Abbreviature of adjudication

The environmental features of use in the sense of patent law refer to the technical features used in the claims to describe the background or conditions in which the invention is used. According to the different specific objects defined by the technical characteristics, the technical characteristics can be divided into the technical characteristics of the patented technical solution itself and the technical characteristics of the patented technical solution by defining the technical content outside the patented technical solution itself. The former is generally reflected in directly defining the structure, components, materials, etc., of the patented technology solution, while the latter is manifested in defining the use background, conditions, applicable objects, etc., of the patented technology solution, and then defining the patented technology solution, so it is called "use environment characteristics". The common use environment characteristics are mainly manifested in the installation, connection, use and other conditions and environments of the limited patent technical solutions. However, given the complexity of the technical solutions that the patent claims to protect, the use of environmental features is not limited to those structural features directly related to the installation location or connection structure of the protected technical solutions.

For product claims, technical features used to describe the use of the protected technical solution, applicable objects, modes of use, etc., may also be characteristics of the use environment. The environmental features of use included in the claims belong to the necessary technical features of the claims and have a limiting effect on the scope of protection of the claims. The degree of limiting the scope of protection of the patent rights by the environmental features of use needs to be determined according to the specific circumstances of the case. Generally speaking, if the alleged infringing technical scheme can be applied to the use environment defined by the use environment characteristics, it can be regarded as having the use environment characteristics.

This case further clarifies the identification of the characteristics of environmental technology used in patent claims, which has guiding significance for judging whether the technology scheme accused of infringement in patent infringement cases has the characteristics of environmental technology used in patent claims.

Abstract of judgment

Proceedings

The appellant Dongguan Guangdistance Electronics Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdistance Company) is not satisfied with the civil judgment (2020) No. 436 of Zhejiang 02 Zhomichu made on July 23, 2021 by the Appellant Ningbo Puneng Communication Equipment Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Puneng Company). Appeal to this court. After the court filed the case on November 8, 2021, it formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and questioned the parties on December 27 of the same year. Duan Yan and Liu Linjing, the appointed AD litem agents of the appellant Guangdistance Company, and Wang Ruimin, the appointed AD litem agent of the appellant Puneng Company, attended the court for questioning. The case is now closed.

The appellant complained

Light distance Company appeal request:1. Revoke the original judgment, modify the judgment according to law to support the original lawsuit request of Guangdistance Company; 2. The litigation costs of the first and second instance shall be borne by Puoneng Company.

Facts and Reasons:(A) the original judgment on the use of environmental characteristics of the identification error. The technical feature of "a network route containing a number of internal core wires, the front end of the network route extends into the plug body of a certain length" is only the feature of the preceding part of the patent, and does not belong to the feature part. The technical feature is a conventional technical means in this field. The lack of this technical feature does not affect the realization of the automatic positioning function of the utility model patent No. 20172045XXXX.X named "Automatic positioning structure of network plug cover" (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved). The technical feature belongs to the use environment feature that describes the purpose and use mode of the protected subject object. The technical solution of the alleged infringing product contains the technical features. (2) The identification of necessary technical features in the original judgment is wrong. The field of patent infringement judgment does not distinguish between necessary technical features and non-essential technical features, and the distinction exists only in the field of patent authorization confirmation. The original trial court did not strictly examine the principle of comprehensive coverage, but applied the principle of redundant designation, which belongs to the wrong application of law. The technical feature does not specifically limit the patent, let alone limit a specific network cable, and the lack of the technical feature does not affect the realization of the automatic positioning function of the patent involved. (3) As described above, the accused infringing product applies to the use environment characteristics of "a network route containing a number of internal core wires, the front end of the network route extends into the plug body of a certain length", and the cover can achieve "automatic positioning", falling into the protection scope of the patent claim 1, constituting patent infringement. (4) Pannon Company has infringement malice, knowing the existence of the patent involved and applying it as a design patent, online complaints against the distributor of the light distance company, continuous infringement and vicious competition at low prices during the litigation period, so punitive damages should be applied to its infringement.

Appellee argues

Pannon argues:The technical features of network cables are necessary technical features rather than environmental features. All technical features written into the claims should be understood as the necessary technical features of the patent technical scheme, which have a limiting effect on the scope of protection of the claims, and the amount of compensation claimed by the light distance company is too high. The original judgment should be upheld because it clearly identified the facts and accurately applied the law.

The first instance was originally told

Light distance company filed a lawsuit with the original trial court, and the original trial court accepted the case on November 27, 2020. The light distance company sued for the order of the Puneng Company:1. Immediately stop manufacturing, selling or promising to sell products that infringe the patent rights involved; 2. Compensation for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) 800,000 yuan.

