Iwncomm releases 11 judgments against Apple and Samsung on its official website (2)

Nov 13, 2024

On October 22-24, 2024, Iwncomm released 11 judgments on its official website regarding multiple cases involving monopoly, SEP infringement, and SEP licensing fees with Apple and Samsung in China.

In fact, in China, there are few judgments of important cases that are publicly disclosed, unless they are typical cases.

For example, among the 11 judgments mentioned above, only one judgment （（2022）最高法知民终817号）was made public by Supreme People 's Court, while the remaining 10 were made public for the first time by Iwncomm.

In China, few companies publicly release judgments. Therefore, the behavior of Iwncomm is very special, and it is worth paying attention to whether it will be imitated by other companies in the future.

The sensitive aspect of a company's public judgment is how to handle sensitive information during the trial of the case.

No.2-No.5 cases are jurisdictional dispute, therefore, the requirement for confidentiality is low.

The No.1 judgment has already been made public by the Supreme People's Court.

Just as Birss J in Unwired Planet International Ltd v. Huawei Technologies Ltd:

Unless the public can see and understand a judge’s reasons they cannot hold the courts to account. There is therefore a strong principle that all parts of a judgment should normally be publicly available. Nevertheless there are occasions on which judgments may be redacted. Redactions will require powerful reasons, supported by cogent evidence which addresses the details. Generalities will not do. Although redactions will be rare indeed when looking across the legal system in general, certain kinds of proceedings may regularly involve redactions due to the nature of the proceedings andthe material involved. In any event however redactions must be kept to the bare minimum.
Factors which will be relevant include: (i) the nature of the information itself: for example cases in which some redaction could include technical trade secrets and private information about family life. (ii) The effect of the publication of the information. This will be a critical factor. If publication would be truly against the public interest then no doubt the information should be redacted. If publication would destroy the subject matter of the proceedings – such as a technical trade secret – then redaction may be justified. The effect on competition and competitiveness could be a factor but will need to be examined critically. (iii) The nature of the proceedings: for example privacy injunctions and competition law claims may require some redaction while an intellectual property damages claim may not. The point is not that different kinds of case demand a different approach, it is that the balance of factors will change in different cases (e.g. the need to encourage leniency applications in competition law). (iv) The relationship between the information in issue and the judgment (as well as the proceedings as a whole). Obviously, judges do not deliberately insert irrelevant information into judgments but not every word of a judgment is as important as every other word. It may be that some sensitive information can be redacted without seriously undermining the public’s understanding of the reasons. (v) The relationship between the person seeking to restrain publication of the information and the proceedings themselves (including the judgment). For example, a patentee seeking damages for patent infringement on a lost profit basis knows that they will have to disclose their profit margin in the proceedings and that those proceedings are public. A third party whose only relationship with the case is that they are a party to a contract disclosed by one of the parties to the litigation is in a different position.”

11 judgments link:

No.1：1."Iwncomm v Apple" SEP infringement case

（2016）陕民初10号