Supreme People's Court

A civil judgment

(2019) Supreme Law Zhimin End 105

Appellant (defendant of the original trial) : Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD. Address: Shenghui North Industrial Zone, Minan Village, Nantou Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province.

Legal representative: Xia Yunbiao.

Agent AD litem: Chen Wei, lawyer of Guangdong Yuegao Law Firm.

Appellee (original plaintiff) : Shenzhen Topang Co., LTD. Address: Institute of Tsinghua University, High-tech Industrial Park, Yuehai Street, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China ****.

Legal representative: Wu Yongqiang, General manager of the company.

Agent AD litem: Yi Zhao, lawyer of Beijing Yingke (Shenzhen) Law Firm.

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.

Yalosi Company's appeal request: revoke the original judgment, reject all the claims of Tuobang Company, the litigation costs and appraisal fees of the first and second instance of this case shall be borne by Tuobang Company. Facts and reasons:

(1) The original judgment, based on the expert opinion of the Judicial Expert and the court statement of the expert, found that the accused infringing product and the technical characteristics of B, C, D, G and I constituted an equivalent error. 1. The appraisal agency did not conduct the appraisal according to the patent involved (material inspection 3), and the appraisal procedure was wrong; The identification of the same characteristics is not determined according to the requirements and principles stipulated in the judicial interpretation, which leads to the wrong conclusion. 2. The fact determination of the appraisal opinion is wrong, specifically: the module [13] [14] [16] is wrong; The adaptive synchronization circuit is not explained in any way, nor is the synchronization circuit compared with the adaptive synchronization circuit in combination with the manual, and the synchronous circuit is directly identified as the same as the adaptive synchronization circuit, resulting in incorrect evaluation opinions of technical features B and D; The product accused of infringement is interpreted as "the synchronous circuit is connected to the CPU, and the CPU is connected to the current detection circuit" as "the synchronous circuit is connected to the current detection circuit through the CPU", resulting in incorrect technical feature D evaluation opinions; The module with only data transmission function is interpreted as a communication module with both data transmission and data conversion function, resulting in the wrong comparison of technical features F, G and H.

(2) The original judgment found that the accused infringing product fell into the scope of patent right protection wrong. 1. The product accused of infringement is not equivalent to the technical features of Item B of the patent involved. The "adaptive synchronous circuit module" in the patent involved is not a standard term, its definition and circuit structure are not disclosed in the specification, the appraisal opinion is not clear about the definition of "adaptive synchronous circuit module", and the basis for comparing the "synchronous circuit" with it is lacking. The means, functions and effects of "synchronous circuit" and "adaptive synchronous circuit module" are different, and ordinary technicians in the field cannot think of replacing the so-called adaptive synchronous circuit with a synchronous circuit. 2. The product accused of infringement is not equivalent to the technical features of Item D of the patent involved. The synchronization circuit in the accused infringing product is not connected to the current detection circuit, and its connection mode is different from the adaptive synchronization circuit module in the patent involved in the connection means, function and effect directly to the current detection circuit, and it is not a feature that ordinary technicians in the field can associate with the accused infringing act without creative labor when it occurs. 3. The technical features F, G and H of the accused infringing product are not equivalent to those of the patent involved. The communication module in the patent involved is functionally limited and should have two functions: data transmission and conversion of received data into data conforming to the IHComm communication protocol. The evaluation opinion only interprets it as module error for data transmission. The appraisal opinion that "there must be two communication modules for information exchange, otherwise communication cannot be realized" is in contradiction with the "communication module is one of the improvement points of the invention" in the "Technical characteristics Comparison" submitted by Topang Company. 4. The product accused of infringement has different technical characteristics from the patent involved. The accused infringing product sends fault handling information from the control board to the electronic main board, and the technical feature J of the patent involved is "the control panel receives fault protection information from the main control board". The two are different in means, functions and effects, and break through the defects in the technical scheme of the patent involved, which can make the control board more common. 5. The chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product is not the same or equivalent to the control chip of the patent involved. The chip of the main control board of the accused infringing product is an MCU control chip, while the control chip 4 involved in the patent is a non-MCU /CPU/ single-chip control chip that is only used to receive and transmit key information, and the means and functions of the two are completely different.

(3) The original trial court did not review the claims and evidence of the prior art defense, and the accused infringing product belongs to the prior art. The original trial court omitted the claims and evidence of Arace's prior art defense. Compared with the evidence submitted in the second instance, 18, the difference is only that: the electronic motherboard and main control board of the accused infringing product are set in the lower shell, and Tuobang Company in the original trial believes that the distinguishing feature is the common knowledge in the field; Compared with the evidence 21 submitted in the second instance, the difference between the accused infringing products is only the lack of functional processing module and the function of the chip [4] is different, but it is a common technical means in this field to set functional processing module and chip with "influence" function on the induction cooker.

(4) The judgment of the original trial violates the provisions of the law and is seriously improper. 1. Yalos Company has not infringed the invention patent of Tuobang Company, even if the court considers that it constitutes infringement, the amount of damages shall be considered from the following factors: Tuobang Company's business scope does not include "production, processing and sales" induction cooker, and Tuobang Company does not produce, processing or sales induction cooker, and it may suffer minimal losses due to infringement; Yalos has no malicious intent; The invention of the patent is not high; The original judgment found that except for feature E, the other features were equal, and the contribution rate of the patent involved to the accused infringing products was not high. 2. The exercise of discretion by the original trial court was seriously improper and the amount of damages awarded was excessively high. Tuobang Company only provided evidence that Yalos Company manufactured and promised to sell the accused infringing products, but did not provide any preliminary evidence of the quantity of the accused infringing products. At this time, the court ordered Yalos Company to provide the quantity of the accused infringing products, and the burden of proof was obviously improper. Even if Yalos Company did not provide the quantity of the accused infringing products, the court still needs to consider the nature of the infringement and other factors to determine the amount of compensation. It is improper to award the legal maximum damages directly based on Yalos Company's refusal to provide the quantity of the accused infringing products, resulting in an extremely high and unfair amount of damages.