The defendant in the first instance argued

Panneng's original argument:The patentee involved in the case is a Taiwan enterprise, the authenticity of the Patent Authorization Agreement is not recognized, and it is impossible to confirm whether Guangdistance Company enjoys authorization when suing, and the subject of Guangdistance company is not qualified; Panneng has filed a patent invalidation application with the State Intellectual Property Office, and the accused infringing product lacks the necessary technical features of "a network route containing multiple internal cores" in the patent claim 1, and fails to meet the "... And in order to achieve the functional feature of opening the set Angle position automatic positioning of the upper cover, it does not fall into the scope of patent protection, does not constitute infringement, and there is no basis for the light distance company to claim compensation.

On April 27, 2017, Zhiying Technology Co., Ltd. applied to the State Intellectual Property Office for a utility model patent named "Automatic positioning structure of network plug cover", which was authorized on January 2, 2018, and the patent number is 20172045XXXX.X. Patent claims: 1. A network plug cover automatic positioning structure, which is characterized in that it comprises: a base; One end of the upper cover is connected to the end face of the base and is interlocked with the base to form a plug body; A network route containing a plurality of internal core wires, and a certain length of the front end of the network route extends into the plug body; A base plate is assembled on a base inside the plug body, the base plate is positioned on a circuit board, and the circuit board is provided with a punctured terminal block and a press plate above the punctured terminal block; The rear end of the base is arranged with a wire base for locating a certain length of the front end of the network route, and a release shrapnel is provided on the surface of the upper cover; The base is provided with a front end seat relative to the release shrapnel, and the front end seat is provided with a release shrapnel towards the release shrapnel, and the release shrapnel presses the release shrapnel with the upper cover reopening action and automatically locates the upper cover at a fixed Angle position at the arrival of the change. 2. The automatic positioning structure of the top cover of the network plug as described in claim 1 is characterized in that the rear end of the release shrapnel is provided with a snap clamping device for assembling a snap fastener arranged at a relative position of the end face of the top cover and extending to a press front end in an arc bulge. 3. The network plug cover automatic positioning structure described in claim 2 is characterized in that the press front end is provided with two front end extensions to form a press notch corresponding to the width of the release shrapnel, the press notch contains a clamp and the press front end is pressed against the release shrapnel. 4. The automatic positioning structure of the network plug cover mentioned in claim 3 is characterized in that the front end of the cover is provided with two sides of the pivot joint for connecting to the relative pivot joint of the base, and a middle baffle is formed between the relative pivot joint for clamping the two sides of the front end extension piece.

On September 25, 2018, Zhiying Technology Co., Ltd. authorized the above patent to Guangdistance Company for implementation, and agreed that Guangdistance Company has the right to negotiate with the infringing party or Sue the court (notarized). On September 28, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office issued a patent evaluation report on the patent, and the preliminary conclusion was that all claims 1-4 were not found to have defects that did not meet the conditions for granting patent rights. The patent is still valid. 

On November 3, 2020, Guangdistance Company entrusted agent Hu XX to Ningbo Tianyi Notary Office to apply for evidence preservation notarization, and to the Puneng Company (address: No. 75 Hubin Road, Duhu City, Cixi City, Zhejiang Province) The process of purchasing the accused infringing products (20 pieces of "new shielded crystal head 6A", the unit price is 13 yuan, and 20 pieces of "single-port panel", the unit price is 3.5 yuan, the total price is 330 yuan) is notarized. This notary office issued (2020) Zhejiang Yongtian Certificate No. 7018 Notary (hereinafter referred to as Notary No. 7018).

Founded on September 27, 2011, with a registered capital of 1 million yuan, the company's business scope is: computer network equipment, computer external equipment, computer network technology research, development, manufacturing, processing; Optical cable, optical fiber, cable, wire, communication equipment, distribution switch control equipment, metal tools, plastic products, electronic components, hardware accessories manufacturing, processing; Import and export of self-operated and agent goods and technologies, except those goods and technologies whose import and export are restricted or prohibited by the State.

The original trial also found that the light distance company paid reasonable expenses such as notary fees and lawyer fees for the litigation of this case.

The court of first instance held that

The original court held that:Light distance Company is the licensee of the patent involved, the patent is currently valid, and the patent is protected by law. The focus of dispute between the two parties in this case is: whether the alleged infringing technology scheme falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved. If fall, how should Panneng company bear civil liability. 

