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, The court ordered Huadi to immediately stop manufacturing, selling and promising to sell products that fall within the patent protection scope of Midea's patent number ZL201420326162.X "dishwasher", destroy the inventory of infringing products, and compensate Midea for a total of 3.1 million yuan.
In this case, Midea sued that XWSC-30GB01H, JWT6-C5, JWV8-H5 and other seven models infringed its ZL201420326162.X "dishwasher" patent. After hearing, the Hangzhou court found that the above seven dishwashers fell into the scope of ZL201420326162.X patent protection, constituting infringement. It is worth noting that among the infringing products sued, JWT6-C5 and JWV8-H5 are also the infringing products that were found to infringe the patent rights of MIDEA ZL201320169306.0 "dishwasher anti-overflow structure and dishwasher" in the cases mentioned above. That is to say, these two products at the same time infringe on two patents of the United States.
Midea dishwasher firmly rights, once again bright sword heavy patent weapons
According to the judgment in this case, Foshan Best Electrical Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Foshan Best") and other companies have filed several patent invalidation cases to the State Intellectual Property Office for ZL201420326162.X, and the first two times the patent was maintained. On April 30, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office No. 40102 invalid decision. All patent rights involved were declared invalid. Midea company refused to file an administrative lawsuit, and in 2019, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in the first instance that "the sued decision lacks factual and legal basis, there are errors in the application of law, and the invalid review decision No. 40102 is revoked according to law." In 2020, the Supreme People's Court also made a judgment conclusion that ZL201420326162.X has the creativity stipulated in the patent law, and revoked the invalid review decision No. 40102 in accordance with the law. The patent was eventually upheld in full by the Supreme People's Court. It is not difficult to see that the patents involved can be described as "weathered the wind and frost", experienced a number of patent invalidation, the Beijing intellectual Property Court patent invalidation administrative first instance, the Supreme People's Court patent invalidation administrative second instance of "multiple rounds of review", after "many hardships" can still maintain all effective, showing its high degree of technological innovation, patent stability can also be seen.
It is understood that this patent by means of integrated, miniaturized design, more optimized layout and multi-dimensional innovation of shock absorption and noise reduction technology, successfully broke through the core technical barriers of the industry, subverts the technical restrictions of dishwasher "imported products", realizes the technological upgrade of the United States dishwasher again, and lays the advantage of the United States dishwasher industry leader, which is the core patented technology of the United States dishwasher.
The court filing time of this case is 2021, so it can be seen that after the patent ZL201420326162.X patent was finally maintained, Midea continued to launch patent rights action, once again showed the "heavy" patent weapon, sued Huadi as many as 7 dishwasher products patent infringement, and finally the 7 dishwasher products were judged by the court to constitute infringement. It can be seen that the patent is also a "high-value patent" that Wati has always been difficult to avoid.
In recent years, Midea has launched a number of rights protection in the field of dishwashers. For Huadi dishwashers, at least 2 cases were prosecuted in Nanjing in 2018, and at least 2 cases were prosecuted in Hangzhou in 2019. From 2018 to 2022, it lasted nearly 4 years, and won the "two wins" in Nanjing and Hangzhou. It can be seen that the United States is determined to combat plagiarism and imitation and safeguard its intellectual property rights and interests. The United States dishwasher firmly rights, a number of cases have been won, but also highlights the United States dishwasher technology innovation strength, the comprehensive patent layout.
Dishwashers, as a rare market with ultra-high growth rate in the field of home appliances in recent years, in order to obtain long-term sustainable development and maintain the growth rate, enterprises need to step up research and development efforts and constantly update and iterate product technology. Instead of relying on copying and imitation, greedy for temporary profits, otherwise under the trend of "strong" protection of intellectual property rights, it will pay a heavy price.
(Original title: Judgment 3.1 million! Midea dishwashers firmly defend their rights, and Huadi was convicted of infringement and added a new case)
Source: iprdaily.cn
Related Cases
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
