Source:|Author:China IP|Publish time:\u00a02018-07-25|18\u00a0Views<\/p>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 [Synopsis]<\/p>\n
Appellant (Plaintiff below): Jiangsu Hompe Technology Co., Ltd. (Hempe)<\/p>\n
Appellee (Defendant below): Changzhou Youon Technology Co., Ltd. (Youon)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Homepe is an exclusive licensee of an invention patent entitled\u00a0\u201cManagement System of Parking\/Obtaining\/Renting\/Returning of Non-motorized vehicles and Method for Control and Identification Thereof\u201d\u00a0(the Patent). Hompe alleged that all the elements in the public bicycle rental system manufactured and operated in Songjiang District of Shanghai by Youon fell in the protective range of claim 1 of the Patent, constituting patent infringement, for which it sued in Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, seeking injunction of manufacture and sale of the alleged infringing products, as well as economic damages and reaonsable expenses.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Claim\u00a01\u00a0of\u00a0the Patent states: A management system of parking\/obtaining\/rending\/returning for non-motorized vehicle, comprising wherein (1) a storage means for coding information of said vehicle, (2) a communications supervision and control unit; (3) receiving data of vehicle and its whereabouts from, and transmitting commands to, said communications supervision and control unit, to manage unit for controlling parking\/obtaining\/renting\/returning terminals on the vehicle; and (4) storage means of membership portable data for parking\/obtaining\/renting\/returning vehicle. The relevant mode of application and the accompanying drawings of the Patent specification both relate to two functions of\u00a0\u201cparking\/obtaining\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201crenting\/returning\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Upon comparison, the parties disputed over whether the\u00a0\u201cparking\/obtaining\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201crenting\/returning\u201d\u00a0are parallel or alternate choices, and whether there was identical or equivalent elements to other limitations of claim 1.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court of first instance found that\u00a0\u201cparking\/obtaining\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201crenting\/returning\u201d\u00a0in the preamble and limitations (3) and (4) of claim 1 of the Patent are parallel to each other, rather than alternative, and the accused device has only the management of\u00a0\u201crenting\/returning\u201d\u00a0functions for members to rent vehicles. Moreover, the other elements of the accused device are not identical with or equivalent t othe patent limitations. Therefore, the accused device does not fall in the protective range of the Patent.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Shanghai Intelelctual Property Court at first instance trial decides: all complaints of Homepe are rejected. After the announcement of the judgement, Hompe was dissatisfied and appealed, which was rejected by Shanghai High People\u2019s Court, affirming the decision below.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
[Judge\u2019s Comment]<\/p>\n
This case focuses on the interpretation of a symbol, to wit, understanding of the meaning of forward slash\u00a0\u201c\/\u201d\u00a0as used in\u00a0\u201cparking\/obtaining\u201d\u00a0and\u00a0\u201crenting\/returning\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the realm of patent practice, Article 59 of the Patent Law prescribes the basic rule for ascertaining the scope of patent protection, i.e., in accordance with the contents of the claim, to be interpreted by the patent specification and the drawings. Therefore, the scope of protection of an invention patent is defined by its claim, and the written language of the description, which necessarily involves the accurate use of punctuation marks which, as an important component part of the claim language and the specifications, also play the role of defining the scope of patent protection.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To the extent of common\u00a0knowledge of language, punctuation\u00a0marks may not always be\u00a0unequivocal, and in ordinary daily\u00a0use may produce ambiguities,\u00a0neither is it precluded in the area of\u00a0patent claim drafting. In this case,\u00a0for example, the disputed forward\u00a0slash mark “\/\u201d according to Chinese\u00a0Usage of Punctuation Marks (GB\/T15834-2011) is defined as separation\u00a0mark, indicating two possible\u00a0logical relationships of parallel or\u00a0alternative choices before and after\u00a0the mark, which forms the key issue\u00a0in determining the scope of patent\u00a0protection in this case.<\/p>\n
On this issue, the Supreme People\u2019s\u00a0Court handed down on March 22,\u00a02016 the Supreme People’s Court\u00a0Interpretation on the Several Issues\u00a0Regarding Application of Law in\u00a0Adjudicating Patent Infringement\u00a0Cases (II) Qudicial Interpretation of\u00a0Patent Law (II)). Under Article 4, it\u00a0is clearly provided, where there is\u00a0ambiguity as to grammar, words,\u00a0punctuation mark, symbol or signs\u00a0in patent claims, the specification,\u00a0or the drawings, which nonetheless\u00a0could be reduced to an exclusive\u00a0interpretation by a person having\u00a0ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)\u00a0through reference to the claims,\u00a0patent specification or the drawings,the people\u2019s court should admit such\u00a0exclusive interpretation as its finding\u00a0of fact. This provision clarifies the\u00a0principle to be followed in solving\u00a0such problems, which the courts\u00a0precisely must do in practice, and\u00a0must make their finding of facts\u00a0according to the specific claims and\u00a0specifications in each case. As to\u00a0how to understand “the exclusive\u00a0interpretation,\u201d\u00a0this case made\u00a0its findings from the perspectives\u00a0of textual interpretation, logical\u00a0interpretation, and systematic\u00a0interpretation, etc.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Besides, this case also reflects the\u00a0problem of the ambiguities in claims\u00a0drafting.\u00a0\u00a0The law protects only the\u00a0limitations stated in the claims.\u00a0All the limitations included in the\u00a0claim language by the patentee\u00a0at the time of publication of the\u00a0patent are defining on the subject\u00a0matter of the patent, constituting\u00a0the indispensable part of the\u00a0entire patent. This principle must\u00a0be followed not only by courts in\u00a0adjudicating patent infringement\u00a0cases and in ascertaining the scope\u00a0of patent protection, but also by\u00a0patent applicants, patent owners,\u00a0patent professionals, and others\u00a0when drafting patent documents.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To avoid equivocalities, a patent\u00a0\u00a0claim drafter is required to proceed\u00a0cautiously when drafting patent\u00a0documents, keeping in mind clear\u00a0understanding of the prior arts while\u00a0balancing the document he is drafting\u00a0with the understanding, or he will\u00a0have to be content to lie in the bed he\u00a0made when asserting the patent right.\u00a0The Chinese patent legislative intent,\u00a0in fact, has consistently reiterated\u00a0the requirements of public notice,\u00a0ascertainability and predictability in\u00a0patent drafting.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Back to the present case, the\u00a0patentee contended that the reason\u00a0that the two functional limitations\u00a0of \u201cparking\/obtaining\u201d and \u201crenting\/returning\u201d were included in a single\u00a0claim was because the patent also\u00a0involves a process, and such way of\u00a0drafting would facilitate different\u00a0ways of controlling in each set of\u00a0functions. If that is exactly what\u00a0the claim drafter had in mind,\u00a0he should have put it down in\u00a0words in the claim or the written\u00a0description so that a PHOSITA,\u00a0reading the document, could have\u00a0precisely, clearly, and unequivocally\u00a0understand what was intended to\u00a0be the patentable subject matter,\u00a0rather than insisting on what was not\u00a0reflected in the patent specification\u00a0resulting from ambiguities as basis\u00a0for patent infringement. On this\u00a0basis, because of the public notice\u00a0function of the patent document, and\u00a0the doctrine of good-faith qui\u00a0pro\u00a0quo in patent practice, the patentee\u00a0should bear the consequences of\u00a0any adverse result due to his own\u00a0mistakes of ambiguous drafting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Source:|Author:China IP|Publish time:\u00a02018-07-25|18\u00a0Vie …<\/p>\n