Xiaomi and Qihoo Jurisdiction Dispute

View: 1978     Date: 2016-04-22 07:25

As we reported on 14 April 2016, Beijing High People’s Court recently released 10 typical and 10 innovative cases of 2015. Further to this, we are delighted to share some of these cases outlined and analyzed by professionals in IP industry. Today let us take a closer look at the jurisdiction dispute in Xiaomi v. Qihoo.

In the November of 2015 Beijing Qihoo Technology Co. Ltd. (“Qihoo”) sued Xiaomi Inc. (“Xiaomi”) in court, claiming that Mi Phones by Xiaomi blocked their 360 Security Guard from installation and forced its uninstallation with other unfair competition conducts. Qihoo filed this lawsuit with the court in the jurisdiction where Qihoo is registered, which Qihoo claimed was as per Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law which provides that the location of infringement includes the resident of the infringed.

However, Xiaomi believed that this case was not under the jurisdiction of the court in plaintiff’s location and appealed for a jurisdiction objection.

The court held that: The information network infringement provided by Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law refers to acts that the infringing party publishes information on the internet and infringes on other’s lawful rights. For instance, the infringing party publishes information on the internet that violates the distribution right of the infringed. Not all infringements or unfair competition related to internet are information network infringement. This case is an unfair competition case in which the decision is upon whether the alleged computer software or website includes settings or functions that obstacle fair competition of competitors, not an information network infringement. Thus, this case is not under the provision of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law.

To involved parties, the confirmation of jurisdiction shall be definite and expectable. The jurisdiction is confirmed by “two conveniences principle” and “defendant’s place principle”. For unfair competition cases, the jurisdiction where the infringing party’s server have relevant settings, the jurisdiction where the infringing party use computers to make relevant settings or the jurisdiction where the defendant is in are all more suitable than the plaintiff’s jurisdiction for the court to inspect unfair competition conducts and implement court decisions. If plaintiff’s location’s court is allowed to take the case for the reason that computer software can be accessed from internet, it would add difficulties to the inspections of unfair competition conducts and the implement of court decision, against basic jurisdictions principles including the “defendant’s place principle”. The court has transferred the case to the court where the defendant is in.

This case is about the understanding and application of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law. Since information network infringement is coined in that article, with clarification that the location of infringement includes the resident of the infringed, a lot cases have come with jurisdictions claims according to the article after the judicial interpretation was implemented. There were also a high number of jurisdiction disputes.

This case has taken the objective of Article 25 into consideration and clarified the applicability of information network infringement. With the definitiveness and expectability of jurisdiction, “two conveniences principle” and “defendant’s place” principle taken into account and for a proper solution of the case, the court found that this case was not under the provision of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law.

[Source: HeadlinesToday(Jinritoutiao)]