The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court selected 20 typical cases from the 3,468 technology-related intellectual property and monopoly cases it concluded in 2022 and released them. Among them, there were 7 patent civil cases, 3 patent administrative disputes, 3 new plant variety cases, 3 technical secret cases, and 4 monopoly cases. This article will briefly introduce the 7 patent civil cases。
- China’s first drug patent link lawsuit concerning the scope of patent protection (Zhongwai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs. Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.)
[Case No.] (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 905
[Background of the case]
Zhongwai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed a drug patent linkage lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 76 of the Patent Law, requesting confirmation of the generic drug technical solution of Wenzhou Haihe Company’s “Eldecalcitol Soft Capsules” fall within the scope of protection of the patent claims involved. The court of first instance ruled to reject Zhongwai Co., Ltd.’s claim. Zhongwai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was not satisfied with the judgement and filed an appeal. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that Wenzhou Haihe Company did not make a statement on the claim with the largest scope of protection, and failed to notify Zhongwai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., the marketing authorization holder, of the statement and the basis for the statement in a timely manner. Its behavior was improper and should be criticized; The judgment of whether the generic drug technical solution falls within the protection scope of the patent claims should, in principle, be judged based on the application materials of the generic drug applicant; after comparison, the generic drug technical solution involved does not fall within the protection scope of the patent claims. Therefore, it was decided to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case is the first drug patent linkage litigation case in China. China’s drug patent linkage system has just been established and is still in the exploratory stage. The scoring of this case is an exploratory law that meets the legislative purpose of new problems arising in the practice of the drug patent linkage system. For this reason, it has received widespread attention and evaluation from Chinese and foreign media and the medical community. China Central Radio and Television carried reports as soon as possible, such as “New Era Promotion Progress 2022 Top Ten Designated Cases”.
- Successive patent infringements may constitute joint infringement (Sichuan Jinxiang Sairui Chemical Co., Ltd. vs.Shandong Hualu Hengsheng Chemical Co., Ltd., Ningbo Antai Environmental Chemical Engineering Design Co., Ltd., and Ningbo Houcheng Management Consulting Co., Ltd.)
[Case No.] (2020) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1559;
[Case No.] (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 541
[Background of the case]
In these two cases involving infringement of invention patents and infringement of technical secrets respectively, the plaintiff believed that several defendants jointly obtained and used the technical secrets involved, and that the behavior of the defendants constitutes a joint tort. The court of first instance partially supported the plaintiff’s claim. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the accused infringers had intentional communication of infringement, subjectively knew each other, and successively carried out corresponding infringements to form a complete chain of infringements. Objectively, the division of labor and cooperation constituted joint intentional infringements, and all infringements should be punished. Joint and several liability for damages. The judgment was reversed to support all the claims of the plaintiff, and the infringer was ordered to destroy the infringing production system and related technical secret carriers by means including but not limited to dismantling, and jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for a total economic loss of 218 million yuan (among them, 120 million yuan in compensation for the invention patent infringement case, and 98 million yuan in technical secret infringement cases).
[Typical Significance]
The second-instance judgment of this case pointed out that if the infringing subjects have intentional contact subjectively, objectively form a division of labor and cooperation, and jointly implement the act of infringing on the technical secrets involved in the case, resulting in inseparable damage consequences, and the damage consequences are the same as the infringing acts carried out by the infringing subject. There is a direct causal relationship between them, which constitutes a joint infringement. Moreover, in terms of liability for damages, the court held that the torts committed by the accused infringers were an indispensable part of the joint tort, and the actions of the four parties were indispensable and all caused the same damage. , there is a direct causal relationship between the consequences of the damage and the actions of the four parties, so each accused infringer should bear the joint and several liability for the losses caused by the joint infringement in full, rather than each in proportion. In general, this case has carried out a relatively detailed analysis of the joint infringement, which is worthy of reference and attention.
