The top ten patent protection cases in 2016 were released, so come and watch!
Shandong vigorously strengthens patent protection and strictly enforces patent law. In 2016, the province’s intellectual property office system handled a total of 3,426 patent cases, including 479 patent dispute cases, an increase of 36.5% year-on-year; 2,947 cases of counterfeit patents were investigated, up 23.0% year-on-year, which effectively purified the market environment and created a good intellectual property protection environment for the in-depth development of "double innovation".
At the press conference held by the Provincial Government Information Office today, the Provincial Intellectual Property Office released ten typical cases of patent administrative protection in Shandong in 2016.
These ten typical cases are:
Requestor: Yin Hongzhu
Respondent: Zibo Dry Vacuum Pump Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of the invention patent involved in the case, and he found a screw rod rotor casting blank with a "gauge line" at the respondent. The "gauge line" is the trace left by the common casting process along the center line, and the patent involved is an improvement of the common casting process, and the improved casting process can be suitable for industrial production.
Shandong Intellectual Property Office transferred the burden of proof to the respondent according to the case, and finally made an administrative decision to identify the respondent’s infringement. Then, the respondent filed an administrative lawsuit with Jinan Intermediate People’s Court and Shandong Provincial High Court, and both courts upheld the decision of Shandong Provincial Intellectual Property Office.
(Comment) This case is a typical case in which the rules of evidence are reasonably used to determine the infringement by way of fact presumption. Based on the known facts and daily production experience, Shandong Intellectual Property Office can determine that the same product is likely to be manufactured by patented method, and appropriately transfer the burden of proof to the respondent, which reasonably reduces the burden of proof of the method patentee and strengthens the protection of non-new product method patents.
2. The case of invention patent rights protection of Lineng Water Heater Factory
Requestor: Zaozhuang Lineng Water Heater Factory.
Requested: Zaozhuang Parkson Heating Equipment Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of a heat exchanger invention patent, and he thinks that the products produced and sold by the respondent infringe his patent right, and the respondent argues that the technology it implements belongs to the existing technology.
Zaozhuang Intellectual Property Office thinks that the suspected infringing product is the same as the heat exchanger purchased by customer Zhou before the application date, and the suspected infringing product uses the existing technology, and rejects the processing request of the requester. The claimant refused to accept the request and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court. The court upheld the administrative decision of Zaozhuang Intellectual Property Office.
(Comment) This case is a typical case that the patent right has not been infringed through the defense of the existing technology. Zaozhuang Intellectual Property Office, based on the prior art defense claim put forward by the respondent, determined that the alleged infringing products used the prior art, thus determining that the respondent did not infringe. The case provided relief from infringement disputes to the public who used the existing technology, and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the public.
Requestor: Wang Chengjun
Respondent: Qingdao Meijialong Packaging Machinery Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the patentee of a binding machine, and one of the technical features recorded in his claim is that "after the binding is completed, the controller to which he belongs sends a feeding signal to the raw material conveying device", and the different understanding of this technical feature is the focus of the dispute in this case.
The technical feature of the patent involved is that the controller sends a signal to the motor, and the motor runs to realize feeding. The corresponding technical feature of suspected infringing products is that the controller sends a signal to the progressive die, and the switch of the pneumatic feeding device is controlled by the movement of the progressive die to realize feeding. Qingdao Intellectual Property Office believes that the two are equivalent technical features, so it has made a decision to identify infringement. The respondent refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, which upheld the original administrative decision.
Comment: This case is a typical case of correctly applying the principle of equivalence and reasonably determining the scope of patent protection. With basically the same technical means, basically the same functions are achieved, and basically the same effect is achieved, and the technical features that can be associated without creative labor are equivalent technical features for those skilled in the field.
4. The case of patent protection of vacuum collector tube invention
Requestor: Xu
Respondent: Huangming Solar Energy Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of a solar vacuum collector tube invention patent, and he found that the products produced and sold by the respondent were suspected of infringing his patent right. The focus of the dispute in this case is the different interpretations of the two technical terms "glass transition sealing tube" and "variable diameter curved transition tube" recorded in the claims.
Shandong Intellectual Property Office consulted the reexamination decision of the patent involved in the application review process, and held that the understanding of these two technical terms should be based on the interpretation of the reexamination decision, and accordingly determined that the respondent did not constitute infringement. The claimant refused to accept the decision, and filed an administrative lawsuit with Jinan Intermediate People’s Court and Shandong Provincial High Court successively. Both courts upheld the administrative decision of the Provincial Intellectual Property Office.
Comment: This case is a typical case of using "review files" to explain claims. When the patent claims, specifications and drawings can’t clearly define the specific concepts of technical terms related to its technical features, this case is determined by the records of the patent examination files involved, thus reasonably defining the scope of patent protection.
Requestor: Xu Jiaxiang
Respondent: Jinan Zhangli Machinery Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of the patent of "a kind of rotary stamping die striking head". He found that the product promised by the respondent was suspected of infringing his patent right at an exhibition in Binzhou, so he requested Binzhou Intellectual Property Office to handle it. After Binzhou Intellectual Property Office put the case on file, the case was handed over to Jinan Intellectual Property Office where the respondent was located after the exhibition because it was impossible to immediately determine whether the patent infringement was established during the exhibition. The Jinan Intellectual Property Office held that the technical features of the alleged infringing products completely fell within the scope of patent protection involved, and made a decision to determine the infringement.
(Comment) This case is a typical case of handling patent infringement disputes in exhibitions. This case has given full play to the advantages of cooperative law enforcement, formed a joint force of cross-regional patent protection, and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of patentees.
