Source:|Author:pmoed5141|Publish time:\u00a02020-03-25|20\u00a0Views<\/p>\n
China implements the dual system of patent protection in parallel with judicial protection and administrative protection. In the event that a dispute arises out of any exploitation of a patent without permission of the patentee, that is, the infringement upon a patent right, the parties shall settle the dispute through negotiations. If they are not willing to negotiate or fail to reach an agreement through negotiations, the patentee or any interested party may either bring a lawsuit with the people’s court, or request the patent administrative department, for settlement in accordance with the patent law of PRC.<\/p>\n
Generally, the patent administrative protection system refers specifically to the activities of the market supervision administration to maintain the order of the patent market, such as administrative investigation, administrative adjudication, administrative mediation, etc. implemented by the intellectual property office of the administration for mark regulation.\u00a0The patent administrative protection system has remarkable performance in practice, and is relatively simple and efficient compared to the tedious patent judicial protection system; the cost of patent administrative protection is relatively low, which is a priority choice to reduce private and social costs in most cases.<\/p>\n
Estoppel\u00a0principle\u00a0in China refers\u00a0to the prohibition of the patentee from reincorporating the abandoned content into the protection scope of the patent in determining whether equivalent infringement is found in patent infringement litigation, where the abandoned content is the protection scope abandoned by the patent applicant or patentee by means of restrictively amending the claim or the description or making observations in the patent prosecution or invalidation procedure.\u00a0Initially, the estoppel principle was more applicable in patent infringement proceedings.<\/p>\n
The estoppel principle is applied in administrative investigation\u00a0of the patent administrative protection system\u00a0\u00a0in that case below. The\u00a0administrative law enforcement officials found that the claimant’s claims in the patent\u00a0invalidation\u00a0procedures\u00a0and patent administrative protection procedures were contradictory, and applied the\u00a0estoppel principle to handle the case, which\u00a0prohibits\u00a0patentees from gaining both ends\u00a0and\u00a0fully\u00a0reflects the trend of patent administrative law enforcement in China becoming more professional and standardized.\u00a0The following is\u00a0the\u00a0brief introduction to the case:<\/p>\n
Vertiv\u00a0Technology Co., Ltd (used name\uff1aEmerson Network Energy Co., Ltd.\uff0creferred to as\u00a0Vertiv) filed a design patent application entitled “Air Conditioning Condenser” with the State Intellectual Property Office on October 31, 2007, with the patent number ZL200730174830.7. The patent right is legally valid when\u00a0Vertiv\u00a0filed\u00a0a request for infringement dispute processing\u00a0with\u00a0Shenzhen\u00a0administration for market regulation. The claimant\u00a0alleged\u00a0that the two air-conditioning condensers produced by Shenzhen\u00a0Envicool\u00a0Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as\u00a0Envicool) infringe its patent rights.<\/p>\n
On February 13, 2015, the claimant filed a request for handling patent infringement disputes with the Intellectual Property Division of Longhua Branch of Shenzhen\u00a0administration for market regulation (referred to as\u00a0Longhua\u00a0Branch).On March 19, 2015, Longhua Branch conducted an on-site inspection and inspection of\u00a0Envicool.<\/p>\n
In the handling of the\u00a0above\u00a0case,\u00a0Vertiv\u00a0filed a request for invalidation of the patent right with\u00a0the Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the Patent Office, CNIPA\u00a0(used name: the\u00a0Patent Re-examination Board,\u00a0referred to as\u00a0Reexamination and Invalidation Department), and requested\u00a0Reexamination and Invalidation Department\u00a0to invalidate the patent right.<\/p>\n
In the patent invalidation procedure,\u00a0Vertiv\u00a0claimed\u00a0that the patented design\u00a0is\u00a0significantly different from\u00a0the existing designs, that is, for air-conditioning condenser products, their basic composition and structure mostly include the main body, the air outlet metal mesh cover, and the legs. On the basis of achieving basic functions, the shape of each part has many design changes, and the general consumer will pay more attention to the specific shape of each part. The above-mentioned differences between the patented design\u00a0and the\u00a0existing\u00a0designs\u00a0involving\u00a0the shape of the air outlet net cover, the shape of the top surface, the shape of the side, the number of supporting legs, the shape of the supporting legs, etc. are combined to make a significant impact on the overall visual effects. Reexamination and Invalidation Department\u00a0adopted the above views\u00a0and\u00a0maintains\u00a0the patent\u00a0valid.<\/p>\n
After the patent is maintained,\u00a0Longhua Branch\u00a0compared\u00a0the alleged infringing products\u00a0with the patent. The same points of the two\u00a0include\u00a0the structure of the main body, the air outlet, and the support leg, but\u00a0there are obvious differences in the pattern of the top air outlet mask, the shape of the side, the shape of the support legs, and the state of use. The claimant claimed\u00a0that these differences are nuances\u00a0and the design of\u00a0the alleged infringing products falls into the scope of protection of the patent right for design.<\/p>\n
Longhua Branch made a decision on March 25, 2016, arguing that the claimant violated the estoppel principle, determined that\u00a0the design of\u00a0the alleged infringing products\u00a0did not fall into the scope of protection of the patent right for design, and rejected all the claimant’ processing requests.<\/p>\n
The claimant refused to accept the decision and filed administrative lawsuits with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and the Guangdong Higher People’s Court\u00a0and all lost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Source:|Author:pmoed5141|Publish time:\u00a02020-03-25|20\u00a0Vi …<\/p>\n