More on Guiding Cases, Precedents and Databases…

stanfordcase

Judge Liu Yijun from Beijing IP Court spoke on the application of China’s IP Case Guidance System in Beijing IP Court.

 

As we have previously reported, one of the latest development in China’s IP law is to build an IP cases system, which is being implemented in part as a case experiment at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Thanks to the continuing efforts of the Stanford Guiding Cases Project (SGCP) under the leadership of Dr. Mei Gechlik, a number of experts including Judge Liu Yijun from Beijing IP Court, recently spoke at a seminar at Stanford University to discuss current status and application of the IP cases system.

The IP Cases System is one of several efforts to achieve more uniform application of law, encompassing such initiatives as national level “guiding cases” and other cases used for instructional or other purposes by national and local courts. Susan Finder’s blog had several posts about overall use of cases in China, including how Supreme People’s Court (SPC) uses case law to guide lower courts and the China’s evolving case law system in practice.

According to Judge Liu at the Seminar, the Beijing IP Court is set to establish a principle that “subsequent cases should be adjudicated in accordance with effective judgements and rulings of prior similar cases.” At the current stage, judges of the Beijing IP Court are required to abide by effective judgements and rulings of the Court as well as upper-level courts that are applicable to the pending case. Meanwhile, judgements and rulings of prior similar cases from other courts at the same level should be referenced by judges adjudicating the pending case.

Judge Liu noted that parties are encouraged to submit prior effective judgments and rulings and lawyers in response, are actively submitting more and more cases. At the end of 2016, the Beijing IP Court used prior effective judgements or rulings in 763 cases. Cases were submitted 657 times by parties, and voluntarily invoked by judges in 106 instances. Of those 763 cases, over 200 followed prior judgements, about 80 were distinguished on the basis of different facts, and the rest, around 480, were treated as completely irrelevant or not submitted via appropriate procedures. When this data is compared to the 8,111 cases concluded by the Beijing IP Court in calendar year 2016, the case citation rate was 9.4% of all cases, which was a big increase compared to the citation rate of 2.1% that we calculated in this blog for the first ten months of  2016.

This IP Cases System can be accessed through an IP cases and judgments database (IP Case Database). In its trial version, we found 186 typical cases (典型案例), over 240,000 judicial judgments (裁判文书), laws and regulations (法律法规), intellectual property/legal index codes (知产码) (see www.faxin.cn) , opinions (观点), books (图书), journals (期刊), and review documents and decisions from Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO and SAIC Trademark Review and Application Board (两委文书). Many of judicial judgments included in the IP Case Database are a subset of judgments on China Judgements Online, which has over 35 million of judgments in total and over 260,000 judgments in the IP area. IPHouse (知产宝), another IP cases and judgments database, has recently told us that it has increased the total number of IP judgements on its database – their website lists around 350,000 cases, but we have heard that it is as high as 400,00. This is well in excess of the official China Judgments Online or the IP Case Database. The additional cases have reportedly been made available through direct outreach to various local courts.

These 186 typical cases in the IP Cases System are currently all trademark related cases, decided between 2000 and 2016. A majority of those cases (112 cases) are actually SPC’s guiding cases, and only a small part are cases from High Court or Intermediate Court (11 cases from High Court in different provinces and 23 Cases from Intermediate Court). Among cases from Intermediate Courts, cases from the Beijing IP Court dominate.

 

Panelists at the seminar at Stanford University suggested that all typical cases will go through a review process before posted to the database, which consists of review by experts, editing, and final review and release. But panelists at that seminar also noted that judges made the decision of which cases to be included in this database. It is unclear what criteria are used by judges and what judges’ role is through the case review process. To the extent that cases go through a curatorial process, they may also run the risk of being altered to serve particular doctrinal purposes – an issue that may have arisen with respect to other cases that have been considered model or guiding cases.