Topon argued that the appeal should be dismissed and the original verdict upheld. (1) In view of the "Judicial Identification Letter", the inspection materials provided by Yalesi Company to the identification agency are intentionally modified and forged in many places, with the intention of misleading the identification personnel. (2) The accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved, and the original judgment has been clearly identified. (3) Arace's prior art defense is not established. 1. Arace did not claim the prior art defense in the original trial, and did not provide corresponding evidence. 2. Evidence 18 has not disclosed the dual-control electromagnetic heating control system, and the State Intellectual Property Office No. 40975 invalidation request review decision (hereinafter referred to as No. 40975 invalidation decision) has found that the patent claims in question are novel and creative compared with the evidence. 3. Exhibit 21 does not disclose the dual-control electromagnetic heating control system of the accused infringing product. (4) The amount of compensation in this case is reasonable.

Tobang Company to the court of first instance to Sue: 1. Yalosi company to stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell the infringing products; 2. Yalosi Company compensates Tuobang Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million yuan; 3. Arace Company shall bear the litigation costs of this case.

The court of first instance found that:

Tuopang Company is the patentee of patent No. ZL20051003×××× ×.8 entitled "A dual-control electromagnetic heating control system". The patent application date was March 10, 2005, and the authorization announcement date was August 12, 2009, and it is still under protection. Topon claims to determine the scope of protection of the patent by claim 1.

Arace displays images of the alleged infringing product, model number CJ21Q, on its website www.rileosip.com. According to the Notary certificate No. 87420 of Shenzhen Notary Public Office (2016), on June 3, 2016, Hu Ronghua, the entrusted agent of Tuobang Company, together with the notary and notary staff, stood at the "small household appliances" counter on the right side of the second floor of "China Resources Vanguard (Yitian Store)" shopping mall at the intersection of Yitian Road and Fulin Road, Futian District, Shenzhen. Hu Ronghua purchased 2 sets of "induction cooker" on the spot, and obtained an invoice and a shopping list. After the purchase, the notary sealed the items involved. The photo attached to the notarial certificate shows that the model of the accused infringing product is CJ21Q, and the manufacturer is Yalos Company. The original trial court opened the notarized sealed envelope in court, and there was an invoice, stamped with the invoice seal of China Resources Vanguard Co., LTD., and the name specification department filled in "Yalos induction cooker CJ21Q", the amount was 259 yuan, and the number was one. There is also a shopping list of China Resources Vanguard and two receipts, one of which is marked with "Yalos induction cooker CJ21Q", the amount of 259 yuan, and stamped "invoice has been issued". When the court checked the notarized purchased product, the outer packaging of the accused infringing product and the product itself were marked with "Arace Rnice", model number is CJ21Q, and the name, location, address and other information of Arace company were also marked on the outer packaging of the accused infringing product with the website of Arace Company as www.rileosip.com. Arace confirmed that the alleged infringing products were manufactured by it, but denied that it promised to sell or sold the alleged infringing products.

The original trial court broke down patent claims 1 into the following technical features:

A. A dual-control electromagnetic heating control system comprises a main control panel 1 arranged in the lower shell and a control panel arranged in the upper shell;

B. The main control board comprises a rectifier module, an inverter module, an adaptive synchronization circuit module, a microcontroller, a rectifier and voltage regulator power supply circuit, a current detection circuit and a voltage detection circuit, and the microcontroller is provided with a heating coil power control module;

C, the current detection circuit and voltage detection circuit are connected with the heating coil power control module in the microcontroller, and provide the heating coil power adjustment information;

D. The adaptive synchronization circuit module is respectively connected with the current detection circuit, the inverter module and the microcontroller, and is straddled at both ends of the heating coil;

E. The control panel comprises a human-computer interaction interface for displaying the control module 12;

F. The main control board also comprises a communication module connected with a microcontroller;

G. The control panel also comprises a control chip, a communication module and a function processing module. The control chip 4 is connected with a communication module 8 and a function processing module 7 respectively.

H. The communication module of the main control board is connected with the communication module of the control panel;

I. The microcontroller on the main control board is used for power control, fault protection, temperature and voltage and current A/D data sampling and fan drive processing in the electromagnetic heating process;

J. The control chip on the control panel is used for the processing of the human-machine interaction interface of the control module and the realization of the function menu process, and is used to control the power output and power size of the main control board, receive the detected temperature data, voltage data and various fault protection information sent by the main control board, and control electromagnetic heating according to the received data.

The "background technology" on page 1 of the patent specification records that the existing electromagnetic heating system is often controlled by a single chip, and all the functions required by the system (including the main control board and control panel) are centralized into a chip control process. There are many drawbacks such as high technical requirements, long development cycle, many complex debugging projects, and many repetitive labors. It is recorded in the "Content of the invention" that the purpose of the invention is to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art, provide a dual-chip control electromagnetic heating control system, and provide an application-level interface control mode, through the simple control command of the control panel can deal with the complex electromagnetic heating system, thus simplifying the development process and reducing unnecessary duplication of labor.

