Plaintiff:Microsoft Inc.Defendant:Beijing Yadu Technology GroupOn 17 November 1998， Microsoft Inc. authorized China United Intellectual Property Protection Centerto investigate incidents of infringement against Microsoft’s copyright in its software.CUIPPC discovered pirated CDs at the Yadu Building， located at No. 1， Kaituo Road， Shangdi Information Industry Zone， Haidian District， Beijing.Among the pirated CDs were more than 10 versions of MS-DOS， MS-Windows 95 and MS-Office 97， all of which are Microsoft copyrighted products.Enforcement officers from Haidian District Administration of Industry and Commerce ， under the supervision of a notary public， inspected the software on site.Microsoft subsequently instituted a lawsuit against the Defendant.The Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case on 31 March 1999 and conducted a public hearing on the case on 18 November 1999.The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction of the aforementioned software constituted copyright infringement.Testimony from a computer engineer who worked for the Defendant further revealed that the pirated software had been installed on approximately 50 of the Defendant’s computers.The Plaintiff requested that the Defendant immediately cease its infringement， publicly apologize， pay RMB 1.5 million to the Plaintiff in compensatory damages and bear all costs associated with the lawsuit， including attorneys’ fees， investigation fees and evidence collection expenses.The Defendant responded by claiming that there was insufficient evidence to show that they were the infringing party， and provided evidence that at least one other independent enterprise was a tenant of the Defendant’s premises.The Defendant asserted that it did not own the computers on which the pirated software was installed， and that the engineer who testified for the Plaintiff was not an employee of the Defendant.The court found that the Yadu Building is the business premises of Beijing Yadu Technology Stocks Co.， Ltd. and Beijing Yadu Technology Group.Therefore， the court ruled that the notarized record of the Haidian AIC’s action could not necessarily prove that Beijing Yadu Technology Group was the infringing party.Additionally， no direct evidence was admitted to show that the engineer who was the Plaintiff’s witness was an employee of Beijing Yadu Technology Group.Based on the above facts， the Court declared that there was insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim， since Beijing Yadu Technology Group was not a qualified Defendant in the case.Therefore， the Court issued Civil Judgment Yi Zhong Zhi Chu 37[1999]， rejecting the Plaintiff’s lawsuit and requiring the Plaintiff to pay the RMB500 case acceptance fee.