As for the quality of those cases and judicial judgments, key words search of some well-known doctrines in IP law returns very limited number of results on the IP Case Database.  For instance, a search of the doctrine of equivalents (等同原则) returns zero typical cases, which might be because no patent typical cases are included yet, and search of principle of good faith (诚信原则) gives nine typical cases (primarily for trademarks). A search for cases adjudicated by well-known judges returns similar results, with only one typical case adjudicated by Song Yushui (宋鱼水), who currently sits on the Beijing IP Court as its Vice President and was recently confirmed as an alternative delegate to the Central Committee of the CPC. Similarly, same key word search of the judicial judgments in the IP Case Database yields more results, but still relatively small compared to total number of judgments included. A search of doctrine of equivalents gives 81 judgments, search of principle of good faith returns 312 judgments (around one-third on trademarks, one-third on anti-unfair competition, and the rest on everything else) and 74 judgments are adjudicated by judge Song Yushui. Compared to another legal database pkulaw.cn (北大法宝), which combines cases and judgements, the same key word search returns significant higher number of cases and judgments (337 for doctrine of equivalents, 455 for principle of good faith and 255 adjudicated by Judge Song Yushui). Such discrepancy raises questions of whether the IP Case Database is currently comprehensive or easily searchable.

One distinct feature to be noted of the IP Case Database is that each typical case has been given an indicator of whether the case should be followed or just referenced.

My overall impression: cases are cited more frequently in Beijing IP Court and the case experiment will continue. It seems that the Beijing IP Court intends to attract attention and application of the IP Cases Database and make it a national tool in the near future. However, at the current stage, it is not clear whether their database has the ability to gain significant usage among the IP law community. Of particular importance is whether more cases, particularly patent and copyright cases, will be included, and when that will happen remains unknown.

This blog has been prepared by Fan (Emily) Yang, JD Candidate, University of California Berkeley, 2019, with editorial assistance from Prof. Mark Cohen.  The views expressed are the author’s own.

 

 

 

Spring Time for IPR Case Law in China?

Guidingcase.jpgRecently, there have been two important developments involving IP-related guiding cases and precedent that shed light on these different approaches of the Supreme People’s Court, which is in charge of guiding cases, and the Beijing IP Court, which is looking at the role of precedent in China’s court system.  But first some background:

One of the most important continuing efforts on guiding cases is the Stanford Guiding Cases Project (SGCP), which is under the able, enthusiastic and collaborative leadership of Dr. Mei Gechlik.  The SGCP recently hosted a lively seminar at American University to discuss the latest developments, with a keynote by Judge Sidney Stein of the Southern District of New York (picture above).  In addition to the Stanford project, Susan Finder has written about guiding cases in her excellent blog and other postings, Jeremy Daum wrote an excellent recent article on the actual use of guiding cases, and of course there is this blog and others, in addition to  academic articles and recent  SGCP research.

Another significant development in exploring a system of case precedent is the research base established with the approval of the Supreme People’s Court at the Beijing IP Court.  The ecosystem evolving around that research base appears to me to be more practice oriented than theoretical.  As an example of this practice-oriented approach, the IP court is looking at the role of amicus briefs to ensure the interests of non-parties are heard, or en banc rehearings to reverse prior precedent.  A small, but important step in soliciting third party opinions has already been undertaken by the Beijing IP Court in a case involving trademark agents.

Among the two contrasting recent developments  Regarding the guiding cases project, on March 9, the Supreme People’s Court released 10 IP-specific guiding cases; nine of these are civil and one is criminal. The cases span all relevant IP laws, including copyright, trademarks,patents, plant varieties and antitrust.  Here is a link to a Chinese summary of the cases, and a  machine translation of these summaries (source: IPRdaily.cn, google translate).  I assume that the SGCP will do a professional translation of these in due course.  According to the SPC press conference, IPR-related guiding cases now constitute 23% of the total number of guiding cases.

Nonetheless, recent citation data  suggest that there has been little uptake of guiding cases in actual case decisions, as Jeremy Daum’s article points out in his posting:

“Guiding Cases are almost never referenced: Over a five-year period, Stanford found a total of 181 subsequent cases, and PKU found 241. To provide a frame of reference, Chinese courts complete trial of well upwards of 10,000,000 cases per year…

50% of the guiding cases were never referred to at all

Almost half of the references found were to a single case; GC #24. …That case concerns traffic  accidents,…”

If one compared the nationwide references to guiding cases using, as an example, the 561 opinions referencing a guiding case out of 8,723,182 cases on the China Judgments Online website for 2016 (using a simple keyword search to “guiding case”), the citation rate would be about  0.0006%.

