【Editor’s Pick】Saelink represented Synopsys Inc., one of the world’s leading EDA software suppliers, in winning 5 copyright infringement cases against Innosilicon Technology, Ltd.’s for copying and using Synopsys’ copyrighted five noted software programing such as IC Compiler. In its final decisions, the Supreme People’s Court of China fully considered the evidence in records and the capacity of the parties to produce evidence, determined new proof burden rule between opposite parties, pointed out that “source program comparison is not the only criterion to find computer software copyright infringement”, and upheld Synopsys Inc.’s claims of injunctive reliefs as well as compensation almost RMB 9 million. These cases typically demonstrated the strength of the Chinese judiciary in intellectual property protection. On October 21, 2021, Zhou Qiang, the Chief Justice and Dean of the Supreme People’s Court of China, specially cited these cases in the “Report on the Intellectual Property Judgment Work of the People’s Courts” to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress as good examples of “effective protection of the rights of foreign parties”. This is also one of only two software copyright infringement typical cases selected and reported by the above-mentioned Report as exemplified achievement in the whole past decade. In March 2022, Supreme Court also listed this case as one of top 48 typical cases for the year of 2021.

The following is an article written by the judges of the Supreme People’s Court on the facts of this case and the gist of the judgment, for your reading and reference.

Source program comparison is not the only criterion for determining computer software copyright infringement

Source：The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China

The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China recently concluded 5 cases of computer software copyright infringement between Synopsys Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Synopsys”) and Innosilicon Technology, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ Innosilicon”).

In the first instance, Synopsys claimed that it is an U.S. company, mainly providing electronic design automation (EDA) software tools for global integrated circuit designer. Synopsys designed and finished a number of EDA software including IC Compiler for application in SoC development. Without Synopsys’ permission, Innosilicon copied and used above software, which infringed copyright of Synopsys. The first-instance court found that Innosilicon infringed the computer software copyright of Synopsys and ordered Innosilicon to stop the infringement acts and compensate for the loss. After the first-instance judgment, Synopsys and Innosilicon both appealed to the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as “SPC”). Synopsys argued that the amount of compensation in the first instance was too low, and its claim should be fully supported. Innosilicon maintained that it had never conducted any copyright infringing acts.

After trial, the SPC held that determination of computer software copyright infringement should be treated differently according to specific circumstances of each case. The court should not only try to find out the objective facts, but also fully consider the ability of the parties to produce evidence. Therefore, the comparison of source programs should not be the only criterion to identify the same or substantially similar software. If the right holder has evidence to prove that the software alleged of infringement is highly similar with the software claiming rights, or the alleged infringing software having the same characteristic information such as rights management information, design flaws, redundant design, etc., then the right holder completed the preliminary proof burden, and the burden of proof shall transfer to the alleged infringer, who is supposed to demonstrate it not implementing the infringing acts.

According to the evidence preservation result, the software information in the computers of Innosilicon is identical with the software claimed by Synopsys in terms of name, directory structure and error information, so there is a high possibility that Innosilicon infringes the computer software copyright of Synopsys. Although Innosilicon denied that it used Synopsys software, it failed to give a reasonable explanation on why the labeled copyright owner showed Synopsys’ name during the command exploration on their software. Therefore, the court of the first instance was unarguable to found that Innosilicon infringed the copyright of Synopsys, as well as determination on amount of compensation considering software notability and reference licensing fees. Accordingly, the SPC rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.