Regarding the "adaptive synchronization circuit module", the last paragraph on page 6 of the patent specification records that "adaptive synchronization circuit module 15 is respectively connected with the current detection circuit 14, the inverter module 6 and the microcontroller 10, and is connected at both ends of the heating coil 2, which can reduce the self-heating of the inverter device." Paragraph 4 on page 7 of the manual records that "the single-tube resonant inverter module 6 is controlled by the heating coil power control module in the microcontroller 10 combined with the adaptive synchronization circuit module 15, so that in different power segments, the collector voltage of the insulated gate transistor is switched on at the lowest, reducing the on-loss and reducing the self-heating of the insulated gate transistor of the inverter device." Topon confirmed that this section is the function of the "adaptive synchronization circuit module".

In view of the large dispute between the two parties on the "adaptive synchronization circuit module", the original trial court required the two parties to provide the explanation of the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in the industry or professional books. Topang submitted the authorized text of ZL200420061350.0 patent, Zheng Quanfa's "Learn these for Induction cooker Maintenance", Sun Liqun's "Complete Mastery of Induction cooker Maintenance Skills", Liu Yuning's "Induction Cooker Microwave Oven Maintenance Introduction and skills", claiming that "synchronous circuit" is the conventional design in this field. It is also a necessary technical feature of the patent involved, but the patent involved refers to it as an "adaptive synchronization circuit". Arace provided the results of its search on the patent search website of Betan, showing that it could not search for the patent related to "adaptive synchronization circuit", but could search for several patents with "synchronization circuit" in the name.

After the application of Tuopang Company, on December 14, 2017, the original trial court legally entrusted Guangdong Xinzheng Judicial Authentication Institute to evaluate whether the accused infringing product has five technical features B, C, D, G and I in the patent claim 1. At the request of Guangdong Xinzheng Forensic Authentication Institute, on September 21, 2018, the court of first instance requested Yalesi to provide the circuit diagram, chip model and after-sales service manual of the accused infringing products for identification, and Yalesi provided the Maintenance Guide stamped with its official seal. On November 30, 2018, Guangdong Xinzheng Judicial Appraisal Institute made the Judicial Appraisal Opinion No. 1308 of the [2018] Division of YueXinzheng Judicial Appraisal Institute, concluding that the accused infringing products have five technical characteristics of the patent claims in the entrusted matters: 1. The electronic motherboard [1] of the accused infringing product comprises a synchronization circuit [15], a CPU [10], and a CPU [10] connected power adjustment circuit [16]. Compared with the technical features of Item B of the patent involved, the two parties have adopted basically the same technology and have the same function and effect. 2. Part of the current detection circuit [14] and voltage detection circuit [13] of the accused infringing product are outside the CPU [10], and part of the functions are realized in the CPU [10], wherein the C14 of the voltage division circuit of the voltage detection circuit [13] sends signals to the CPU [10], connects with the power adjustment circuit [16] and provides power adjustment information. Compared with the technical features of item C of the patent involved, the two parties have adopted basically the same technology and have the same function and effect. 3. The synchronization circuit [15] of the accused infringing product is connected to the current detection circuit [14] through the CPU [10], and the synchronization circuit [15] is connected to the inverter circuit [6] through R32 and R7. The synchronization circuit [15] is connected to the CPON and CPOP pins of the CPU [10], and the connection between the synchronization circuit [15] and the heating coil [2] is realized by R19 and R32. Compared with the technical features of Item D of the patent involved, the two parties have adopted basically the same technology and have the same function and effect. 4. The control board [3] contains a chip [4], a communication module [8], and a function processing module [7]. The chip [4] contains a function processing module [7], and is connected with the communication module [8] [9] through a plug-in [20]. Compared with the technical features of Item G of the patent involved, the two parties have adopted basically the same technology and have the same function and effect. 5. The CPU [10] of the electronic motherboard [1] of the accused infringing product is connected with the power adjustment circuit [16], the alarm circuit, the temperature measurement circuit of the furnace surface, the fan control circuit [17], and the fan drive circuit [18], and the CPU [10] has the data sampling function. Compared with the technical features of the patent I, the two parties have adopted basically the same technology and have the same function and effect.

Tuobang Company has no objection to the Judicial expert Opinion.

Yalosi Company raised objections to the 1-4 appraisal opinions of the Judicial Appraisal Opinion, and had no objections to the fifth appraisal opinion. The contents of the objection are as follows: 1. There is objection to the identity of the expert Pan Kangsen as a full-time judicial expert. He is the legal representative of Guangzhou Lianshen Computer Technology Co., LTD., and cannot be a full-time expert. 2. [13] in the identification letter is not a voltage detection circuit, but a voltage surge detection circuit; [14] Not a current detection circuit, but a voltage detection circuit; [16] Not a power adjustment circuit, but a current detection circuit; [8] and [9] are not communication modules, but connectors. 3. Synchronization circuit [15] exists in the accused infringing product, but the synchronization circuit [15] belongs to a different circuit from the adaptive synchronization circuit module recorded in patent claim 1.

