Us Steel and Baosteel 337 investigation

 【 Case summary 】

  In May 2016, more than 40 Chinese steel companies, such as Baosteel and Shougang, launched a 337 investigation against carbon steel and alloy steel imported from China to the United States. From anti-monopoly, infringement of trade secrets, fictitious origin and other three aspects of the Chinese steel enterprises accused. The trade secret charges are that hackers launched cyberattacks on U.S. steel companies to steal trade secrets that were used by Chinese state-owned steel companies to develop high-grade high-strength steel, which Chinese steel companies then exported to the United States. Baosteel and other Chinese enterprises submitted a large amount of evidence to prove their independent research and development of the products involved in the evidence disclosure rules; Provided factual witnesses and took evidence out of court under cross-examination by the US lawyer; Get evidence from the Americans, file a defense. Through these measures, Baosteel proved that the accused products were independently developed by it and never stole trade secrets from the United States. For other issues, such as antitrust and fictitious origin, the USITC ultimately ruled that the plaintiff had to prove injury as a result of the defendant's monopolistic conduct and had no standing because the plaintiff could not prove it.

  【 Case Revelation 】

  In this case, Baosteel and other Chinese enterprises actively responded to the lawsuit, seriously responded, made full use of relevant rules, especially the rules of evidence discovery, and submitted a large amount of evidence to prove their independent research and development of the products involved; Provided factual witnesses and took evidence out of court under cross-examination by the US lawyer; Obtain evidence from the United States and vigorously defend. The Chinese enterprise won the case, which is also the first successful 337 investigation trade secret case of a domestic enterprise.

 

Source: Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center, China

Related Cases

China Resources (Group) Co., LTD., China Resources Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes civil retrial judgment

Retrial of the applicant China Resources (Group) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Group) and China Resources Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Intellectual Property Company) for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes with the respondent China Resources Lighting Store (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Store) in Jinniu District, Chengdu, If you are not satisfied with the civil judgment No. 174 of Sichuan Higher People's Court (2020), apply to the court for a retrial.

2022-04-21

Detail

Zhuhai Nastar Company and other responding to the case of "337 investigation" ink cartridges

On February 27, 2006, Epson filed a "337 investigation" application for several ink cartridge manufacturers, including Chinese enterprises, and then, on August 1 of the same year, when Epson's "337 investigation" case had not yet appeared, HP also filed a "337 investigation" application for three companies affiliated with Nastar Group.

2021-08-31

Detail

United States Cargill company v. Nantong Foreign Trade Medicine and health Products Co., LTD. Patent infringement dispute

In January 2009, Cargill filed a "337" infringement lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission ITC on the grounds that six defendants such as Nantong Foreign Trade Medical and Health Products Co., Ltd. infringed its patent, and applied for a general exclusion order to prohibit all the vegetarian glycosamines and products containing the substance that infringed its patent from entering the United States market, regardless of origin.

2021-08-31

Detail

Philips Lumens v. Crystal Light emitting Diodes Patent infringement case

On September 6, 2001, after confirming the validity of its US patent No. 5008,718 in the US patent litigation, Philips Lumens filed its first patent lawsuit against Crystal Optoelectronics in July 2004, and Crystal agreed to settle the case by paying a one-time patent license fee.

2021-08-12

Detail

Resmed v. ABbot medical device patent infringement case

On March 28, 2013, Resmed filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against AB and its distributor, California's Driver Medical Design & Manufacturing, for illegally importing and selling "certain systems and components for the treatment of sleep disordered breathing. sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof) and other products infringed Resmed's seven patents related to humidity regulators and breathing masks.

2021-08-12

Detail
5fa71b43-ff57-4550-a010-a0bec2f75bb4.png

Head Office13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen

Head Office

13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen

5fa71b43-ff57-4550-a010-a0bec2f75bb4.png

Subsidiary Company2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province

Subsidiary Company

2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province

图片名称

Service Number

订阅号.jpg

Subscription Number


Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号

Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签

Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有

粤ICP备2021174526号