- The fault of the parties will be given priority consideration when determining the compensation liability for infringement of standard-essential patents
[Case No.] (2020) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1696
[Background of the case]
In the dispute over infringement of invention patent rights between Xu, Ningbo Lubao Technology Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Hebei Yideli Rubber Products Co., Ltd., and Hebei Jitongtong Bridge Construction Co., Ltd. , the patentee Xu and Lubao Company, the exclusive licensee of the patent involved in the case as the legal representative, believed that Jitong Company used the expansion joints manufactured and sold by Yideli Company in accordance with the patent involved in the Pingzan Expressway project device, the two companies constituted an infringement of the patent rights involved in the case, so they filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People’s Court of Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province, requesting that the two companies stop the infringement and jointly compensate for losses and reasonable expenses of 3 million yuan for rights protection. The court of first instance found that Yideli Company and Jitong Company had infringed the patent rights involved in the case, and ruled that Yideli Company should compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection of 100,000 yuan. Xu and Lubao Company refused to accept it and filed an appeal.
The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the patent involved in the case was a standard essential patent, and the recommended standard clearly disclosed the technical solution, patent number and contact information of the patentee involved in the case, and Lubao Company had notified Yideli Company of suspected infringement of the patent involved in the case in 2016 right. Knowing the existence of the patent involved, Yideli Company not only did not take the initiative to seek a patent license, but also implemented the patent involved again without permission, which was obviously subjectively at fault. The judgment was changed to support the right holder’s claim for compensation of 3 million yuan in full.
[Typical Significance]
This case shows that if standard essential patents do exist and the patentee has actively communicated, if the accused infringer cannot prove that it has fulfilled its obligation to actively seek a license, it may be found to have intentionally implemented the fault. As a result, he was sentenced to high punitive damages.
- “Dynamic password USB cable” utility model patent infringement case between Shenzhen Zudian Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Senshuqiang Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
[Case No.] (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 124
[Background of the case]
Zudian Electric Company is the owner of a utility model patent with the patent number 201720131230.0 and the title “A Dynamic Password USB Cable”. The power rental company believed that Senshuqiang Company and others had committed infringement, and filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province. Senshuqiang Company argued that the power rental company applied for the involved utility model patent and the related utility model patent with substantially the same technical solution on the same day, and the related patent right has been declared invalid. Based on the same reason, the involved patent right should also be invalid. Therefore, the power rental company’s claim should be dismissed. The court of first instance determined that the technical solutions of the above two patents were essentially the same, and the patent rights involved in the case were obviously or very likely to be invalidated, so it ruled to reject the power rental company’s claim. The electricity rental company refused to accept it and filed an appeal. During the second instance procedure of this case, Senshuqiang Company filed a request for invalidation of the patent involved. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that, when the stability of the patent right involved in the case is in doubt or disputed, and there are multiple options for handling the case in the follow-up trial procedure, the People’s Court can make appropriate decisions as appropriate. The case has been explained that both parties voluntarily made corresponding commitments on compensation for future interests regarding the stability of the patent right. The Supreme People’s Court adopted the approach of “refuting first and suing separately” based on the basic facts of the case, the evidence on file and the commitments of both parties., ruling to revoke the first-instance judgment and dismiss the prosecution.
[Typical Significance]
In this case, when the patent invalidation proceeding involved in the case has already started, the people’s court tried for the first time to guide both parties to voluntarily make future interest compensation commitments in view of the uncertainty of the outcome of the confirmation procedure. The judgment clarifies that in patent infringement cases, when the stability of the patent rights involved in the case is doubtful or disputed, based on the consideration of fairness and good faith, the people’s court may encourage and guide the parties to voluntarily make compensation commitments or statements related to future interests, which can effectively promote the case. The trial procedure properly balances the substantive interests of the parties.
- “Fixed Anchor Bolt” utility model patent infringement case between Fuzhou Baiyi Baili Automation Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Diangua Construction Technology Co., Ltd., et. al.
[Case No.] (2021) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1066
[Background of the case]
Fuzhou Baiyi Baili Co., Ltd is the owner of the utility model patent with the patent number 201320534267.X and the name “Fixed Anchor Bolt”. Fuzhou Baiyi Baili Company believed that Shanghai Diangua Company infringed the patent right involved in the case, so it filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, requesting an order to stop the infringement and joint compensation for losses and reasonable expenses of 2.5 million yuan for rights protection. The court of first instance held that the alleged infringing technical solution fell within the protection scope of the patent involved, but the conflicting application defenses of Shanghai Diangua Company were established, so it ruled to reject Fuzhou Baiyi. The Supreme People’s Court held in the second instance that the defense of the conflicting application cannot be established; it can be determined that Shanghai Diangua Company, which implemented the infringing technical solution, and Zhang Moumou, who provided the technical solution, jointly implemented the infringement of the patent right involved in the case; Fuzhou Baiyibaili Company claimed that Taking the business scale publicized by Shanghai Diangua Company and Zhang XX as the basis for the calculation of damages, although Shanghai Diangua Company and Zhang XX argued that the business scale was an exaggerated propaganda, they did not submit evidence to prove their actual infringement business scale. Based on the scale of the above-mentioned external publicity business and comprehensive consideration of other factors in the case, the judgment was changed to fully support Fuzhou Baiyi Baili Company’s 2.5 million yuan compensation claim.