On January 30, 2019, in the third trial of the original trial court, Wang Guihai, an expert of Guangdong Xinzheng Judicial Authentication Institute, appeared in court to participate in the lawsuit, and responded to the objection of Yalesi Company as follows: 1. The Guangdong Provincial Department of Justice has approved Pan Kangsen as a judicial expert, and his status is valid. 2. The "Maintenance Guide" for inspection materials provided by Yalos Company with its official seal indicates that [13] is a surge voltage detection circuit, which is a voltage detection circuit. In the AK circuit diagram of the Service Guide, most of the function [14] is in the CPU [10], leaving only the divider circuit consisting of R29, R26, and R12. The voltage divider circuit is part of the recognized current detection circuit in the industry, so there is a current detection circuit [14]. It is recorded in Figure 7 of the Maintenance Guide that [16] consists of RJ, C3, R2 and VR1, and VR1 in the circuit is a variable resistor used for power adjustment, so [16] is a power adjustment circuit. The accused infringing product has a blue line, that is, the [20] connector recorded in the certificate, and the two ends of the connector are the location of the communication module [8] [9]. In [8], there are two resistors, R16 is TX, R17 is RX, these two symbols indicate the role of communication, TX is signal transmission, RX is signal reception, there is signal transmission and signal reception, this is the communication module. The accused infringing product is connected between the main control panel and the control panel by the connector [20]. The connector [20] is to solve the communication problem. If there is information exchange, there must be two communication modules, otherwise communication cannot be realized. At the same time, there is an interface CON1 at [8], and another CON1 is found in the AK diagram, and the two CON1 represent the jack in the circuit diagram, indicating that the communication circuit has a considerable role in the CPU, proving that the two communication modules [8] [9] are existing. 3 induction cooker products must have a synchronous circuit, the main function of the synchronous circuit is that when the induction cooker works in different states, the IGBT working state should be coordinated with the voltage added at both ends of the heating coil, the circuit that can achieve the coordination function is called the synchronous circuit, which is known to the industry. The synchronization circuit [15] in the accused infringing product has the same relationship on the whole contact as the most common synchronization circuit, and is also connected at both ends of the heating coil. Its connection relationship, crossover position and function are the same as the function of the adaptive synchronization circuit module in the last paragraph of page 6 of the patent specification.

In the third court hearing of the original trial, Arace Company raised a new objection, arguing that from the AK diagram, the CPU [10] in the accused infringing product is located in the middle, and the synchronization circuit [15], current detection circuit [14] and inverter circuit [6] are all connected to the CPU [10]. The synchronous circuit [15] has no connection relationship with the current detection circuit [14] and the inverter circuit [6], which is different from the connection relationship recorded in the technical features of Item D of the patent involved. Expert Wang Guihai responded that: From the AK diagram, the main function of the current detection circuit [14] is realized in the CPU [10], and the synchronization circuit [15] is connected with the CPU [10], so the current detection circuit [14] and the synchronization circuit [15] are connected through the CPU [10]. According to Figure 2 of the patent specification, the IGBT tube is combined with a drive, and a series of circuits behind it are combined, that is, the dotted line part is the inverter circuit 6, which is connected with the synchronous circuit 15. Point 3 of the certificate has also been stated that in the AK diagram, the synchronous circuit [15] and the inverter circuit [6] are connected through R32 and R7.

Tuobang Company paid notary fees of 1,000 yuan, attorney fees of 20,000 yuan and appraisal fees of 96,000 yuan for this case. Hu Ronghua, the notary and evidence investigator commissioned by Topang Company, is an employee of Shenzhen Nuocheng Intellectual Property Services Co., LTD. Topang Company pays the company 5080 yuan for the service fee.

In the original trial trial, the Tuobang company requested the court to consider the factors of the invention patent involved and the large sales volume of Yalosi Company, and determine the amount of infringement compensation as appropriate.

In view of the fact that Yalos Company confirmed in the trial that it manufactured the accused infringing products, the original trial court required it to provide the number of the accused infringing products to the original trial court within five working days after the end of the second trial, that is, September 4, 2018, if it fails to submit within the time limit, it will bear the legal consequences of failure to provide evidence. By the time the original trial judgment was made, Yalesi Company had not submitted to the original trial court.

The original trial court held that the focus of the dispute in this case is: (1) whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent claim 1; (2) If the infringement is established, how to determine the nature of the infringement and the amount of compensation for the infringement.

(a) whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent claim 1 involved

1. About technical feature A. Although the control panel of the accused infringing product is set in the lower shell, it is different from the position "set in the upper shell" in the technical feature of Item A of the patent claim 1, but first of all, the invention point of the patent involved is to improve the single-chip control of the electromagnetic heating system to dual-chip control. Although the position of the control panel of the accused infringing product is different from that of the patent involved, the chip module is started after contact with the inner part of the lower shell through the control key of the panel, so that the product can run. The technical means adopted by the two are essentially the same, and the function or effect does not produce substantive difference, and the technical content and substantive meaning of the patent involved are not changed. Second, the simple change in the position of the control panel Settings is a technical feature that ordinary technicians in the field can associate without creativity, and is an obvious alternative. Therefore, compared with the technical features of item A, the position of the control panel in the accused infringing product adopts basically the same means to achieve the same function and achieve the same effect, and ordinary technical personnel in the field can associate it without creative labor when the accused infringing act occurs, which constitutes equivalent.

2. Technical features B, C, D, G, I. According to the appraisal opinion of the Judicial Appraisal and the court statement of the appraisal personnel, the corresponding technical characteristics of the accused infringing products and the technical characteristics of B, C, D, G and I are basically the same means to achieve the same function and achieve the same effect, and the accused infringing products use general electronic components and circuits in the industry. For example, variable resistor VR1, voltage divider circuit, synchronous circuit, etc., indicating that ordinary technical personnel in this field do not need creative thinking, only according to their professional knowledge and experience, by reading the claims, specifications and drawings of the patent involved, they can associate the alleged infringement technical scheme. The corresponding technical characteristics of the accused infringing product are equal to the technical characteristics of items B, C, D, G and I.

