wipers are an important part of a motor vehicle. Recently, several companies have argued endlessly about whether the wiper connector is infringed: the patent owner Valeo Cleaning Systems Company (hereinafter referred to as "Valeo Company") filed a lawsuit in court and claimed 6 million yuan from Lucas and others, but the other party believed that the infringing product was not infringed.
The wiper produced by Lucas Company was accused of infringement on the morning of March 27, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court sounded the first hammer and publicly tried the case of infringement dispute over the invention patent of automobile wiper connector.
It is reported that this is also the first case that the Supreme Court Intellectual Property Court has publicly tried since its official establishment on January 1, 2019.
The inconspicuous wiper has brought a claim of RMB 6 million
Valeo Company, the patent owner of the Chinese invention patent named "Connectors and corresponding connection devices of wipers for motor vehicles".
Red Star News reporter searched on the patent search and analysis website of the National Intellectual Property Office and found that the application date of the invention patent was October 2, 2002, and the publication (announcement) date was January 12, 2011.
Instructions show that the device can lock the connector in the mounting position and can install any type of wiper on a standard arm and a standard connector. In layman's terms, it is a connecting device that makes the wiper not easy to fall off when swings at high speed.
Valeo Company's Summary of Invention Attachment of Figures
In 2016, Valeo Company filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, claiming that Xiamen Lucas Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Lucas Company"), Xiamen Fuke Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Fucas Company") and the wiper products manufactured and sold without permission by Chen, the legal representative of Lucas Company, constituted infringement, and requested that the three parties stop infringement, compensate for losses and reasonable expenses to stop infringement, temporarily amount to RMB 6 million.
In addition, Valeo Company applied to the court to make a preliminary judgment on the infringement determination on the grounds that the defendant's infringement continued after the lawsuit and seriously affected the sales of Valeo's patent products, and ordered the three defendants to immediately stop the infringement.
First instance introduced a preliminary judgment for the first time, and how to determine the scope of protection of invention patent rights to stop infringement?
According to the relevant provisions of the Patent Law, the scope of protection of invention or utility model patent rights shall prevail by the content of its claims. The specification and accompanying drawings may be used to explain the content of the claims. Red Star News reporters confirmed that there are 11 items in the claims for inventions involved in this case.
Lucas Company, Fuke Company and Chen jointly argued that the infringing product accused of not constitute infringement, and it is very controversial whether the infringing product is infringed.
It is worth noting that in intellectual property infringement dispute cases, it is often difficult to determine the infringement and compensation facts, which makes the trial take a long time. The pending judgment will not only expand the losses of the rights holder, but will not help improve the efficiency of case trial and judicial credibility.
Therefore, in this case, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court introduced a pre-judgment mechanism (referring to the fact that some of the facts are clear when the people's court hears a case, and the first judgment can be made on this part).
On January 22 this year, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court of the first instance court ruled in accordance with the law that the two defendants immediately stopped the infringement.
Supreme Court: Whether to infringement should be compared with technical characteristics
After the first instance judgment, Lucas Company and Fuke Company were dissatisfied with the above-mentioned judgment and filed a request to the Supreme People's Court to revoke the judgment, and re-judgment rejected Valeo Company's relevant litigation request.
htmlOn March 27, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court publicly tried the case. It is believed that in this case, one of the main focus of the dispute between the two parties is whether the accused infringing product falls within the three characteristics of the patent claim 1 involved.Presiding Judge Luo Dongchuan specifically pointed out that the court trial is to compare the technical characteristics in the technical solutions with the technical characteristics of the suspected infringing products, rather than to compare the two products.
Live trial screenshot
According to regulations, if the infringing product is suspected of having all the technical characteristics of the patent claims, it means that the respondent has taken advantage of the technical nature of the patent invention and falls into the scope of protection of the patent rights. Finally, after evaluation, the collegial panel held that the accused infringing products had the above characteristics.
The collegial panel emphasized that patents protect technical solutions and inventions. In the infringing products, even if technical characteristics are added and there are different technical effects, the technical contribution of patent inventions is still used and utilized, which does not mean that the protection scope of patent rights is not included.
If the preliminary judgment has not yet taken effect, the temporary injunction has the effect of enforcement and can have stronger protection for the patent owner. However, since the alleged infringing products have fallen into the protection scope of the patent involved, a verdict can be made on the substantive issues of the case in court, and there is no need to issue a temporary injunction.
In the end, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court made a final judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
Lawyer: Feiyue jurisdiction is conducive to unifying the judgment standards
Wu Shan, a member of the Intellectual Property Professional Committee of the National Lawyers Association and partner of Beijing Wanshang Tianqin (Chengdu) Law Firm, said in an interview with a reporter from Red Star News that whether the infringing product is infringed should first be compared with the patent rights claims, rather than the rights holder's products. Secondly, for the comparison method, it must be carried out in accordance with the claims on the patent certificate.
Wu Shan said that, for example, the wiper has many parts and the connection relationship between the parts. Each component is considered a technical feature point, and the connection relationship is also considered a technical feature point. "If you have all the technical characteristics of the infringed product on the accused infringing product, even if there are a few other characteristics, it will fully cover the rights characteristics of the other party's patent rights and constitute infringement." Relevant information about invention patents involved in
case
The scope of the claims should be broader, the better, or the more detailed, the better?
Wu Shan said that the fewer technical characteristics points, the greater the scope of protection of the right holder, but if it is too large, it will enter the public domain and lose creativity. The more technical characteristics you have, the more different it will be from the technical solutions in the public domain, and you will become your own unique, novel and innovative product. At this time, monopoly patent protection will be given. "The scope of protection is inversely proportional to the number of technical characteristic points. If there are too many technical characteristic points, the scope of protection will become narrow. The right holder should try to expand his scope of protection, but he cannot fall into the field of existing technology without creativity."
Wu Shan believes that the case is called the "first hammer" mainly reflects two aspects. "After the amendment of the Civil Procedure Law in 2017, the preliminary judgment was stipulated, but before the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court made a preliminary judgment on the case, it was actually It has not appeared in practice, and this is the first judgment. "
" Secondly, if the second instance of the case should be in the Shanghai High Court according to the original law, but this time the Supreme Court is directly under the jurisdiction, we call it Feiyue jurisdiction."
Wu Shan said that Feiyue jurisdiction "is more conducive to unifying the judgment standards for intellectual property cases, equally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of all types of market entities in accordance with the law, and increasing judicial protection of intellectual property rights."
Red Star News Reporter Chen Liuxing Photography Report
Edit Zhang Chao
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-