最高人民法院在2026年2月的终审判决中驳回露某美公司上诉，罕见点名批评其滥用专利诉权、违背诚 信原则，认定其诉讼行为系"精心算计、反复无常"，并明确宣告专利权不得作为敲诈工具。 2026年2月，最高人民法院在一起"电子狗"专利侵权终审判决中，罕见地直接点名批评原告露某美公 司："其行为可谓既精心算计、又反复无常"。 这起终审判决不仅驳回了露某美公司对宇树科技的全部上诉请求，更释放出明确信号：滥用专利诉权、 违背诚信原则的诉讼行为，将受到司法否定。 2025年，露某美公司向浙江省杭州市中级人民法院提起诉讼，指控宇树科技制造、销售的"Gox"机器狗 侵犯其名为"一种电子狗"的发明专利（专利号：201610396363.0）。 露某美公司称，该专利涵盖四肢关节驱动、头颈部多传感器集成、无线控制及可变色仿生毛皮等技术特 征，而宇树科技的产品全面覆盖这些内容，构成直接或等同侵权。该公司还指出，宇树科技在多个电商 平台销售被诉产品，总销售额超7800万元，并宣称该款产品为"全球首款消费级仿生机器人"，涉嫌攀附 商誉。露某美公司最初索赔500元，但同时要求以法院审计结果为准，并主张按侵权获利的3至5倍适用 惩罚性赔偿，总 ...

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the Civil Code in China has significantly influenced social life and legal practices over the past five years, marking a milestone in the development of the legal system and providing a solid foundation for the rule of law in the country [1][17]. Group 1: Impact on Legal Practices - Since the Civil Code's implementation on January 1, 2021, over 73.26 million civil litigation cases have been adjudicated across various categories, including property disputes and family law [7]. - The Civil Code has introduced new rules that have led to profound changes in daily life, such as the "Good Samaritan clause," which encourages helping others by allowing compensation for damages incurred while protecting others' rights [7]. - The Civil Code's emphasis on the principle of good faith has been highlighted in cases, reinforcing the importance of honesty and integrity in legal proceedings [7]. Group 2: Case Studies Illustrating the Civil Code's Application - A case in Wuxi regarding the installation of elevators in old residential buildings showcased the Civil Code's role in resolving conflicts between residents, where the requirement for majority approval for modifications was reduced from two-thirds to a simple majority [3][5]. - In Chongqing, a food safety case involving a large purchase of bamboo shoots led to judicial recommendations for industry upgrades, demonstrating the Civil Code's influence on social governance and modernization [10][13]. - The first case of voice rights infringement in China involved the unauthorized use of an individual's voice by AI, which was addressed under the Civil Code's provisions for personality rights, marking a significant advancement in legal protections for digital rights [15][17]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Society - The Civil Code's comprehensive nature has been described as a "encyclopedia of social life," reflecting its extensive impact on various aspects of daily living and legal interactions [1][5]. - The establishment of the Civil Code is seen as a critical step in the evolution of China's legal framework, aligning with the country's goals for a rule-based society and governance [17]. - The Civil Code's provisions, including the independent compilation of personality rights, respond to contemporary societal needs and contribute to the ongoing development of a fair and just legal system [17].

Core Viewpoint - A software development company in Shanghai was held liable for breaching the principle of good faith after rescinding a job offer to an applicant due to a background check result, leading to the applicant incurring significant losses [1][3][5]. Group 1: Case Background - The company issued a job offer to Mr. Zhang for a quantitative developer position on April 1, 2024, specifying the intended start date and salary [1]. - Mr. Zhang confirmed his acceptance and began preparations for the new job, including resigning from his previous position and relocating [1][2]. - On April 26, the company informed Mr. Zhang that his background check result was a "yellow light," which did not meet their hiring standards, leading to the cancellation of the job offer [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - Mr. Zhang contested the background check result, arguing that the lawsuit record was from a civil rights protection case where he was the plaintiff, and thus should not be a valid reason for employment discrimination [2]. - The background check company later revised its assessment, suggesting that the civil lawsuit was of a lesser degree and recommended changing the result to a "blue light" [2]. - Despite this, the software company maintained its decision to rescind the offer, prompting Mr. Zhang to file a lawsuit for damages [2][3]. Group 3: Court Ruling - The court ruled that the company acted in bad faith by issuing a job offer and then rescinding it without just cause, which caused Mr. Zhang to incur various expenses [3][5]. - The court ordered the company to compensate Mr. Zhang a total of 13,200 yuan for his relocation costs, lost wages, and other related expenses [3][4]. Group 4: Implications for Employment Practices - The case highlights the importance of adhering to the principle of good faith in labor relations, emphasizing that a civil lawsuit record alone is not a legitimate reason to deny employment [5][6]. - Employers are advised to base hiring decisions on relevant job qualifications rather than on an applicant's legal history, as this could lead to legal repercussions [5][6].

Group 1 - The case involves a traffic accident where the plaintiff, Yu, claimed compensation for 801 days of hospitalization, but 434 days were found to be "hanging bed" days without treatment [2][15][20] - The court determined that Yu's extended hospitalization was unjustified based on medical records, leading to a reduction in the claimed compensation [15][20][24] - The court emphasized the importance of honesty in civil activities and the negative impact of fraudulent claims on medical resources [24][25] Group 2 - The case highlights a growing trend of individuals seeking higher compensation through fraudulent hospitalization claims, which undermines the integrity of the legal system [22][24] - The court's ruling serves as a warning against dishonest practices in personal injury claims, reinforcing the need for evidence-based claims [24][25] - The ruling aligns with the principles outlined in the Civil Code, which mandates reasonable compensation for actual medical expenses incurred [15][24]

Core Viewpoint - The collective return of clothing by students from Shenyang Liaomei Vocational School highlights issues surrounding the "seven-day no-reason return" policy, raising questions about consumer rights and the integrity of the return process [2][3][5] Group 1: Legal Framework - The "seven-day no-reason return" policy is designed to protect online consumers, allowing returns without explanation within seven days of receipt [2] - However, the law stipulates that returned items must be in "good condition," meaning they should not be used or damaged, which the returned clothing clearly violated [2][3] Group 2: Ethical Considerations - The principle of good faith in civil activities is emphasized, indicating that consumers should act honestly, and the students' actions of returning used clothing contradict this principle [3] - The incident reflects a broader issue of social integrity, as exploiting return policies undermines trust in consumer transactions [3] Group 3: E-commerce Platform Issues - The e-commerce platform's reliance on algorithms for risk control led to a blanket ban on the merchant's store due to high return rates, indicating a flaw in the platform's operational mechanisms [3][4] - The lack of a manual review process for unusual return patterns can result in unjust penalties for honest merchants [3][4] Group 4: Institutional Responsibility - The school bears some responsibility for the incident, as the event should have been planned with consideration for costs and integrity education [3][4] - Previous similar incidents at other institutions suggest a pattern of exploiting return policies, indicating a need for better oversight and education on consumer rights [4] Group 5: Recommendations for Improvement - There is a call for legal clarification on "malicious returns" and increased penalties for exploitative behaviors to protect merchants [4] - E-commerce platforms should implement a hybrid review system combining artificial intelligence and human oversight to better manage return policies [4] - Schools should develop fair cost-sharing mechanisms for event-related expenses to prevent students from resorting to unethical practices [4]