3. Technical features E. Both parties confirm that the corresponding technical characteristics of the accused infringing product are the same as those of Item E.

4. Technical features F, H. In the Judicial Identification Letter, it is confirmed that there are communication modules [8] [9] in the main control panel and control panel of the accused infringing product that constitute the same communication module as the "communication module" in claim 1 of the patent involved, and the two are connected through connectors [20]. Therefore, the corresponding technical characteristics of the accused infringing product constitute the same as those of items F and H.

5. About technical features J. In the Judicial Identification Report, it is confirmed that the CPU [10] on the electronic main board [1] of the accused infringing product is connected with the fault protection circuit to measure the temperature of the furnace surface, buzzer alarm and be responsible for fault protection. Arace has no objection to the appraisal opinion. Therefore, the control chip on the control panel of the accused infringing product receives various fault protection information sent by the main control board. In combination with the confirmation of other contents of Item J technical features by Araes Company, the corresponding technical features of the accused infringing products are the same as that of Item J technical features.

To sum up, the corresponding technical features of the accused infringing product constitute the same as the A-D and F-I technical features recorded in the patent claim 1, and the same as the E and J technical features, which fall within the scope of protection of the patent claim 1, constituting infringement.

(2) The determination of the nature of the infringement act and the determination of the liability for infringement

Arace shows pictures of the infringing products on its official website, acknowledging that it has manufactured the infringing products, and Topon also buys the infringing products from the market made by ArACE, and Arace constitutes a promise to sell, sell and manufacture the infringing products.

Without the consent of Tuobang or the patentee, ArACE Company manufactures, sells or promises to sell infringing products for business purposes, which infringes Tuobang's invention patent right, and shall bear the responsibility for immediately stopping infringement and compensation. Tuobang does not have evidence to prove the loss it suffered due to the infringement or the total amount of benefits gained by the company due to the infringement, and requires the court of first instance to determine the amount of compensation at its discretion. The court of first instance shall take into account the types of patents involved, the market value of the infringing products, the nature of the infringing acts of the Company and the cost of protecting the rights of the company and other circumstances. In particular, the Tuobang company did not provide the quantity of its manufacturing infringing products within the period specified by the original trial court without legitimate reasons, and should bear the legal consequences of failure to provide evidence, so the original trial court fully supported the amount of compensation requested by the Tuobang Company, and determined that Yalos Company compensated the Tuobang Company for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses in total of 1 million yuan.

To sum up, the original trial court ruled: Yalos Company immediately stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell infringement of Tuopang Company ZL20051003××××.8 patent; Yalosi Company shall compensate Tuobang Company for a total of 1 million yuan of economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses within 10 days after the effective date of the original trial judgment; The acceptance fee of the first instance case is 13,800 yuan, and the identification fee is 96,000 yuan, which shall be borne by Yalesi Company.

During the court's second trial, Araes submitted seven sets of 32 pieces of evidence:

(1) The first set of evidence

The first set of evidence includes evidence 1-5, intended to prove that the "adaptive synchronization circuit" was not disclosed before the patent application date, and the patent specification involved was not clear. Evidence 1 is the result of a search on the website of the State Intellectual Property Office with the keyword "adaptive synchronization circuit", which only shows two patents of Tuobang Company. Evidence 2 is the result of searching "adaptive synchronization circuit" as the keyword on the website of China National Knowledge Network, only one document "a practical vibration microcomputer measurement and control system" is displayed. Exhibit 3 is an article by Chen Yin et al., published in the Journal of Shanxi University in 1995, No. 18, entitled "A Practical vibration microcomputer measurement and control System". Evidence 4 is a printable document of "cd4098 Chinese Data Summary" retrieved on Baidu website with the keyword "4098". Evidence 5 is the intermediate document of the patent invalidation procedure involved, the statement of opinion submitted by Tuobong Company and related attachments.

The cross-examination opinions of Tuobang Company on this group of evidence are: recognize the authenticity of evidence 1 and 2, think that Yalos company only did a simple search, there are keywords bias, single database and other problems, can not exclude the same or similar content of Chinese or foreign literature, do not recognize its proof purpose. The authenticity of Exhibit 3 is accepted, but the literature has nothing to do with the patent in question and the alleged infringing product, because the synchronization circuit may have different functions in different appliances/electrical equipment. The authenticity of Exhibit 4 is not recognized and the evidence is not relevant to the case. The authenticity of evidence 5 is recognized, and its relevant content precisely shows that there is no unclear problem with "adaptive synchronization circuit". At the same time, "patent specification is not clear" belongs to the scope of examination of patent invalidation procedures, does not belong to the scope of infringement litigation. No. 40975 Invalid decision has found that "the patent specification involved has made a clear and complete description of the relevant content of the adaptive synchronization circuit, in line with the provisions of Article 26, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law."

Regarding the first set of evidence, the court's certification opinion is as follows: Tuobang Company has no objection to the authenticity of evidence 1, 2, 3 and 5, and the court confirms the authenticity of the four pieces of evidence after review. Evidence 4 is the "cd4098 Chinese Data Summary" document retrieved from Baidu website with the keyword "4098". It is impossible to verify the authenticity of the uploaded person and the document, and the authenticity of the evidence is not recognized by Tuobang Company. The Court does not confirm the authenticity of the evidence.

