Beijing Feimi Technology Co., LTD., Nine days Vertical (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. Infringement of design patent rights dispute "prior judgment + temporary injunction" case
Brief
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. The plaintiff DJI requested the two defendants to immediately stop the infringement, and ordered the defendant Feimi company to compensate for economic losses of more than 4.314 million yuan, the defendant Nine days Vertical and vertical company to compensate for economic losses of 400,000 yuan, the defendant Feimi company to the defendant nine Days Vertical and vertical company to compensate for the plaintiff's economic losses bear joint and several liability, The two defendants jointly bear more than 285,000 yuan of reasonable rights protection costs incurred by the plaintiff for the case.
In the lawsuit, DJI company applied to the court for behavioral preservation, and applied to order Femi Company and Jiutian Company to stop the infringement of the applicant's design patent rights by manufacturing, selling and promising sales before the end of the proceedings in this case, and DJI company provided a guarantee of 5 million yuan for the behavioral preservation application. Dji separately applied for the court to investigate and collect sales data of the accused infringing products, and required the defendants Feimi Company and Nine Days Vertical and Vertical Company to submit their sales data and financial books.
On November 19, 2020, the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province made a civil judgment (2020) No. 1668 of Yue 03 at the beginning of the Republic of China that there was no substantial difference in the overall visual effect between the accused infringing product and the patent design involved, and it should be determined that the design of the accused infringing product and the patent design involved were similar in composition and fell within the scope of protection of the patent claims involved. The relevant behavior of Femi company infringes the design patent of DJI company involved. The company sold and promised to sell the accused infringing products without the permission of the patentee DJI, which infringed the design patent right of DJI. According to the provisions of Item 1 and Item 6 of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Tort Liability Law, FemI Company and Jiutian Vertical and Vertical Company shall bear civil liabilities such as stopping infringement and compensating for losses according to law. According to Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law, when a people's court tries a case and some of the facts are clear, it may make a judgment on that part first. In view of the fact that the defendant Feimi Company and Nine Days Vertical and Vertical Company infringed the design patent right of the plaintiff DJI Company, part of the preliminary judgment to stop the infringement, the litigation request for compensation of losses will continue to be heard, and a separate judgment document will be made. Accordingly, the court ruled that Feimi immediately stopped manufacturing, selling and promising to sell infringing products, and Jiutian immediately stopped selling and promising to sell infringing products.
Case revelation
This case makes full use of the diversified technical fact finding mechanism, adopts the technical investigation officer to participate in the court proceedings to issue technical investigation opinions and requests the patent examiner of the National Intellectual Property Patent Examination Cooperation Center to issue technical advisory opinions, and determines that the accused infringing design is similar to the design that the plaintiff claims to protect. On the basis of ascertaining the technical facts of the alleged infringing design falling within the scope of protection of the patent right involved, the court found that the defendant's behavior constituted patent infringement, and made a preliminary judgment, ordering the defendant to bear the legal responsibility to stop the infringement. Making an advance judgment on the basis of ascertaining the facts of patent infringement can effectively protect patents. Meanwhile, issuing an interim injunction in litigation when the first instance judgment has not yet taken effect and is not enforceable can prevent patent infringement in time, avoid the patentee from suffering irreparable damage such as a decline in market sales share, and facilitate the two parties to settle the damages. Save judicial resources and improve the trial efficiency of patent cases.
Source: China (Shenzhen) Intellectual Property Protection Center Case database Project team,
Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Tribunal,
Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Intellectual Property Division,
Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court,
"Lexmachina", "Westlaw" and other legal analysis platforms
Please indicate the above information
More intellectual property information and services
Pay attention to [Shenkexin Intellectual Property] Official subscription number
More deeply credible dynamic news, important data/report/case, etc.
Pay attention to the [Shenkexin Intellectual Property Service Platform] official service number
Related Cases
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
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
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
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
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
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