Whether the alleged infringing technical scheme falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved. In the original trial trial, the light distance company clearly required the protection of the patent claims 1-4. After comparison, Puoneng believes that the accused infringing product lacks the necessary technical features of "a network route containing multiple internal cores" in the patent claim 1, and fails to meet the "... And when the functional feature of automatically positioning the upper cover by opening the set Angle position is achieved, it does not fall into the scope of protection of the patent right involved and does not constitute infringement. The company believes that although the accused infringing product does not contain network cables, it has an entrance on the left side for network cables to pass through and for network cables to be inserted, and its function is specific. Moreover, the webpage of Puneng selling the accused infringing product also shows that network cables are needed in use, so the accused infringing product can be used in the use environment of the patent claim 1, which is the same as the patent involved. Moreover, after lifting the cover, the shrapnel is released and the shrapnel is automatically positioned at a certain Angle (about 100 degrees), so the accused infringing products fall into the scope of protection of claim 1, and claims 2-4 are subordinate claims, and all fall into the scope of protection of the patent claims.

The original trial court held that the use of environmental features refers to the technical features in the claims used to describe the background or conditions in which the technical solution of the invention is used. The characteristics of the use environment written into the claims are necessary technical characteristics and have a limiting effect on the scope of patent rights protection. In a patent infringement lawsuit, if the alleged infringing technology scheme can be applied to the use environment recorded in the claims, it shall be determined that the alleged infringing technology scheme has the use environment characteristics recorded in the claims, and not on the premise that the alleged infringing technology scheme actually uses the environmental characteristics.

Whether the specific technical features in the patented technical scheme belong to the characteristics of the use environment should be understood by the interpretation of the patent claims and the patent specification and the attached drawings. The patent protection object in question is an automatic positioning structure for the cover of a network plug, and the features of its patent claim 1 include "a network route containing a number of internal cores, and the front end of the network route extends into the body of the plug in a certain length", which specifically limits the types of network cables and the position of the connecting plug body of the network cable. The particular network cable forms an integral part of the automatic positioning structure of the plug upper cover of the network, which is a necessary structural feature of the patent claim 1 in question and is not a feature of the use environment. According to the above provisions of the law, if the technical scheme accused of infringing contains the same or equivalent technical features as all the technical features recorded in the claim, the people's court shall determine that it falls within the scope of protection of the patent right; Where it lacks more than one technical feature recorded in the claim, or has more than one technical feature that is not identical or equivalent, the people's court shall determine that it does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right. In this case, the physical left side of the accused infringing product produced and sold by Pneng Company is a network cable channel entrance, and the product does not contain the specific network cable in the patent claim 1 involved, and lacks the necessary technical features in the patent claim 1 involved, so it does not fall into the scope of protection of the patent involved.

Since the accused infringing product does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent involved, it does not constitute patent infringement. The lawsuit claim of light distance company is insufficient and should be rejected.

The result of the first instance judgment

Accordingly,In accordance with the provisions of Article 11 (1), Article 59 (1), and Article 65 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 2 and 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes, and Article 64 (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2017), the Court ruled: Light Distance's claim is dismissed. The first instance case acceptance fee of 11,800 yuan, borne by the light distance company.

The court of second instance found the facts

In the second instance, the light distance company submitted an invoice of 40,000 yuan of legal fees to the court, intending to prove that it was a reasonable expenditure for the rights protection of the second instance. Panneng does not dispute the authenticity, legality and relevance of the evidence. The court also confirmed.

The facts ascertained by the original trial court are basically true, and this court confirms them.

In the second instance, Panneng Company did not object to manufacturing, selling or promising to sell the accused infringing products.

The Court of second instance held that

The Court considers that:This case is a dispute over infringement of the patent rights of utility models. Since the dispute occurred after October 1, 2009 and before June 1, 2021, the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Law) shall apply to this case. According to the arguments of both parties, the focus of the dispute at the second trial stage of this case is: (1) whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved. (2) How Panneng shall bear civil liability if infringement is constituted.

(1) Whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved

The scope of protection of the patent right for invention or utility model shall be subject to the content of the claim, and the description and the appended drawings may be used to interpret the content of the claim. In determining whether the alleged infringing technical scheme falls within the scope of protection of the patent right, the people's court shall examine all the technical features recorded in the claims claimed by the right holder. If the alleged infringing technical scheme contains the same or equivalent technical features as all the technical features recorded in the claim, the people's court shall determine that it falls within the scope of protection of the patent right; Where the technical features of the alleged infringing technical scheme, compared with all the technical features recorded in the claims, lack more than one of the technical features recorded in the claims, or have more than one of the technical features are not the same or equivalent, the people's court shall determine that it does not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right.

According to the comparison opinions of the two parties in the first and second trials, the main dispute is whether the accused infringing product lacks the "network route containing multiple internal cores" in the patent claim 1. A certain length of the front end of the network route extends into the plug body "" The front end seat is provided with a release shrapnel towards the release shrapnel, and the release shrapnel presses the release shrapnel with the upper cover lifting action and automatically locates the upper cover at a set Angle position upon reaching the open" technical features. In this regard, our analysis is as follows:

First, whether the accused infringing product lacks the technical features of "a network route containing a plurality of internal cores, and the front end of the network route extends a certain length into the plug body".