(2) The second set of evidence

The second set of evidence includes evidence 6-10, intended to prove the role of "adaptive synchronization circuit", the principle and function of IGBT and synchronous circuit, "adaptive synchronization circuit" and synchronous circuit are not the same and not identical. Evidence 6 is the search results of books with the keyword "induction cooker" on the websites of Guangzhou Provincial Zhongshan Library and Guangzhou Library. Evidence 7 is "Negative Feedback Amplifier Circuit", Chapter 9, Fundamentals of Circuit and Analog Electronic Technology, edited by Zha Libin (Electronic Industry Publishing House, printed in August 2011). Exhibit 8 Master's thesis of South China University of Technology entitled "Research on IGBT Drive and Overvoltage Protection", submitted on March 18, 2015. Exhibit 9 is "Induction Cooker Maintenance Skills - From Novice to Master" by Jiang Xiuxin (Chemical Industry Press, September 2011). Section 3.2 of page 60 (total evidence of the second trial, page 241) mentions that "the synchronous circuit, as the name suggests, is the circuit that generates the synchronous signal, which is relative to the C-pole pulse of the IGBT, which is the lowest detection signal of the IGBT pole voltage, and the best IGBT opening time." The synchronous circuit accurately monitors the working state of the main circuit, and the monitoring results are used to control the operation of the oscillation circuit, so as to prohibit the oscillation circuit from working during the IGBT of the main circuit has a reverse peak pulse, resulting in the breakdown of the IGBT by the double action of high voltage and high current." "When the IGBT is on, the lower the C-pole voltage, the smaller the loss inside the IGBT, and the greater the loss on the contrary. When the IGBT internal loss is too large, the IGBT internal heat is serious and leads to burnout." Evidence 10 is "Induction cooker Maintenance from entry to mastery" edited by Sun Liqun (People's Posts and Telecommunications Press, printed in December 2010), the public content is similar to evidence 9.

The cross-examination opinion of Topang Company on the group of evidence is: the authenticity of evidence 7, 9 and 10 is recognized, and the authenticity of evidence 6 and 8 cannot be verified. With respect to Exhibit 6, it is not considered relevant whether the library has relevant collections. With regard to Exhibit 7, the "negative feedback amplifier circuit" is not directly related to the patent in question and is not related to the purpose of proof asserted by Araes. As for Exhibit 8, its focus is on drive and overvoltage protection and is not directly related to the patents involved or ArACE's claims. As for evidence 9 and 10, they explain the working principle similar to that of the patent in question. Refer to Figure 3-10 and related text description on page 245 of Evidence 9, where "synchronous circuit" is a smaller concept, which works together with oscillating circuit and other peripheral circuits, and finally embodies the connection relationship and functional effect similar to that of "adaptive synchronous circuit" in the patent in question.

For the second group of evidence, the certification opinions of the court are as follows: Tuobang Company recognizes the authenticity of evidence 7, 9 and 10, and evidence 8 is a master's thesis of South China University of Technology, and the court confirms the authenticity of the above evidence after review. Evidence 6 is the search results of the collection of books related to "induction cooker" by Guangzhou Provincial Zhongshan Library and Guangzhou Library. Whether the library collects induction cook-related books is not related to the control system of the dual-control induction cooker in this case, and the court does not accept evidence 6.

(3) Third group of evidence

The third set of evidence includes evidence 11-15, which intends to prove the definition and principle of "control chip". The control chip 4 of the patent involved can only be used for receiving and sending signals, and has no management function, while the chip of the accused infringing product has management function, which is different. Evidence 11-12 refers to the definitions of "control" and "chip" in the Modern Chinese Dictionary (7th edition, Commercial Press, 2018). Evidence 13 is the "Induction cooker Maintenance Data Quick Check Manual" (China Machine Press, printed in February 2013) edited by Xue Jinmei et al., introduced the HMS807C1204A integrated circuit and its pin functions and maintenance data, which shows that the function of pin 18 and 19 is "key command input", and the function of pin 16 is "data communication". Exhibit 14 is the utility model patent specification of patent No. ZL20032011×××× ×.x named "Induction cooker control device". Evidence 15 is the "YD-T02" circuit diagram of the control panel of the accused infringing product, which is labeled as the inspection material 2 provided to the appraisal body.

The cross-examination opinions of Topang Company on this group of evidence are: the authenticity of evidence 11-14 is recognized, and the authenticity of evidence 15 cannot be verified. Evidence 11-12 is not directly related to the patent in question and the purpose of proof claimed by Arace. Exhibit 13 is not relevant to Arace's claim for proof purposes, because the HMS807C1204A chip has a data communication function for pin 16 in addition to key command input for pins 18 and 19. The patent in question can be based on the data communication function of pin 16, and then through the corresponding communication module 8 and 9, connect with the control chip 4 on the control panel 3, which precisely shows that the control chip 4 in the patent in question is a central processor/microprocessor/single-chip chip. Exhibit 14 has nothing to do with the purpose of proof claimed by Araes and is only the background technology of the patent in question. Evidence 15 just shows that Arace Company believes that the accused infringing products also have management functions and fall within the scope of patent protection.

Regarding the third group of evidence, the court's certification opinion is as follows: Tuobang Company has no objection to the authenticity of evidence 11-14, and the court confirms the authenticity of the four pieces of evidence after review. As for evidence 15, after verification, it is consistent with the content of the inspection material 2 provided by Yalosi Company to the authentication institution.

