The summer heat is gradually fading, the autumn wind is cool, and the air conditioners in people's homes can also take a break after a busy summer. However, contrary to the drop in temperature, the heat of a dispute over intellectual property rights related to air conditioning has risen and attracted wide attention from the society.
Recently, the Supreme People's Court made a final judgment on an invention patent infringement dispute involving air conditioning, rejecting the appeals of both appellants, and upholding the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court's decision that the accused infringing party Guangdong Meibo Refrigeration Equipment Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Meibo Company) immediately stop the infringement. And compensate the patentee TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as TCL Company) economic losses, a total of 1.68 million yuan of the first instance judgment.
Air conditioning patent dispute again
On November 8, 2000, TCL Corporation was established, which is committed to the design, manufacturing, sales and service of separate floor type air conditioners, separate wall-mounted air conditioners and various variable frequency air conditioners, central air conditioners and other products. Although its entry into the air conditioning industry has not been long, it has quickly occupied the mainstream position of the industry, and its annual sales have increased significantly, and it has become a well-known enterprise in the industry.
Founded on May 17, 2010, Guangdong Meibo Co., Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anhui Meibo Electrical Appliance Group Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Anhui Meibo Co., LTD.), whose business scope includes manufacturing and sales of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. It is understood that Guangdong Meibo Company is a national high-tech enterprise, with the ability to research and develop air conditioning technology innovation, a total of more than 130 types of patent authorization.
On April 27, 2017, TCL submitted an invention patent application named "Air conditioning grille components and vertical air conditioners" (hereinafter referred to as the patent in question), and was authorized on March 30, 2018 (patent number: ZL201710290925.8), the patent in question is legal and valid.
TCL company agent, Beijing Yiju Law firm lawyer Zhou Meihua in an interview with China Intellectual Property News introduced that the air outlet side of the vertical air conditioner is provided with an air outlet grille, the air outlet grille is provided with an up and down extension of the air outlet, which can be opened or closed by rotating the air deflector plate. In this case, if the air guide plate is only connected with the air outlet through the end, it is easy to make the air guide plate fall off, and the patent in question solves this technical problem by setting a certain number of limit parts.
Considering that the accused infringing products produced by Guangdong Meibo Company and sold through the online store set up by Anhui Meibo Company allegedly infringed its patent rights, TCL Corporation sued Guangdong Meibo Company and Anhui Meibo Company to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to immediately stop the infringement and jointly compensate for their economic losses, totaling 4.11 million yuan.
In this regard, Chen Suixing, the joint agent of Guangdong Meibo Company and Anhui Meibo Company and the lawyer of Guangdong Baishi Jie Law Firm, told this newspaper that the technical problems that the wind guide plate is easy to fall off are not common in daily life, and the sales volume of the suspected infringing products is not high, and the compensation amount claimed by TCL company is too high.
The defendant was found guilty of infringement
On November 23, 2020, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a judgment of first instance that after comparison, the accused infringing technology scheme had the same technical characteristics as all the necessary technical characteristics recorded in the patent claims, and fell within the scope of TCL's rights to request protection, and the non-infringement defense advocated by Guangdong Meibo Company and Anhui Meibo Company could not be established.
On the issue of liability for compensation, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that TCL did not provide the specific amount of its losses due to infringement or Guangdong Meibo's illegal profits due to infringement, nor did it provide the amount of patent licensing fees that could be referenced. However, through the review of the evidence, considering that the implementation of the patent involved must use the mold, the service life (number) of the mold can reflect the production capacity, according to which the production and sales quantity of the accused infringing products can be estimated. After weighing the types of patent rights involved, the nature of the infringement, the circumstances and other factors, the first instance judgment Guangdong Meibo company compensated TCL company for a total of 1.68 million yuan in economic losses.
Subsequently, both parties refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
Zhou Meihua said that Guangdong Meibo Company and Anhui Meibo Company did not have objective obstacles to submit the evidence they had about the scale of the alleged infringement, but refused to provide evidence, constituting an obstruction of proof. In addition, the infringement lasted for a long time, even after TCL filed a lawsuit, it was still promoted, and the circumstances were serious and subjective malice was obvious. Therefore, TCL Company made an appeal request for an increase of 7.98 million yuan in punitive compensation during the second instance, and requested a total compensation amount of 11.97 million yuan.
Guangdong Meibo Company and Anhui Meibo company believe that the amount of compensation awarded in the first instance is too high, and Guangdong Meibo company's product profit margin has been hovering in the downstream of the industry, which is a low-profit enterprise. For the contribution rate of patented technology, the environment, conditions and opportunity of the function and role of the relevant technology should be further considered, and the technical contribution rate of 3%-5% determined by the first instance is higher.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that the litigation claim for punitive damages increased by TCL Company in the second instance had exceeded the scope of the original litigation claim and would not be heard; The first instance judgment of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court on patent infringement and the determination of the amount of compensation were not improper. Although Guangdong Meibo Company did not recognize the amount of compensation, it should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide proof because it refused to submit the profit data of infringement. Therefore, the Supreme People's Court made the above final judgment.
"The judgment made by the Supreme People's Court is final, and out of respect for the judgment of the Supreme People's Court, Guangdong Meibo Company has actively implemented the judgment, and the compensation has now been fulfilled." Chen Suixing said.
Clarify the contribution of patented technology
Air conditioning as a common electrical appliance, which contains a lot of patented technology, if the manufacturer because of a certain technical solution in a product produced intellectual property friction, in order to accurately calculate the amount of infringement compensation, the technical contribution rate of the patent is an important parameter.