These developments on IP related case law at the SPC might be compared to the data in the January 10, 2017 report of Beijing IP Court.  The Beijing IP court cited 279 case precedents in 168 cases since the time the precedent base was established in 2016 until October 2016.  Cases were cited 121 times by parties, and judges undertook their own effort to cite cases in 47 instances.  In total, 117 cases relied on precedent in their decisions.  Of the 168 cases, there were 51 instances where cases were not relied upon due to a difference in facts.  There was no instance where a reversal was obtained of an earlier precedent.  Of the cases cited, 31 were from the SPC, 132 from High Courts (including 117 from Beijing), and others were from local courts.  If this data was further compared to the 8,111 cases concluded by the Beijing IP Court in calendar year 2016, the citation rate was a minimum of 2.1% based on the data provided through October, which is considerably higher than the guiding cases effort.

My impressions: the data from the Beijing IP Court suggests that the bar is using cases in its briefs, and the court is looking at these cases and exploring how to handle them as part of an overall system including amicus briefs, en banc review and other mechanisms.  The SPC’s guiding cases project is a more intensely curated project that also addresses a much larger national challenge in introducing a new way of developing law to civil law educated judges and the bar.  The comparisons between the two experiments are inexact as the Beijing IP court sits in one of China’s wealthiest cities, with a well-educated bench and bar, a sophisticated IP environment and considerable foreign (including American) interaction.  It is not surprising that nationwide uptake of a precedent system using a limited number of  guiding cases for a vast judicial system is more theoretical and slower than the one taking place at the Beijing IP Court using the 100,000 plus IPR cases that are adjudicated nationwide each year.

springtimeindc

IPHouse And IP Litigation Strategies

cases-at-ip-court

  (IPHouse data on foreign-related IP cases at the Beijing IP court)

A Chinese judge recently told me that amongst the most important developments in the Chinese judiciary in recent years has been the increasing transparency of the courts.  I agree.  The increased transparency of the courts has also been noted by Susan Finder in her excellent blog.

One of the significant developments this year has been in the availability of value-added database services that utilize the underlying case data. IPHouse is a new database, set up this year, which provides comprehensive search capabilities for over 200,000 IP-related cases in China to date. It is operated under the guidance of former SIPO Commissioner Gao Lulin, a partner at the Beijing East IP  law firm.

IPHouse has prepared a 110 page English language statistical analysis of the work of the Beijing IP Court in 2015, available here.   IPHouse has told me that the report is prepared at the request of the Beijing IP court as part of its statistical review of the court’s activities.  It includes extensive data on types of cases, practices of individual judges and foreign-related activities, and summaries of cases.

As another sample of their work, regarding the important role of the Beijing IP Court in reviewing Chinese Trademark administrative decisions, IPHouse also prepared a brief report that shows from 2011 – 2015, there are 5,121 cases involved plaintiffs from foreign countries and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regions, where 1,010 administrative decision were reversed by the courts, accounts for 44.81% of all reversed cases. The rate of reversing cases involving foreign and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan region plaintiffs is 19.72%. This is 1.89% higher than the average reversal rate.  IPHouse’s snapshot data of overall foreign IP cases shows a foreign plaintiff success rate in the courts of 70%.    Together these data suggest that foreigners have are faring well in the courts in China.  Finally, IPHouse has also prepared a short statistical summary of patent and trademark administrative decisions adjudicated at the IP Court, available here.

For US and Chinese counsel seeking to more accurately assess litigation risks and opportunities, IPNow builds on the existing IPHouse database. It provides search results in five different categories – courts, judges, agencies, attorneys, and parties. The search results are presented in various graphical charts depending on the search criteria, as follows:

  1. Courts – Collects judgments from over 800 courts across the country

–          Provides historical cases, length of trial, support rate of claimed damages, etc.

  1. Judges – Collects over 9,000 judges’ opinions

–          Provides the number of cases tried, case decisions, rate of support of claimed damages, etc.

  1. Agencies – Collects from over 29,000 intellectual property agencies

–          Provides winning rate from historical data.

–          Each agent can be compared with other agencies in more than 20 different selections.

  1. Attorneys – Collects from over 100,000 attorneys’ information

–          Provides winning rate from historical data, result of cases represented, and adversary party’s statistics.

  1. Parties – Collects over 148,000 parties

–          Provides party who filed the cases, the agency and agents hired, winning rate, and support from the court for the claimed damages.

Please contact IPHouse directly for further information.