The so-called use-environment features refer to the technical features in the claims used to describe the context or conditions in which the invention is used. According to the different specific objects defined by the technical characteristics, the technical characteristics can be divided into the technical characteristics of the patented technical solution itself and the technical characteristics of the patented technical solution by defining the technical content outside the patented technical solution itself. The former is generally reflected in directly defining the structure, components, materials, etc., of the patented technology solution, while the latter is manifested in defining the use background, conditions, applicable objects, etc., of the patented technology solution, and then defining the patented technology solution, so it is called "use environment characteristics". The common use environment characteristics are mainly manifested in the installation, connection, use and other conditions and environments of the limited patent technical solutions. However, given the complexity of the technical solutions that the patent claims to protect, the use of environmental features is not limited to those structural features directly related to the installation location or connection structure of the protected technical solutions. For product claims, technical features used to describe the use of the protected technical solution, applicable objects, modes of use, etc., are also characteristics of the use environment.

The environmental features of use included in the claims belong to the necessary technical features of the claims and have a limiting effect on the scope of protection of the claims. The degree of limiting the scope of protection of the patent rights by the environmental features of use needs to be determined according to the specific circumstances of the case. In general, if the alleged infringing technical scheme can be applied to the use environment defined by the characteristics of the use environment, it is deemed to have the characteristics of the use environment.

What the patent in question wants to protect is the technical scheme of the automatic positioning structure on the cover of the network plug. For the technical feature of "a network route containing multiple internal core wires, the front end of the network route extends into the plug body of a certain length" in the patent claim 1 in question, After reading the patent claims, specifications and patent examination files, ordinary technicians in the field can clearly and reasonably know that the upper cover positioning structure of the patent technical solution in question is applicable to the network cable, and its use is to insert the front end of the network cable into the plug body, so the technical characteristics belong to the characteristics of the use environment. After comparison, the left side of the alleged infringing product produced and sold by Pneng Company is the entrance of a network cable channel without network cable. However, according to the actual use of the alleged infringing product and the understanding of ordinary technical personnel in this field, the alleged infringing product is suitable for network cable, and the circuit board conductor base is provided with multiple components connected with network cable, and the front end of the network cable extends into the alleged infringing product when used. Therefore, the accused infringing technical scheme can be applied to the above use environment recorded in the patent claims, and it should be determined that it has the use environment characteristics of "a network route containing a number of internal core wires, and the front end of the network route extends into the inside of the plug body" recorded in the claims. The original trial court's determination of the technical characteristics is wrong, and the court shall correct it.

Second, whether the alleged infringing product lacks the technical features of "the front seat is provided with a release shrapnel towards the release shrapnel, and the release shrapnel presses the release shrapnel with the upper cover lifting action and automatically locates the upper cover at the location of the set Angle at which the lift is reached".

The dispute between the two parties on the technical features mainly lies in whether the accused infringing product has the function of automatic positioning. After comparison, the accused infringing product can realize automatic positioning by releasing shrapnel after lifting the upper cover and pressing the shrapnel to reach a certain Angle. Although it was found in the second instance that some of the accused infringing products purchased by Guangdistance company notarized were not smooth in realizing automatic positioning due to manufacturing process problems, it did not affect the recognition that the accused infringing products had automatic positioning function, so the accused infringing products had the above technical characteristics.

As for the other technical features of the patent claims 1-4 of the accused infringing products, neither party has any objection, and the court has also confirmed it after examination. In summary, the accused infringing products fall within the protection scope of the patent claims 1-4, which constitutes patent infringement.

(2) If it constitutes infringement, how should Panneng bear civil liability

If Panneng manufactures, sells or promises to sell the accused infringing products, it shall bear civil liabilities such as stopping the infringing acts and compensating for economic losses. Regarding the amount of compensation, because the profit of the infringer and the loss of the right holder in this case can not be ascertained, and there is no patent license fee for reference, so the light distance company advocates that the amount of compensation in this case should be determined in accordance with the legal compensation method, which is in line with the provisions of the law. As for the Guangdistance company's claim that there is malicious infringement and punitive damages should be applied in this case, the court does not support it because it has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove it. Taking into account the nature and duration of the infringing acts involved, the price of the accused infringing products, the scope of sales, and the expenditure of the rights holder, the court determines, at its discretion, the economic loss of the Punong Company to compensate the light distance Company for 100,000 yuan, and the reasonable expenditure to stop the infringing acts is 50,000 yuan, totaling 150,000 yuan.

Verdict of the second instance

Chief Judge Xu Zhuobin

Judge Dong Sheng 

Judge Huang Zhonghua 

April 18, 2002

Judge assistant Lu Menglin

Clerk Guo Yunfei

Source: Zhizhibao