According to Article 4 of the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs, protected layout designs should have originality, that is, the layout design is the result of the creator's own intellectual labor, and at the time of its creation, the layout design is not recognized as a conventional design among layout design creators and integrated circuit manufacturers. Article 30: Except as otherwise provided in these Regulations, if a person commits any of the following acts without the permission of the right holder of a layout design, the tortfeasor must immediately cease the infringing act and assume liability for compensation: (1) Copying all or any original part of a protected layout design; （2） Importing, selling, or otherwise providing protected layout designs, integrated circuits containing such layout designs, or items containing such integrated circuits for commercial purposes.The originality of 02 integrated circuit layout design requires that the exclusive right of layout design protects the three-dimensional configuration of components and circuits in the integrated circuit. Due to the lack of three-dimensional configuration of components and circuits in the functional hierarchy of layout design, no protection is provided; At this level, the expression of originality gradually strengthens, providing protection for component allocation, layout, interconnection between various components, information flow relationships, and combination effects.

The originality of protected layout design can be reflected in any original part of the layout design, as well as in the overall layout design. Any original part in layout design is protected by law, regardless of whether it occupies a major part in the overall design or can achieve the core performance of the overall design. If a layout design is composed of recognized conventional design combinations, then the combination as a whole should have originality. If the rights holder proposes an original part, then that part should be able to perform a certain electronic function relatively independently. The originality of layout design includes two meanings: self designed completion; Not considered a conventional design at the time of creation. At the same time as proposing the originality part, the rights holder may explain the originality part. The rights holder's originality explanation may be a summary or abstraction of the originality part from different perspectives, and may not necessarily include a description of the three-dimensional configuration content. However, when judging the originality of the parts specified by the rights holder, the specific three-dimensional configuration of the components and circuits contained in the rights holder's specified part should be taken as the object of judgment based on the rights holder's originality explanation. In the process of proving the originality of the part proposed by the rights holder, it cannot be assumed that the entire or any part of the layout design is original based on registration and filing. However, for the proof of originality, the burden of proof on the rights holder should not be excessively increased, and they should be required to exhaust all means to prove the originality of the layout design. Relatively speaking, the accused infringer's claim of originality can be overturned as long as they can provide a publicly available conventional layout design. Therefore, the allocation of the burden of proof for originality should fully consider factors such as the characteristics of integrated circuit layout design, the current registration status of integrated circuit layout design in China, and the ability of both parties to provide evidence. Based on the originality part proposed by the rights holder, the rights holder is first required to fully explain or preliminarily prove the originality part they claim. Then, the accused infringer should provide opposite evidence to prove that there is no originality, and make a judgment on the basis of comprehensive consideration of the above facts and evidence. The registration of infringement comparison principle for integrated circuit layout design is a prerequisite for generating exclusive rights to layout design, and does not have the nature of publicly disclosing layout design content. In the case where the layout design has been registered and exclusive rights have been obtained, the determination of infringement of the layout design is similar to the determination of copyright infringement, and cannot adopt the same rules as the determination of patent infringement. Even when the accused infringing chip and the layout design have the same or substantially the same composition, it is necessary to consider whether the accused infringer has the possibility of contacting the layout design, that is, the infringement determination of the layout design adopts the judgment method of contact plus the same or substantially the same. Among them, contact refers to the right holder providing evidence to prove that the accused infringer had the possibility of contacting the involved layout design before the accused infringement occurred, without requiring them to provide evidence of actual contact that had already occurred. In the case of infringement of exclusive rights in integrated circuit layout design under Supreme People's Court Notice No. 490 (2019), the involved layout design had already been put into commercial use before registration, and products using the involved layout design were sold in relevant markets. The legal representative of Saixin Company, Tan Jian, paid monthly remuneration to Hu Caihuan from August 2011 to April 2013, and the amount paid during this period was roughly equivalent.

It is reasonable for Tan Jian, as the legal representative of Saixin Company, to distribute remuneration to Hu Caihuan on behalf of Saixin Company. From the perspective of monthly payments and roughly equivalent amounts within a certain period of time, this payment is closer to salary rather than cooperative sales commission. Even though there is no evidence that Hu Caihuan had contact with the involved layout design drawings through the designer, there is still a possibility that he had contact with and used the involved layout design products during the sales process. Hu Caihuan later established Zhunxin Micro Company as the sole shareholder and served as the legal representative. He copied the involved layout design and sold products using the involved layout design, without providing the source of the accused infringing layout design. Based on the above analysis, this court determines that Zhunxin Micro Company meets the conditions for contact possibility, and Saixin Company does not need to provide evidence to prove that Zhunxin Micro Company actually carried out reverse engineering and had actual contact with the involved layout design.[Reference Case] 1 (2019) Supreme People's Court Judgment No. 490