Beijing IP Court Awards 50,000,000 RMB in Patent Damages

Continuing the trends in higher damage awards that rely less on statutory damages and more on actual damages, the Beijing IP Court on December 8 awarded damages of 50,000,000 RMB in favor of the holder of a “USB Key” patent  According to deputy chief judge Chen Jingchuan 陈景, this is the highest damage award of the court to date.  The damages included 49 million RMB in civil compensation plus 1 million RMB in legal fees. The case is Watchdata vs Hengbao (北京握奇数据系统有限公司 vs 恒宝股份有限公司), two Chinese domestic companies, for patent number ZL200510105502.1.  The plaintiff is a Beijing-based company involved in digital authentication and transaction security.

The patent in suit relates to USBkeys distributed by banks to customers for security. The court found infringement of both its product claims on a USBkey itself and its method claims for authentication when users perform an online money transfer.  The damages were based on a calculation of defendant’s sales and profit for patented products.  In addition, when three of the fifteen  infringing banks and the defendant refused to provide evidence of their sales, the court used evidence provided by the plaintiff. The basis for the court’s reliance on this evidence was  a judicial interpretation on refusals to supply evidence (My guess: 《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》 (20011221) article75 第七十五条 有证据证明一方当事人持有证据无正当理由桓不提供,如果对方当事人主张该证据的内容不利于证据持有人,可以推定该主张成立。)

Commentators have also noted that this may be the first time that the court has awarded legal fees to a prevailing party based on the time spent on the matter, which is also positive news for prevailing parties in Chinese commercial litigation.  

Update January 24, 2017: Here’s another useful blog from the comparative patent remedies blog from Yijun Ge, a student of both Prof. Cotter and Fordham.  This blog goes into greater detail on the methodology for calculating damages.

Counterfeits in Microchannel Marketing … and Case Law

Amidst the escalating focus on online counterfeiting, piracy and patent infringement, online social media, such as WeChat are also becoming a source of infringing products, as documented in a Wall Street Journal article and other journals.  

James Luo (罗正红), a prominent IP lawyer in China, has been following these developments in his blog, where he recently reported on a Supreme People’s Court promoting of  ten model cases that promote “core socialist values” (最高人民法院关于弘扬社会主义核心价值观典型案例). One model case involved a couple that sold counterfeit goods through WeChat Moments, which was held to  constitute the crime of selling commodities bearing counterfeit registered trademarks 微信朋友圈销售假冒注册商标的商品案)。

The reason for the insertion of the case according to the court, was to promote “honesty in business.” As the court noted:

The case was a typical case of selling via microchannel marketing circle of friends, goods bearing counterfeit trademarks. …Compared with the traditional IPR criminal cases, the perpetrators of such crimes use relatively covert means, but the scope of their promotion and sale of counterfeit goods is broad with an adverse social impact.  …Currently, the “Consumer Protection Law” and the “Rules for Network Transaction Management” do not have specific provisions addressing microchannel shopping, and microchannel marketers do not have to register their business with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.  The relevant laws and regulations need further improvement in this area. “

本案是一起通过微信朋友圈销售假冒注册商标的商品的典型案例。,利用微信朋友圈等新平台售假者也越来越多。与传统侵犯知识产权犯罪案件相比,这类犯罪作案手段相对隐蔽,但传播面广及推广速度快,销售假冒注册商标的商品涉及面广,社会影响恶劣。目前,消费者权益保护法和《网络交易管理办法》在微信购物方面还没有明文规定,而且微商没有经过工商注册登记,相关法律法规还需要进一步完善。

As the accused had intentionally sold a relatively large amount of counterfeit goods, the defendants were found guilty of the crime of selling commodities bearing counterfeit registered trademarks by the Shaoguan Zhengjiang District People’s Court of Guangdong Province.  Sentences were imposed of  6 – 7 months and a fine of RMB 15,000.

In my opinion, this case appears to be headed in the right direction in terms of addressing the use of social media to commit IP crimes.  The court suggests that the case was important to fill in the gaps in the current legislative regime based on technological changes – the way in which criminals do business online.  This is a typical evolution for IP-related case law in the United States, where courts have a record of using existing statutory provisions to address emerging technologies or ways of doing business.

Why this case was categorized as promoting core socialist values?  Perhaps it promotes socialist core values because it addresses problems in the market of unscrupulous unlicensed individuals who transact business without basic principles of good faith and fair dealing and is thus intended to send a policy signal to other courts and the legislative agencies.