In this regard, Chen Jinlin, partner lawyer of Beijing Liushen Law Firm, introduced that the contribution rate of patent technology is a concept specially introduced to calculate the amount of compensation for patent infringement, and the amount of compensation for patent infringement can be determined according to the actual loss suffered by the right holder due to the infringement or the interests obtained by the infringer due to the infringement. When determining the loss of the right holder or the profit of the infringer due to infringement, it is necessary to consider the contribution ratio of the technology judged to infringe the patent right to the total profit of the infringing product, which is the contribution rate of the patented technology.
"Obviously, the total profit of the accused infringing products is not all brought by the patented technology, and there are many factors contributing to the profit of the product, including brand effect, technical level, sales strategy and so on." In this case, the court of first and second instance mentioned the contribution of brand value, and it is unreasonable to consider all profits as the interests of the infringer and compensate all the rights holders. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify how much of the total profits are contributed by patents. Chen Jinlin believes.
So, how should we judge the contribution rate of patented technology? Chen Jinlin said that in fact, the contribution rate of patent technology is indeed difficult in determining the amount of compensation for patent infringement, and there is still no unified judgment standard. There are many factors contributing to profit in a product, and it is difficult to use a uniform standard to accurately judge the contribution of each factor. In judicial practice, the court generally considers the contribution rate of patent technology after comprehensive consideration of various relevant factors, without giving a clear calculation standard or formula. "In this case, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court took into account that the brand reputation and additional services of air conditioners will affect consumers' choice of products, and the technical improvement of the patent involved is the indoor air conditioner, which is less difficult than the outdoor compressor part, so the contribution rate of the patent technology is determined to be between 3% and 5%, which is also recognized by the Supreme People's Court." Chen Jinlin said. (Zhao Zhenting) (Source: China Intellectual Property News)
More information and services
The official subscription number of "Shenkexin Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
Code on the concern [Shenkexin intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
Appellant Boffite Co., Ltd. filed an appeal to the Court of second instance against the civil judgment of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (2019) No. 2239 of Zhejiang 01 Minchu due to the dispute over design patent infringement with appellee Jingcheng Sanhe Co., LTD., Taobao Co., LTD. After accepting the case on May 13, 2020, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law. The case is now closed.
2022-08-26
One wave after another, the patent attack and defense war between Ningde Era and Zhongchuang New Aviation is still continuing to see, reflecting the intensifying competition of industry technology and talent. Ningde Times received a $5 million settlement from Hive Energy.
2022-08-02
On July 15, Shenzhen Huada Intelligent Manufacturing Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huada Intelligent Manufacturing", MGI), a subsidiary of Shenzhen Huada Group, announced that the company and global gene sequencer giant Illumina reached a settlement of all pending litigation in the United States.
2022-07-16
A Beijing-based company that makes PTZ cameras has been sued by DJI
Dji found that the defendant Beijing Feimi Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Feimi Company) manufactured a PTZ Camera called "PALM Gimbal Camera" and promised to sell and sell on its official website. The defendant, Nine Days Vertical Technology (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Nine Days Vertical Technology Co., LTD.), promised to sell and sell the above-mentioned pT-top camera products manufactured by the defendant Feimi Company on the 1688.com e-commerce platform. The accused infringing product is similar to the plaintiff's design patent and falls within the scope of protection of the plaintiff's design patent claim, which infringes the plaintiff's design patent right and causes great economic losses to the plaintiff.
2022-07-05
In November 2018, Raffel sued Minhua Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging infringement of seven patents,
2022-06-21
It is understood that the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as "Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court") has made a new first-instance judgment on the patent infringement case of Foshan Shunde District Midea Washing Appliance Manufacturing Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Midea") v. Huadi Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huadi") dishwasher (2021) Zhejiang 01 Zhminchu No. 544,
2022-06-16
The two giants "tear apart"! Adidas sued Nike for patent infringement, as many as nine patents
According to the sky eye check information shows that the well-known athletic shoe brand Adidas recently filed a lawsuit in the federal court in eastern Texas, accusing Nike of infringing its patents on a number of shoe technology and mobile applications (APP).
2022-06-15
The first instance told that the light distance company filed a lawsuit with the original trial court, and the original trial court accepted the case on November 27, 2020. Guang Distance Company sued to order Puneng Company: 1. Immediately stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell products that infringe the patent rights involved; 2. Compensation for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) 800,000 yuan. The defendant of the first instance argued that the original trial of Panneng Company argued: the patentee involved is a Taiwan enterprise, the authenticity of the Patent licensing Agreement is not recognized, it is impossible to confirm whether the light distance company enjoys authorization when suing, and the light distance company is not the subject
2022-05-25
The appellant Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yalesi Company) is not satisfied with the civil judgment (2016) No. 1238 of Guangdong 03 Minchu made by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province on February 26, 2019, due to the invention patent infringement dispute with the appellant Shenzhen Topang Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Topang Company). Appeal to this court. After the filing of the case on July 2, 2019, the court formed a panel in accordance with the law, and tried the case in public on August 7, 2019. The appellant Yalesi Company appointed an agent AD litre Chen Wei, and the appellant Tuopang Company appointed an agent AD litre Yi Zhao to attend the court. The case is now closed.
2022-05-18
Huawei vs Samsung 5G dispute case summary Involved in the patent (patent No. 200880007435.1) the name of the invention patent (referred to as the patent), applied on January 7, 2008 (the earliest priority date is January 5, 2007), authorized notice on July 23, 2014, The patent holder is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Samsung Corporation). Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Huawei) filed a request for invalidation of the patent with the Patent Reexamination Board of the former State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) on September 2, 2016.
2022-05-17
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / 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
Subsidiary Company：2808, 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
Service Number
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
