)关于北京市高级人民法院对本案行使级别管辖权是否违法。《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》第二条规定：“专利纠纷第一审案件，由各省、自治区、直辖市人民政府所在地的中级人民法院和最高人民法院指定的中级人民法院管辖。”本条规定的本意在于专利纠纷案件的最低审级应当是这些指定的中级人民法院，并未排除高级人民法院依法行使一审专利纠纷案件管辖权。北京市高级人民法院于2002年12月17日制定的《关于北京市各级人民法院受理第一审知识产权民事纠纷案件级别管辖的规定》中规定，争议金额1亿元以上的知识产权民事纠纷案件(含涉外纠纷案件)由高级人民法院管辖。该规定内容符合民事诉讼法及本院司法解释的有关规定，可以作为确定本案级别管辖的依据。本案原告起诉请求的赔偿额为1亿元人民币，北京市高级人民法院对本案具有级别管辖权。两上诉人关于高级人民法院不能管辖第一审专利纠纷案件和北京市高级人民法院制定的关于一审知识产权民事案件级别管辖的有关规定违法的上诉理由均不能成立。但原审法院对两上诉人的此管辖权异议理由未作评判，亦有所缺憾。
　　(三)关于是否应当考虑两上诉人所提中止诉讼的请求。管辖权的确定是法院处理案件其他程序问题和所有实体问题的前提，只有在管辖权异议问题解决之后，审理法院才需要审查决定是否应当中止诉讼等诸问题。作为处理管辖权异议的上诉案件，中止诉讼问题不属于本案的审理范围，本院对此不予审查。
　　另外，对两被上诉人所提两上诉人以无理的管辖权异议拖延本案审理程序的意见，由于两上诉人系依法行使诉讼权利，也与本案的审理无关，本院亦不予支持。
　　综上，上诉人的主要上诉理由不成立。本院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(一)项和第一百五十四条之规定，裁定如下：
　　驳回上诉，维持原裁定。
　　本裁定为终审裁定。

审　判　长　王永昌
代理审判员　邰中林
代理审判员　李　剑
二00五年六月二十八日
书　记　员　崔丽娜