On August 22, 2022, after the Qinhuangdao Intermediate Court filed a case, the Qinhuangdao Intermediate Court rejected the objection to jurisdiction, the Hebei High Court ruled to revoke the objection and transferred it to the Beijing Internet Court, and the Beijing Internet Court reported it to the Supreme Court for designated jurisdiction, the Supreme Court made a civil ruling (2022) No. 42 Supreme People's Jurisdiction against a dispute over infringement of the right of communication of product information network represented by lawyers.

In the ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the application of Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation on Information Network Rights in cases of infringement of the right to network dissemination of works completely negates the previous judicial practice of "the defendant is the plaintiff" in such cases, and strongly reverses the current jurisdictional status of widely accepted and applicable cases of information network dissemination rights disputes. After the ruling is made, courts in various regions shall refer to the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile for filing such cases.

Although the subject matter of this case is not large and the ruling was not a heavyweight case that attracted industry attention before it was made, the guidance of its judgment has a profound impact on the field of information and network rights infringement, which can be described as a "small case with great achievements".

Case introduction

Zhang filed a lawsuit in the Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City, claiming that the three defendants, including Ma, illegally published and used their copyrighted works on relevant websites, which infringed on their copyright. Zhang requested that the three defendants be ordered to immediately cease their infringing behavior; Joint compensation for economic losses of 500000 yuan and all reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement; Publicly apologize and eliminate the impact; Bear all litigation costs of this case.

As the representative lawyer of Mr. Ma, we noticed that in this case, which is a typical infringement case of information and network rights, the plaintiff still adopts the usual "defendant vs. plaintiff" approach to determine the jurisdiction of the court in this case. Although this method of determining jurisdiction has become an unwritten convention in similar cases, we still believe that it is worth discussing. Especially in this case, the residences of the three defendants are all in Beijing, and Zhang and Ma also know each other in Beijing. In addition, Zhang often works and lives in Beijing, and Qinhuangdao is only Zhang's registered residence, which is not substantially related to the disputed infringement facts in this case. This makes us think that the jurisdiction of this case should be in the Beijing Internet Court, not the Qinhuangdao Intermediate Court.

Based on this, we will proceed to carry out specific work on the jurisdictional objection of this case.

Core issue - Application of Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Information and Network Rights

1. Principles for determining jurisdiction in general infringement cases

The principle of jurisdiction over general infringement is based on the place of infringement as the connecting point, taking into account the basic principle of "plaintiff defendant" in civil cases.

Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "Lawsuits brought for infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant is located.

Article 24 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "The place of infringement specified in Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law includes the place where the infringement was committed and the place where the infringement occurred.

Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "the place of implementation of information network infringement includes the location of the computer or other information equipment that carried out the accused infringement, and the place of occurrence of the infringement result includes the domicile of the victim".

From the above legal provisions and the logical structure between them, it can be seen that Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 24 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law establish the general jurisdictional principle for infringement cases, that is, the location of the defendant, the place where the infringement was committed, and the place where the infringement occurred can all be regarded as the jurisdictional courts for infringement cases.

2. Jurisdiction principles for cases of infringement of information and network rights

But there are specific judicial interpretations for cases of infringement of information and network rights. Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation on Information Network Rights stipulates: "Civil disputes over infringement of information network dissemination rights shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court in the place where the infringement occurred or where the defendant resides. The place where the infringement occurred includes the location of the network server, computer terminal, and other equipment that carried out the accused infringement. If it is difficult to determine the location of the infringement and the defendant's residence, or if they are located overseas, the location of the computer terminal or other equipment where the plaintiff discovered the infringing content can be considered as the place of infringement.

This is a regulation on the jurisdiction of cases involving infringement of information and network rights. Through specific analysis, it can be found that this law contains three levels:

Firstly, principled provisions. The basic principle of jurisdiction for cases of infringement of information and network rights is still the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile, which conforms to the basic principle of using the place of infringement as the jurisdictional connection point for infringement cases.

Secondly, explanatory provisions. The place of infringement in cases of infringement of information and network rights includes the location of the network server or computer terminal equipment where the infringement was committed.

