The LexField litigation team has won nearly 20 intellectual property retrials and retrial applications in the Supreme People's Court in the recent few years. No other team has won more retrial cases. These kinds of cases -- where retrials are sought in the Supreme People's Court to overturn decisions made in High Courts throughout China on intellectual property litigation cases -- are the most challenging in China's legal system. Look at our record -- you will see that our team clearly has the edge on our competitors in the IP litigation field.

That record includes the following specific cases:

• The Supreme People's Court (2005) Min San Ti Zi No. 1 -- a patent infringement dispute retrial case.

This landmark case, which our client won, established new standards for determining patent infringement. The Supreme Court denied the application of the principle of "superfluity establishing" in determining a patent infringement that had occurred and rectified the abuse of "doctrine of equivalence" that arose at that time.

• The Supreme People's Court (2007) Xing Ti Zi No. 2 -- a trademark cancellation dispute retrial case.

Here, the Supreme People's Court for the first time confirmed the understanding of relevant provisions in Paris Convention in a case. Furthermore, the Supreme People's Court held that the provisions served as a legal base for interpreting domestic intellectual property laws, ensuring that IP judicial protection standards in China would henceforth be consistent with those under Paris Convention. Again, our client came out the victor.

• The Supreme People's Court (2009) Min Ti Zi No. 20 -- a patent infringement dispute retrial case.

In another precedent-setting decision, LexField successfully represented a client in a case that set new standards for determining when a patent infringement has occurred. The Supreme People's Court enlarged the scope of the principle of "estoppel." Specifically, the court ruled that any abandonment of technical solutions in a patent application or invalidation for purposes of novelty and inventiveness or satisfying other granting requirements, regardless if such amendment is passively made on examiner request or voluntarily made by the applicant or patentee, falls within the scope of "estoppel."

• The Supreme People's Court (2008) Min Shen Zi No. 613 -- a trademark infringement dispute retrial application case.

In the case of Yunnan Dianhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Shantou Kangwang Fine Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd., Kangwang was not satisfied with decision made by Yunnan High People's Court and sought retrial in the Supreme People's Court. Representing the respondent Dianhong Company, LexField attorney Hongyi Jiang responded to the retrial application, with the result that the Supreme People's Court in its (2008) Min Shen Zi No. 613 Decision rejected Kangwang's application for retrial.

• The Supreme People's Court (2009) Min Shen Zi No. 861 -- a patent infringement dispute retrial application case.

In the case of Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Jiangsu Heng Rui Medicine Co., Ltd., involving invention patent infringement and unfair competition disputes, the initial judgment in the first instance concluded that Heng Rui had infringed the rights of two of Aventis' medical production method patents.  The LexField team successfully overturned that conclusion in the initial judgment. Then the Shanghai High People's Court overruled the initial judgment in its final judgment. Aventis was not satisfied with Shanghai High People's Court's final judgment and sought retrial in the Supreme People's Court. LexField attorneys Hongyi Jiang and Yongquan Liu represented Heng Rui and successfully persuaded the Supreme People's Court in its (2009) Min Shen Zi No. 861 Decision to reject Aventis's retrial application.

• The Supreme People's Court (2009) Min Shen Zi No. 1680 -- a jurisdiction objection of trademark infringement retrial application case.

In the case of Hunan Mendale Household Co., Ltd. v. Shijiazhuang Mengjie Industrial Co., Ltd., involving jurisdiction objection of trademark, copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes, Mengjie took issue with the Hunan High People's Court civil judgment in (2009) Xiang Gao Fa Li Min Zhong Zi No. 34. LexField attorney Yuguo Zuo represented the defendant Mengjie and applied for a retrial in the Supreme People's Court.   In the end, the Supreme People's Court upheld our request for retrial in the (2009) Min Shen Zi No. 1680 decision and remanded the jurisdiction objection to the Hunan High People's Court for retrial.

• The Supreme People's Court (2010) Min Shen Zi No. 773 -- a patent infringement dispute retrial application case.

The case of Beijing Yingtelai Mogen Thermal Ceramal Textile Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Deyuan Kuai Jie Doors and Windows Factory centered on an allegation of invention patent infringement. In that case, defendant Deyuan was unhappy with the Beijing High People's Court's (2009) Gao Min Zhong Zi No.4721 and sought retrial in the Supreme People's Court. Representing Yingtelai, LexField attorneys Hongyi Jiang and Yongquan Liu responded to Deyuan's application for retrial. In its (2010) Min Shen Zi No. 773 decision dated June 23, 2010, the Supreme People's Court rejected Deyuan Factory's retrial application.