Case Represented by Attorney Weichao Li Selected as One of “Case Talk on IP” 2025 Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases

On August 3, the selection results of the “Case Talk on IP” 2025 Typical Intellectual Property Cases solicitation event, jointly hosted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Law Research Association and IP Economy, were officially announced. The open-source software copyright infringement dispute case represented by Weichao Li, Senior Partner at Rayto, stood out from over 400 participating cases nationwide and was successfully selected as one of the “Case Talk on IP” 2025 Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases.

Original link from IP Economy: “Case Talk on IP” 2025 Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases Selection Results Officially Announced┃Judgment Attached

This solicitation event invited intellectual property legal practitioners nationwide to submit representative cases concluded in 2025. More than 400 real, desensitized cases were submitted by law firms and legal service teams from various parts of the country, covering the full spectrum of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and data-related unfair competition. The organizing committee strictly screened cases based on five major review dimensions: typicality, professionalism, innovation, influence, and practical value. Through layer-by-layer selection from perspectives such as the case’s guiding value for adjudication, industry demonstrative effect, supplementation of legal rules, and response to frontier issues, the batch of selected typical cases was ultimately determined and publicly released. ※ Cases are listed in no particular order, arranged alphabetically by case name.

Case 3: Open-Source Software Copyright Infringement Dispute

【Case Introduction】

Shanghai Zhuo Company acquired the copyright in DedeCMS software by assignment and believed that Jiangyin Mo Company used DedeCMS software to build a website without authorization, constituting infringement.

Jiangyin Mo Company argued that DedeCMS software had long been publicly promoted as “open-source and free,” and that it accepted social donations, so users could not be required to pay fees; otherwise, it would violate good faith. DedeCMS software includes the sphinxclient library under the GPL license, and thus constitutes a work based on a GPL program under the GPL license and should be licensed externally under the GPL.

The first-instance court held that Jiangyin Mo Company had obtained a license by virtue of the GPL license, did not infringe the right of reproduction, and did not need to pay licensing fees. However, because it did not mark the right holder’s creation mark or official website link on the homepage, it infringed the right of attribution.

The second-instance court held that where the software right holder has not licensed the software under the GPL, the GPL does not automatically apply; instead, the self-drafted commercial license agreement applies. Shanghai Zhuo Company should have licensed the software in compliance with the GPL, allowing users to use it free of charge under the GPL. However, it adopted a self-drafted commercial license agreement requiring commercial users to obtain authorization through payment. While requiring users to comply with its agreement, it failed to comply with the GPL of others’ software. This not only violated the principle of good faith, but also undermined the basic order of the open-source field and was not conducive to building a healthy and orderly open-source ecosystem. This circumstance should be an important factor in determining the amount of damages.

【Typical Significance】

The open-source model featuring openness, equality, collaboration, and sharing accelerates software iteration and upgrading and promotes collaborative innovation between production and use. It has become the dominant model of global software technology and industrial innovation. This case involves the determination of copyright infringement in open-source software. In practice, there is considerable controversy over whether a right holder may charge licensing fees to others where the proprietary software is subject to the viral effect of the GPL license but the right holder has not complied with the GPL.

In adjudicating the case, the court actively explored adjudication rules and for the first time clarified that the fact that proprietary software is subject to the viral effect of the GPL does not mean that it has automatically and necessarily been licensed under the GPL. Even if the right holder has not followed the rules by licensing externally under the GPL but instead licenses under a commercial license agreement, it still has the right to claim infringement liability against third parties using the proprietary software. However, in view of its bad-faith conduct in not complying with the GPL, the judgment should determine a relatively low amount of damages.

This case provides a useful reference for the adjudication of cases involving open-source software, helps safeguard the healthy development of the software industry, and promotes the construction of a healthy and orderly open-source ecosystem.