The Supreme Court Intellectual Property Court has filed a patent infringement dispute for the first time. Xu Lixintu, together with the infringement dispute involving wiper devices in China and abroad, "leaped" to the Supreme People's Court.

The Supreme Court Intellectual Property Court has filed a patent infringement dispute for the first time. Xu Lixin Picture

A dispute involving the infringement of wiper devices in China and abroad "leap" to the Supreme People's Court. On the morning of March 27, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court sounded the first hammer and held a public hearing on the case of infringement of invention patent rights dispute between the appellant Xiamen Lucas Auto Parts Co., Ltd., Xiamen Fuke Auto Parts Co., Ltd. and the respondent Valleo Cleaning Systems Co., Ltd. and the original defendant Chen Shaoqiang.

The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) learned from the trial that Luo Dongchuan, vice president of the Supreme Court, served as the presiding judge of the case and made a verdict in court: the appeal was rejected, the first-instance judgment was upheld, and the appellant was required to stop infringement.

At the same time, in response to the application for preservation of behavior in the lawsuit to stop infringement (a temporary injunction application), the court also pointed out that the infringing products are under the protection scope of the patent involved. After the verdict was announced in court, there is no need to issue a "temporary injunction".

French wiper wiper was sued for infringement by Chinese manufacturers, and won the first instance

The original plaintiff Valeo Cleaning Systems Company (VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE, hereinafter referred to as "Valeo Company") is a French automotive wiper supplier and a company under the French auto parts production giant Valeo (usually translated as "Valeo"). Valleo Company said that it owns the patent No. ZL200610160549.2, "The connector and corresponding connection device of the wiper of motor vehicles" in the case.

Valeo filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in 2016, requesting that the three defendants were determined to have infringed on their patents by 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 several models of wiper products produced by Chen Shaoqiang, the legal representative of Lucas Company infringed on their patent rights. Valeo Company filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in 2016, requesting that the three defendants be determined to have infringement and immediately stop the infringement and compensate for losses and stop the infringement of reasonable expenses.

In addition, Valeo also filed an application for temporary act preservation (also known as temporary injunction), requesting the court to rule that Lucas, Fuke and Chen Shaoqiang immediately stop the infringement.

The original defendants Lucas, Fuke Company, and Chen Shaoqiang all said that the infringing products were not covered by the protection scope of the patent rights involved in the case, and it is very controversial whether the infringing products were infringed. At the same time, it was said that the plaintiff Valeo Company had no evidence to prove that the infringing behavior was still ongoing, and believed that the court did not suspend the lawsuit because the patent was filed for invalidation declaration, and did not delay time. Therefore, Valeo Company's application has no factual and legal basis. Therefore, the three defendants requested the court to reject the plaintiff's application for advance judgment.

Shanghai Intellectual Property Court made a partial judgment on January 22, 2019, finding that Lucas and Fuke constituted infringement and ordered them to stop infringement, but did not deal with the application for a temporary injunction.

Lucas Company and Fuke Company were dissatisfied with the above-mentioned judgments in the first instance and filed an appeal with the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court.

upheld the first-instance judgment in court: stop infringement

In court, the original defendant Chen Shaoqiang did not appear in court after being summoned by court, and the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Court held absentia trial in accordance with the law.

The Paper noticed that Luo Dongchuan, Vice President of the Supreme Court, President of the Intellectual Property Court, and Second-level Justice Luo Dongchuan serves as the presiding judge. The five members of the collegial panel include 4 with a doctorate in law and 1 with a master of science.

The Supreme Court introduced that this case is a case that directly appealed from the Intermediate People's Court to the Supreme People's Court, and the parties are allowed to appeal separately to part of the first instance judgment.

"In the past, technical cases were generally in the first instance of the Intellectual Property Court and the relevant intermediate courts, and the Second instance of the High Court. Only when applying for retrial and retrial were applied to the Supreme Court." Luo Dongchuan, Vice President of the Supreme Court, once said in an exclusive interview with The Paper that after the establishment of the Supreme Court's Intellectual Property Court, these cases can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court without going through the local High Court. "This is a major change in our litigation system."

The focus of disputes in this case is mainly on: 1. Whether the infringing product is within the scope of the patent rights protection of the case.2. How should the appellant’s application for preservation of behavior in the lawsuit, namely the temporary injunction application, be handled.

During the trial, both parties conducted a court investigation and court debate on the above dispute. Appellant (original defendant) Lucas Company and Fuke Company believe that the infringing product is a connection relationship between the wiper arm and the connector, and the connector and the component is an hinged relationship, but there is no connection relationship between the wiper and the component, and the infringing product is commercially available in the use environment of non-standard wiper walls and non-standard connectors.

The respondent (formerly plaintiff) Valleo Company defended that regarding connection and articulation, the patent involved clearly states that the wiper arm and the wiper brush body are connected and articulated through the connector, a separate component, and the patent involved never requires direct contact between the two. At the same time, the respondent also requested the court to consider his preservation application in the first instance to make a preservation ruling.

compares the technical characteristics of the patent claims involved with the technical characteristics of the infringing products. The collegial panel held that the patent involved had undergone two invalid declaration procedures, and the Patent Reexamination Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office maintained the patent valid. So far, the rights Valeo enjoys for the patents involved in the case are protected by Patent Law, legal and valid, and should be protected.

"Even if technical characteristics are added to the infringing products and have different technical effects, the court believes that the technical contributions that utilize patent inventions are still used." The collegial panel pointed out that the infringing products have all the technical characteristics of the relevant requirements for patent rights. The characteristics of the infringing products are more than the technical characteristics of the patent involved, which does not mean that they are not included in the scope of patent protection. Even if the additional technical characteristics of the infringing products have certain effects, the court believes that the infringing products still fall into the scope of protection of the patent involved. Patents protect inventions and creations and technical solutions.

In terms of litigation and central preservation, the collegial panel commented that the original court's preliminary judgment and temporary injunction are two different systems and have their own value. Especially when the preliminary judgment to stop infringement has not yet taken effect, the temporary injunction has the effect of compulsory enforcement and has a stronger protection effect on the patent owner. The substantive trial of the infringement and the parties' application for temporary preservation of the infringement infringement can exist independently.

However, considering the situation in this case, the infringing product has fallen into the protection scope of the patent involved, so a verdict can be made on the substantive issues of the case in court. There is no need to issue a temporary injunction, so the request is not supported.

The collegial panel finally announced the verdict in court, rejecting the appeal of the appellants Lucas Company and Fuke Company, and upholding the original judgment in the first instance. The part of the infringement compensation in this case will be continued by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court.