Thirdly, there are only written regulations. After applying the general rules, that is, if neither the place of infringement nor the defendant's domicile is clear or both are overseas, the location of the computer terminal where the plaintiff discovered the infringing content can be considered as the place of infringement. In general, the location of the plaintiff is the location of the computer terminal where the infringing content is discovered. Therefore, in practice, it is also commonly understood as the "location of the plaintiff".

3. Conflict between Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Cyberspace Administration

By comparing the above legal provisions, it can be seen that the core point of whether to apply Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, which universally applies the principle of "the defendant shall determine jurisdiction over the plaintiff", or Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, which applies the principle of "the defendant shall determine jurisdiction over the plaintiff", is whether "information network infringement" in Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law includes "infringement of information network dissemination rights".

The reason why most of the previous cases of infringement of information and network rights chose the jurisdiction of the plaintiff's domicile is due to the inclusion of "information network dissemination right" in Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, which interprets the domicile of the infringed party as the place where the infringement occurred, and then uses the jurisdiction principle of the place where the infringement occurred.

However, in contrast to Article 15 of the Interpretation of Information and Network Rights, there are strict restrictions on the application of the location of the infringed party (i.e. the location of the equipment terminal where the plaintiff discovered the infringement), that is, the equipment terminal where the infringement was committed and the location of the defendant are both overseas or cannot be determined before they can be used. By comparing the two sides, it can be found that the practice of applying Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law undoubtedly artificially creates a conflict between the two legal provisions, thereby sidelining the application space in Article 15 of the Interpretation of Information and Network Rights.

After searching and analyzing the legislative background and other dimensions, we found that Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law existed when it was first formulated in 2007, and the original purpose of this provision was to adjust the jurisdiction determination of "online violence" infringement cases, rather than targeting copyright infringement cases in the field of information and internet rights. The Judicial Interpretation on Information and Network Rights was formulated in 2013. Unlike the Judicial Interpretation on Civil Procedure Law, which applies to the entire civil litigation, it is a judicial interpretation specifically made for information and network rights cases.

If we delve into this legislative background, it is not difficult to find that the reason why Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law considers the "location of the plaintiff" as the place where the infringement occurred and applies jurisdiction to the place where the infringement occurred is because "online violence" infringement cases are basically infringements of personality rights. Like ordinary "physical" infringement cases, the victims are all people. At this time, the location of the infringed object is regarded as the place where the infringement occurred, which not only conforms to the objective laws of infringement cases, but also conforms to the general jurisdiction principles of infringement cases. However, in contrast, in cases of infringement of information and network rights, although the victim is the author, the damage is to their property rights and interests, and the direct target of the infringement is the work rather than the person. Therefore, if the location of the person is taken as the place where the infringement occurred, it does not conform to the general rules of infringement cases.

From the above legislative background and analysis, it can be seen that a limited interpretation of "information network infringement" in Article 25 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law - excluding "infringement of information network dissemination rights" - can not only bring the jurisdiction of "infringement of information network dissemination rights" back under the general principle framework of infringement case jurisdiction, but also clarify the specific relationship between special law and general law between the two legal provisions, without the awkward situation of Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation of Information Network Rights being "sidelined".

Significance of the case

The above agency ideas have been basically adopted by the Civil Ruling No. 66 of Hebei High Court (2021) and the Civil Ruling No. 42 of the Supreme People's Court (2022). The most gratifying thing is that in the 42nd ruling of the Supreme Court, the reasoning part of the Supreme Court basically fully adopted our proxy opinion. This is undoubtedly the highest recognition of the hard work of our team members.

Indeed, the discussion on how to determine jurisdiction over such cases did not stop with the issuance of the Supreme Court's ruling No. 42. However, from the filing requirements of various courts for cases of infringement of information and network rights, it can be seen that this ruling has actually changed the previous judicial practice of "the defendant is the plaintiff". After the ruling was made, courts in various regions referred to the place of infringement and the defendant's domicile for filing such cases. It has had a significant impact on the current jurisdictional status of copyright disputes with a volume of millions, correcting the widely accepted and applicable jurisdictional status of information network communication rights disputes. Although the change in this convention is bound to bring considerable pain to the industry, reintroducing Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation on Cyberspace Administration of China into the framework of general jurisdiction for infringement, strictly adhering to the "conditional" provisions, and avoiding plaintiffs from deliberately choosing jurisdiction that is favorable to themselves, is still a positive manifestation of legal progress.