6. Zhang’s administrative mediation case of patent infringement dispute
Requestor: Zhang Lianyu
Respondent: a new building material company in Linyi and a building formwork company in Shandong.
(Case) The claimant is the patentee of a kind of building formwork fastener, and found that there are many infringing products on the market. Due to the unclear evidence and the sued subject, only two claimants were requested to deal with the infringement this time.
In the process of handling the case, Linyi Intellectual Property Office, in line with the principle of giving priority to mediation, considered that the case involved a wide range of infringement, and in order to effectively resolve disputes and protect innovation, it explained the law to the parties in line with the mediation idea of overall consideration and overall mediation, and finally reached a mediation agreement. Both respondents stopped the infringement, gave the claimant a one-time compensation, and promised not to infringe again in the future.
Comments Linyi is the "Plate Capital of China". With the prosperity of the wood industry, group patent infringements occur frequently. The successful mediation of this case has effectively improved the patent awareness of the enterprises suspected of infringement, promoted the standardized and healthy development of regional leading industries, and achieved good legal and social effects.
7. Anchor nail patent group infringement case
Requestor: Li Shuxiang
Respondent: Guangrao Haode Plastic Co., Ltd. and other 20 enterprises.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of the design patent named "Anchor Nail". The claimant found that there were 20 enterprises in 10 cities in Shandong and Hebei producing and selling products suspected of infringement, and accordingly filed a handling request with the Intellectual Property Office of Shandong Province. After filing the case, the bureau handed over the cases from other provinces in accordance with the law enforcement cooperation agreement, and held centralized hearings and separate trials on a series of cases involving this province. Finally, three cases reached a mediation agreement in court, and the cases that failed to reach a mediation agreement were decided to be infringed.
(Comment) Patent group infringement cases involve many infringing subjects, are widely distributed and are harmful, which not only disturbs the market order and hinders technological innovation, but also causes economic losses to patentees and brings great difficulties to patentees’ rights protection. After the Shandong Intellectual Property Office filed the case, it gave full play to the advantages of administrative law enforcement and made full use of the cooperative law enforcement mechanism, which greatly reduced the claimant’s cost of safeguarding rights and effectively cracked down on patent infringement.
8. Shenzhen Automation Company Patent Rights Protection Case
Requestor: Shenzhen 618 Industrial Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Respondent: Qingdao Coler Robot Technology Co., Ltd.
(Case) The claimant is the right holder of the utility model patent of "an automatic screw locking device", and he found that the products produced and sold by the respondent company were suspected of infringing his patent right. The focus of the dispute in this case is the different interpretations of one of the technical features recorded in the patent claims involved, "the limit mechanism fixed on the fixed bench".
Qingdao Intellectual Property Office believes that the "limiting mechanism" of the patent involved is to make the workpiece in the specified position, while the accused infringing product is to visually collect the position of the workpiece. Both of them are neither the same nor the same in terms of means of utilization, functions and effects, and the products accused of infringement did not fall into the protection scope of the patents involved, so the administrative decision of non-infringement was made. The claimant refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court, which upheld the administrative decision of Qingdao Intellectual Property Office.
(Comment) This case is a typical case of correctly explaining functional technical features and reasonably determining the scope of patent protection. For functional technical features, the content of the technical features shall be determined in combination with the specific implementation of the function described in the specification and the attached drawings and their equivalent implementations.
(Case) Jinan Intellectual Property Office received a report that the products produced and sold by Jinan Jin Dian Biotechnology Development Co., Ltd. were suspected of counterfeiting invention patents. The whistleblower showed the cooperation agreement signed with Wang, saying that his production and sales activities were approved by the patentee. The patentee approved the cooperation agreement, but said that the other party would not be allowed to use its patent after the expiration of the agreement.
Ji ‘nan Intellectual Property Office believes that the reported person’s behavior of marking the patent involved in the case on his product after the expiration of the cooperation agreement has constituted the act of counterfeiting patents, and made the following administrative punishment decision: order the reported person to immediately stop producing and selling the product marked with the patent number involved; The illegal income of 7110 yuan was confiscated and a fine of 3000 yuan was imposed. The punished person accepted the punishment and immediately paid the fine.
Comments: In the process of investigating this case, Jinan Intellectual Property Office found out the facts clearly, the evidence was conclusive and the procedure was rigorous, thus "closing the case", effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the obligee, and playing a certain role in alerting other counterfeit patents and false propaganda.
10. Investigate and deal with the patent case of counterfeit "building smoke exhaust duct"
(Case) Weifang Intellectual Property Office received a report that the products used by Xinyou Real Estate Co., Ltd. in its residential building project were suspected of counterfeiting patents.
After investigation, Weifang Intellectual Property Office found out that the products used by the informants were purchased from Wang, who was the licensee of the patent licensing contract involved. The difference between the product of the reported person and the patented technology involved is that the check valve is different.
Weifang Intellectual Property Office thinks that the reported product is not patented, but it claims to be patented technology, so it constitutes an act of counterfeiting patents, and makes the following administrative punishment decisions: order the reported product to immediately stop using counterfeit patented products and immediately dismantle the installed ones; Wang was ordered to immediately stop producing and selling counterfeit patented products and confiscate his illegal income of 60,000 yuan.
(Comment) This case is a typical case of tracing back to the source of production in the process of investigating counterfeit patents. Weifang Intellectual Property Office traced the source to the producer and seller on the basis of identifying the reported counterfeit patent, and imposed severe administrative punishment, which effectively cracked down on patent counterfeiting and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.