(4) The fourth group of evidence

The fourth set of evidence, including evidence 16 and 17, is intended to prove that there is an error in the identification of the basic circuit in the appraisal opinion. Evidence 16 is related to chapters 3-6 and 10 of the Complete Guide to the Maintenance of Household Appliances edited by Han Xuetao (Chemical Industry Press, printed in May 2013), which respectively introduce the fault maintenance of surge protection circuit, voltage detection circuit, power output circuit, current detection circuit and synchronous oscillation circuit. Evidence 17 refers to the inspection material 2 provided to the appraisal institution, that is, the Maintenance Guide (Induction Cooker) of Yalos Company, page 7 (the total evidence of the second instance, page 376) records that "As shown in Figure 8, the voltage detection module is composed of R19, R32, R14, R31, C8, R24, etc.".

The cross-examination opinion of Tuobang Company on this group of evidence is: do not recognize the authenticity of evidence 16 and 17. Exhibit 16 is not related to the patent in question, nor does it show the circuit diagram of the alleged infringing product, and is therefore not relevant to the purpose of proof claimed by Araes. Evidence 17 is the maintenance guide unilaterally provided by Araros to the appraisal institution, and it cannot be confirmed whether it corresponds to the alleged infringing product. Moreover, FIG. 8 on page 376 is a voltage detection circuit, which is inconsistent with "FIG. 8 is a synchronous circuit" in evidence C supplementary submitted by Topang, indicating that the materials submitted by Araros to the appraisal institution have been modified. Deliberately misleading the accrediting agency.

Regarding the fourth group of evidence, the court's certification opinion is as follows: Arace Company did not provide the original of evidence 16 for verification, Tuobang Company did not recognize the authenticity of the evidence, and the court did not confirm the authenticity of evidence 16. As for evidence 17, after verification, it is consistent with the content of the inspection material 2 provided by Yalosi Company to the identification agency.

(5) The fifth group of evidence

The fifth set of evidence, including evidence 18-28, is intended to prove that the alleged infringing product belongs to prior art and does not constitute infringement. Araes uses Exhibit 18 as prior Art 1, and Exhibit 19-20 is used to prove that the 74LS164 chip and HT16512 chip in Prior Art 1 have the same function as the control chip 4 in the patent in question, and that HT16512 chip is actually used for keyboard management function. Araes uses evidence 21 as prior art 2 and evidence 22 to prove that 74LS164 chip can also only be used to receive key signals to save microcontroller ports; Evidence 23-28 is used to prove that the functional processing module and control chip are common technical means in the field of induction cooker.

Exhibit 18 is Notary Certificate No. 3541 of Liwan Notary Office, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province (2019), which reads as follows: According to the application of Wang Fen, the entrusted agent of Araes Company, the notary Li Jing and the assistant notary Liu Ruiyong used the computer of the notary office that had been checked for cleanliness to log in to the China National Knowledge Network to retrieve and print the master's thesis of Zhejiang University entitled "Design of electrical control part of Induction Cooker". Page 8 of the evidence (page 415 of the total evidence of the second trial) records the principle block diagram of the induction cooker, showing switching power supply, single-chip microcomputer, IGBT, IGBT driver (i.e. inverter module), current detection, voltage detection, synchronization circuit, etc. Page 9-18 introduces the load and output circuit model, the principle block diagram of the main circuit and the main controller. Page 19-29 introduces the function design principle of induction cooker, page 30-62 introduces the hardware circuit design of induction cooker, page 63-82 introduces the software design of induction cooker single chip microcomputer. Among them, the section 3.2.2 "VFD Interface" on page 21 (total evidence of the second trial, page 428) records that there are six keys in the user interface of the induction cooker digital tube, which are respectively on/key, timing key, timing key, status select key, gear increase key and gear decrease key. Page 42 (General Evidence of Second instance, page 449) states that "at the rising edge of CLK, HT16512 reads data, the falling edge outputs data, Din is the external data input, and Dout is the data output." Page 56 (Second trial General evidence page 463) states that "74LS164 is an 8-bit and outgoing serial shift register". Page 57 (total evidence of the second trial, page 464) records that "PA7 and PB8 of the single chip computer are respectively used as keyboard input signals K1 and K2" and "PA4, PA5, PA6 and PA0 of the single chip computer are respectively used as CS, CLK, Din and Dout of the VFD control device HT16512". The VFD display schematic is documented on page 62 (General evidence of the second trial, page 469).

Exhibit 19 is an article by Chao Zhang et al., published in Industrial Control Computer, Vol. 17, No. 7, 2004, entitled "Design of VFD display circuit for electromagnetic cooker", published on July 25, 2004. Evidence of 20 for in the sogou site "HT16512" as keywords retrieval results and to download a titled "1/4 to1/11 dutyvfdcontroller" document, show time is on May 3, 2005, gagaku, company fails to submit the corresponding Chinese translation.

Exhibit 21 is the disclosure specification of invention patent Application No. 02134417.5 named "Induction cooker Computer Controller", published on January 28, 2004. Page 4 of the specification describes the specific implementation of the invention in combination with the attached Figure 1-4, in which it is recorded that "three circuit boards of the invention, namely, power board, control board and key plate are installed according to the allocated circuit, and then the three circuit boards are connected by connecting sockets... The circuits allocated by the control board are microcomputer controller integrated circuit IC1, pot bottom temperature detection circuit, high power tube surface temperature detection circuit, reset circuit, clock circuit, cooling fan control circuit, sound prompt circuit, output switch circuit, output power control circuit, PWM circuit, transient pulse protection circuit, reverse voltage control circuit, current feedback circuit, power supply circuit And cooling fan power... The circuit assigned by the key plate includes a key input circuit, a display circuit, a digital tube LED LED888, and an integrated circuit IC 74LS164. Figure 1 attached to the manual is the "principle block diagram of the electromagnetic cooker computer controller of the invention", and Figure 2-4 is the principle diagram of the power board, the control board and the key plate respectively.