How do these cases compare to other types of cases that the court is promoting?  In my opinion, China is paying more attention to cases to guide judicial decisions and create a more predictable legal environment, with 20,000,000 court cases available on line and new regulations on publishing cases in effect.  China is seeking  to develop a Chinese style system of precedent, and has elicited  much government and academic involvement, including scholarship in journals.  These cases need to be compared to the efforts to become more transparent, promote “model cases”, the system of guiding cases,  judicial interpretations, etc., which are all part of an evolving system intended to insure greater consistency of judicial decision making and address emerging issues.

Addendum of 1/1/2017: Here is a useful blog by Jeremy Daum  from 31 August 2016 on the Beijing IP Court’s experiment in precedent, which lines up nicely with the perspective in my blog.

Qualcomm’s Litigation Strategies and Recent IP Developments in China

反者道之動。弱者道之用。 (, Chap. 40) (Return is the movement of the Dao. Yielding is the way of the Dao.  Daodejing, Chap. 40.)

To the uninitiated, Qualcomm’s licensing practices in China must appear confusing.  Since paying a fine of 975 million USD to NDRC – about 50,000 times average patent damages according to the CIELA database for its Standards Essential Patent licensing practices, Qualcomm has entered into approximately 100  licensing settlements with Chinese companies.  How can the weak become so successful, so soon?

According to press accounts, Qualcomm has settled with the major cell phone manufacturers in China,  most recently with Chinese cell phone companies Vivo and Oppo.  Both deals came after Qualcomm decided to bring law suits against cell phone manufacturer Meizu in the Beijing and Shanghai intellectual property courts for damages that reportedly total about 520 million RMB.  The first law suit was filed by Qualcomm around June 23 at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.   The complaint essentially sought to enforce an NDRC rectification plan imposed on Qualcomm against other infringers/potential licensees.  The original complaint, according to Qualcomm’s press release “requests rulings that the terms of a patent license offered by Qualcomm to Meizu comply with China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, and Qualcomm’s fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing obligations.  The complaint also seeks a ruling that the offered patent license terms should form the basis for a patent license with Meizu for Qualcomm’s fundamental technologies patented in China for use in mobile devices, including those relating to 3G (WCDMA and CDMA2000) and 4G (LTE) wireless communications standards.”  Since that filing, Qualcomm filed 17 new complaints were filed in Beijing and Shanghai.

Given the risks to Qualcomm posed by seeking injunctive relief for standards essential patents, Qualcomm appears to have initially launched its litigation campaign against Meizu by enforcing the NDRC approved licensing terms against one hold out company who might thereafter be left with an unfair competitive advantage.   Qualcomm appears to be reducing its antitrust risks by first getting “immunized” by NDRC, and then enforcing the terms of the NDRC “rectification plan” and couching its patent infringement litigation in terms of promoting fair competition.  This in effect has turned the tables on recalcitrant licensees who have previously relied on Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments to reduce the risk of being sued by Qualcomm by threatening an antitrust counterclaim.  What remains to be seen, however, is the legal status the court affords the rectification plan given the often unclear relationships between judicial and administrative decision making.

Qualcomm’s GC, Don Rosenberg said Qualcomm is taking legal action out of a sense of fairness to other companies that are paying what they owe.  In addition, the case represents a vote of confidence by Qualcomm in the court system.  As Don Rosenberg noted “”We’re putting our faith in the court system there and we wouldn’t do that if we didn’t think we were in capable hands.”  Qualcomm may no doubt have been inspired by the success of its licensing program as well as the perfect or near perfect win rate in the sixty five infringement cases filed by foreigners in 2015 in the Beijing IP court.  As I have noted repeatedly on this blog, foreigners do win IP cases in China.

In China’s current legal environment,  where licensing is burdened by seemingly contradictory norms – e.g., where the Chinese government sets prices for license transactions in antitrust cases, restricts the freedom to negotiate of foreigners, provides tax incentives for licensing in to China for high tech enterprises, sets national goals for licensing transactions, and where the courts seem to have difficulty imposing damages based on actual or implied royalties, Qualcomm appears to be turning the 975 million dollars of “lemons” of the  NDRC fine, into a vat of lemonade.

Qualcomm’s vote of confidence in the courts in a high stakes case may also help set an important model for other foreign and Chinese rightsholders, potentially by highlighting such important issues as: Yes, foreigners win cases in China, the importance of actual or explicit license agreements for determining damages (already being tried in some jurisdictions, see: 江苏固丰管桩集团有限公司 vs 宿迁华顺建筑预制构件有限公司 (Jiangsu, 2015), and the respective roles of patent law,  antitrust law, the courts and administrative agencies, in obtaining SEP licenses in China.