[Typical Significance]
This case determines the scale of the infringement based on the content of the accused infringer’s publicity, and on this basis, comprehensively determines the amount of compensation. The subject follows the principle of good faith in business activities. In addition, although the patented products involved in the case are small components and the unit price is not high, small patents can also receive high compensation, reminding everyone that they should respect the innovations of others.
- Two cases concerning the ownership dispute between Aerospace Long March Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd. and Luxi Chemical Group Co., Ltd. and Liaocheng Luxi Chemical Engineering Design Co., Ltd. over a patent titled “gasifier dedusting device and system”
[Case No.] (2020) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1652;
(2020) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1293
[Background of the case]
The patents involved are utility model patents with patent number 201620067057.8 titled “A Synthetic Gas Dust Removal System” and patent number 201720586771.2 titled “A gasifier outlet gas spray device”. Aerospace Long March Company believes that during the cooperation period, Luxi Chemical Group Company and Liaocheng Luxi Chemical Company violated the confidentiality obligation agreement and applied for the two patents involved with the technology provided by Aerospace Long March Company, so it filed a lawsuit with Jinan Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province, requesting It is confirmed that the two patent rights belong to Aerospace Long March Company. The court of first instance held that the patented technical solution involved in the case was an improved technical solution of Luxi Chemical Group Company and Liaocheng Luxi Chemical Company based on the technical solution of Aerospace Long March Company, but the improvement did not have substantive characteristics, so it ruled that the two patents involved belonged to Aerospace Long March Company all. Luxi Chemical Group Company and Liaocheng Luxi Chemical Company were not satisfied with the judgement and filed an appeal. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court held that Luxi Chemical Group and Liaocheng Luxi Chemical could not prove that the improvements they made based on others’ non-public technical solutions were creative technical contributions that made inventions and creations have substantive characteristics. Therefore, it was decided to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
[Typical Significance]
This case clarifies the burden of proof in disputes over patent rights with improved technical solutions of non-disclosed technical solutions as the object of protection, and reasonably defines the basis for the technology source and technology improver to obtain rights, so as to avoid failure to make substantive The main body of technical contribution takes others’ non-disclosed technical solutions as its own by applying for patents, which effectively protects the legitimate rights and interests of the technology source. This case was shortlisted for the voting session of “Top Ten Cases in 2022 to Promote the Rule of Law in the New Era”.
- Two cases concerning the ownership dispute between Zhejiang Zuoyuan Medical Technology Co., Ltd. and Wan Mou over patent rights and patent application rights titled “stapler and suture needle kit”
[Case No.] (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 1330,
(2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhong No. 2365
[Background of the Case]
Wan is the owner of the patent No. 202020661599.4 named “suture device and suture needle set” and patent application number 202010343019.1 named “suture device, treatment device with a stapler, and treatment system”. Zuoyuan Company believes that Wan was once the legal representative of the company, and the above two inventions and creations completed during his employment are service inventions, and the relevant rights should be owned by Zuoyuan Company, so he filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People’s Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province. The court of first instance dismissed the claim on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Zuoyuan Company refused to accept it and filed an appeal. During the second-instance procedure, the Supreme People’s Court comprehensively sorted out a series of conflicts and disputes between the two parties, helped them clarify their core demands, fully explained them, patiently guided them, and resolved all related disputes between the two parties in a package to achieve win-win cooperation.
[Typical Significance]
The successful mediation of the two cases has resolved the conflicts and series of disputes accumulated by the two parties for many years, fully embodies the excellent traditional Chinese culture of valuing peace and mutual benefit, and demonstrates the people’s court’s efforts to reduce the litigants’ burden and substantive Judicial attitude towards resolving disputes.