In civil litigation, "repeated litigation" is a common legal concept that not only pertains to the litigation rights of the parties involved but also impacts the rational allocation of judicial resources. Recently, in a civil case represented by the Chang Tsi & Partners, we successfully argued that the plaintiff's claims constituted "repeated litigation," which was ultimately upheld by both the first-instance and second-instance courts, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of our client.

I. The Definition and Legal Basis of Repeated Litigation

According to Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, "repeated litigation" is established when the following three conditions are simultaneously met: the parties are identical, the subject matter of the litigation is identical, and the claims are identical.

II. Practical Standards for Determining Repeated Litigation

(A) Determining Whether the Parties Are Identical

According to Article 247 of the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, repeated litigation requires that the parties in the previous and subsequent lawsuits be identical. However, in practice, it is uncommon for the parties in both lawsuits to be completely identical. The plaintiff in the subsequent lawsuit often attempt to avoid the characterization of repeated litigation by adding, removing, or altering parties. Despite these formal differences, if the subject matter of the litigation in both suits is essentially the same, and the added parties have no factual or legal interest in the case, or if the roles of plaintiff and defendant are reversed but there exists a risk of contradictory judgments (e.g., the first suit claims the contract is invalid, while the second claims it is valid), the parties should still be considered substantially identical.

(B) Determining Whether the Subject Matter of Litigation Is Identical

The subject matter of litigation, as a specific claim of substantive law or legal relationship, requires both factual and legal consistency for its identity to be established. In scenarios involving concurrent claims, if the first lawsuit is ongoing and the parties initiate a subsequent lawsuit with overlapping claims, it constitutes repeated litigation.

(C) Standards for Identifying Identical Claims

Identical claims are determined in two ways: one is when the claims themselves are identical (including completely consistent or encompassing); the other is when the subsequent claim essentially negates the judgment of the previous case. The latter is exemplified by directly negating the main text of the previous judgment (e.g., the first suit confirms the contract's validity, while the second claims it is invalid) or indirectly negating the main text by challenging the preliminary legal relationships (e.g., the first judgment orders the continuation of contract performance, while the second claims the contract is invalid).

III. Case Review

In a recent infringement dispute case, the Chang Tsi & Partners’ team effectively safeguarded our client’s legitimate rights and interests by accurately applying the rules on “repeated litigation” as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law and its judicial interpretations.

Case Summary

In a joint infringement lawsuit, the Chang Tsi team was entrusted by Defendant 2, Company A. During the process of collecting and organizing evidence, the we discovered that the plaintiff, Company B, had previously filed an arbitration request with the Arbitration Commission of a certain city in Sichuan Province, based on the same facts as this case. In that arbitration, Company B sought to hold Defendant 1, Company C, liable for breach of contract. The arbitration commission issued an arbitral award dismissing all of Company B’s claims.

Upon discovering this fact, the Chang Tsi team promptly contacted the presiding judge and explained that the current case constituted repeated litigation, as Company B was filing a lawsuit in court based on the same facts that had already been arbitrated. During the trial, Company B argued that the case did not constitute repeated litigation because the parties involved and the legal relationships were different.

The Chang Tsi team emphasized that, although Company B adopted different causes of action in the commercial arbitration and the civil lawsuit, changing from a contract dispute to an infringement claim, the fundamental legal facts, core issues of contention, and substantive matters in dispute were identical. This constituted repeated litigation, as it involved asserting rights based on the same legal relationship and the same facts. The first-instance court accepted the Chang Tsi team’s defense and ruled that Company B’s lawsuit constituted repeated litigation, dismissing the case.

Company B appealed, claiming that the parties and causes of action in the case differed from those in the commercial arbitration. However, the appellate court again accepted the Chang Tsi team’s arguments, dismissing the appeal and upholding the first-instance court’s ruling.

Case Analysis

This case is a typical case of a plaintiff attempting to create the illusion that repeated litigation did not occur by adding parties after losing in a binding commercial arbitration. Although, on the surface, the parties in the infringement lawsuit were not entirely identical to those in the commercial arbitration, the newly added parties had no direct interest in the subject matter of the case. Therefore, the parties in the infringement lawsuit and the prior commercial arbitration were substantively identical.

Additionally, the infringement liability claimed by Company B in this case overlapped with the breach of contract liability it asserted in the arbitration. After seeking arbitration based on the same facts and the agreed terms, Company B’s subsequent lawsuit based on infringement liability constituted repeated litigation. Such a case falls outside the scope of civil cases that courts should accept.

The determination of repeated litigation is not merely a procedural technicality but also concerns the balance between judicial authority and litigation efficiency. This case demonstrates that, in determining whether repeated litigation exists, we must look beyond formal differences and consider factors such as the substantive identity of the parties, the essential connection between the subject matter, and the exclusivity of the claims. By doing so, we can provide precise litigation strategies for parties and efficiently resolve civil disputes.