Qualcomm and China both have a lot at stake in the handling of SEP issues.   A recent report by Thomson Reuters (The Evolving Landscape of Standard Essential Patents: Keeping What is Essential, Sawant and Oak), showed that Qualcomm owns 17% of the patent declarations before the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, followed by Nokia, Huawei, and InterDigital.   Decisions in Europe such as Huawei vs. ZTE may also have underscored the importance of looking at whether a putative licensee/infringer is in fact negotiating in good faith with a FRAND encumbered licensor.

Judges such as  Zhu Li of the SPC have noted some of these changes publicly.  As Zhu Li said in a recent blog:

…标准必要专利权作出FRAND承诺即自愿放弃了在任何情况下寻求禁令救济的选择,更不意味着其寻求禁令救济一定产生反竞争的效果。因此,作出FRAND承诺的标准必要专利权利人寻求禁令救济的反竞争效果仍然需要具体分析判断。

[T]he owner of standard essential patent FRAND commitment that is made voluntarily does not give up under all circumstances the choice of seeking injunctive relief.  Furthermore, it does not mean seeking injunctive relief must produce anti-competitive effects. Therefore, when a holder of a FRAND encumbered SEP seeks injunctive relief, the anti-competitive effects still need specific analysis and judgment。

The evolving practice appears to be that the evidentiary burden to demonstrate that the infringers have refused to pay a license fee is on the licensor and, as Zhu Li noted,  a monopoly is not necessarily constituted when an injunction is requested by SEP owners.

The State Council’s recent opinion on how China should become a “strong” IP country, also highlighted how China needs to draft rules on standard essential patents that are based on FRAND licensing and “stopping infringement” (Art. 38) (with the involvement of AQSIQ, SIPO, MIIT, and the Supreme People’s Court) and that encouraging standardization of Chinese patents also remains a priority (Arts. 61, 71).

As I indicated elsewhere, a key question for China is “What circumstances exist to suggest that a prospective licensee is engaged in patent hold-out, i.e., refusing to license in good faith which might suspend the licensor’s F/RAND obligation…”  Hopefully China is beginning to ask the better questions that are suitable for its licensing environment and its efforts to become a “strong” IP economy.

What are you observing in this hot area? Please post your comments and corrections!

The preceding is the author’s personal opinion only.

lemonade

CATR’s Report on Copyright Enforcement in the On Line Enviroment

The China Academy of Telecommunication Research (CATR), at the request of the National Copyright Administration,  released a report on April 26, 2016 on Copyright Protection in the Online Environment.

The report noted that  there were 2,118 on line civil copyright cases in total, an increase of 28.3% from last year (this total number seems smaller than I would have guessed).  The SPC White Paper reported that overall there were 66,690 civil cases, an increase of 12.1% from 2014.  Regarding civil on line copyright enforcement, 44% of the online cases involved music and 18% involved audiovisual infringement.  Amongst the IP courts, Guangdong had the highest percentage of cases (39.5%), followed by Shanghai (33.5%) and Beijing (16.5).  However, the province with the most cases was Hubei (476), followed by Beijing, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Shanghai and Jiangsu) (see chart below).

graphofcivilcases

The report also notes several important legal and policy initiatives, including directives from the National Copyright Administration on online liability, and a revision to the Criminal Code, making it clear that on line technology providers can be held criminally liable for copyright infringement.  The report also singles out the release of a draft of  proposed rule on Copyright Administrative Enforcement. (著作权行政处罚实施办法 (修订征求意见稿)as well as new rules Concerning Specifications of the Copyright Order In Online Transmissions (关于规范网络转载版权秩序的 通知),  Stopping Online Music Service Providers Transmitting Unauthorized Content(关于责令网络音乐服 务商停止未经授权传播音乐作品 的通知)and the Rule Concerning Specifications of the Order of Cloud Driver Service Provider Copyright (关于规范网盘服务 版权秩序的通知).

Data on copyright administrative and criminal enforcement in the online environment was not made available in this report.   According to the SPC White Paper, there were 523 criminal copyright cases, involved 547 people.  Moreover, news reports accompanying its release reported the following data: during the Sword Network Campaign in 2015, there were 383 administrative enforcement actions, with fines of 4.5 million RMB, 59 cases transferred to criminal prosecution, and 113 websites closed.