Exhibit 22 is an article by Ye Seifeng et al. published in the 19th issue of Computer Knowledge and Technology, 2007, entitled "Application and simulation of 74XX164 chip in microcomputer home appliances", published on October 8, 2007. Exhibit 23 is the disclosure specification of invention Patent Application No. 98119071.5 entitled "A Smart induction cooker with automatic cooking program control chip", published on May 5, 1999. Evidence 24 is an article published by Ye Nong in the first issue of Modern Home Appliances in 2004, entitled "Teach you to understand induction stoves", published on January 5, 2004. Evidence 25 was published in the "Modern Home Appliances" issue 1, 2005, entitled "hardcover supporting product recommendation", published on January 5, 2005. Evidence 26 is an article by Zhao Zhijun published in Modern Home Appliances, entitled "Emerging panel materials - glass-ceramic panels", published on June 5, 2004. Evidence 27 is an article by Tian Xia published in "Household Appliances", entitled "Induction cooker: Making fun of winter", published on October 30, 2004. Evidence 28 is Hao Gaolin's article published in "Household Appliances", entitled "Induction cooker North-South price competition", the public time is October 30, 2004.

The cross-examination opinion of Tuobang Company on this group of evidence is: to recognize the authenticity of evidence 18-28. Regarding Exhibit 18, invalidation Decision No. 40975 has found that the patent claim 1 is novel and creative compared with the evidence, and the control panel of the alleged infringing product is a microprocessor chip, which is a simple button drive in the evidence, and the alleged infringing product does not use the technical solution of the evidence. With respect to exhibits 19 and 20, invalidation Decision No. 40975 found that only the scheme for a single microprocessor was disclosed in the two exhibits and the scheme for two microprocessor chips was not disclosed. As for evidence 21 and 22, both of them belong to the background technology of the patent involved, that is, a single microprocessor chip is used to achieve overall control, while the patent involved and the product accused of infringement use two microprocessor chips to achieve separate control, so neither the technical scheme of the patent involved nor the technical scheme of the product accused of infringement is disclosed. The 74LS164 chip was also not used in the control panel of the alleged infringing product. As for evidence 23, it did not disclose that the two microprocessor control chips were split and installed on two different circuit boards, and did not disclose the corresponding required communication module connection, so it did not disclose the technical scheme of the patent involved, nor the technical scheme of the accused infringing products. As for evidence 24-28, it only discloses one or more technical features of the involved patent and the alleged infringing product, but does not disclose the exact same technical scheme as the involved patent and the alleged infringing product.

Regarding the fifth group of evidence, the court's certification opinion is as follows: Tuobang Company recognizes the authenticity of the group of evidence, and the court confirms the authenticity of the group of evidence after review. Among them, the public time of evidence 20 and 22 is later than the application date of the patent involved, which cannot be used as prior art evidence of the patent involved, and the court will not accept it.

(6) Sixth group of evidence

The sixth group of evidence includes evidence 29 and 30, which intends to prove that the adaptive synchronization circuit is not the same as the synchronization circuit, and there is no communication module 8 and 9 in the accused infringing product, and the expert opinion determines that the accused infringing product must have the opinion error of the communication module. Exhibit 29 is invalidated decision 40975. Exhibit 30 refers to the definitions of "communication", "communication", "module", "interface" and "port" in Modern Chinese Dictionary (7th edition, Commercial Press, 2018).

The cross-examination opinion of Tuobang Company on this group of evidence is: the authenticity of evidence 29 and 30 is recognized, but the purpose of proof is not recognized.

For the sixth group of evidence, the certification opinion of the court is as follows: Tuobang Company recognizes the authenticity of the group of evidence, and the court confirms the authenticity of the group of evidence after review.

(VII) Seventh group of evidence

The seventh set of evidence includes evidence 31 and 32. Evidence 31 is Notary Public Certificate No. 039416 (2019) issued by the Notary Public Office of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, the content is: under the supervision of the notary public, the computer of the Notary Office is used to preserve the Internet download process of evidence 2, 3, 19, 22, 24-28, intended to prove the authenticity of the above evidence. Evidence 32 is "electronic document submission Receipt in review and invalidation procedure", intended to prove that Yalesi Company started the invalidation procedure again for the patent involved, and the stability of the patent involved is poor.

The cross-examination opinion of Tuobang Company on this group of evidence is: the authenticity of evidence 31 is recognized, and the authenticity of evidence 32 cannot be verified.

Regarding the seventh group of evidence, the court's certification opinion is as follows: Tuobang Company recognizes the authenticity of evidence 31, and after verifying the authenticity of evidence 32 with the State Intellectual Property Office, the court confirms the authenticity of the two pieces of evidence.

After the trial, Aras submitted the oral hearing record of the patent invalidation procedure to prove that Topon acknowledged in the invalidation procedure that the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in the patent was different from the "synchronization circuit", and the power was controlled by the main control board rather than the control chip 4.

Topon submitted the following three pieces of evidence: Exhibit A is Invalid Decision No. 40975, intended to prove that the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in the patent in question is clear and that the patent in question is novel and creative relative to the prior art. Exhibit B is the statement of opinion on invalidation submitted by Yalosi Company for the patent involved, intended to prove that Yalosi Company had admitted that exhibit 18 disclosed embodiments of adaptive synchronization circuits and communication modules. Evidence C is the "after-sales Service Manual" of Araes Company uploaded on October 12, 2012, which was retrieved from the Baidu website with the keyword "Araes after-sales Service Manual". It is recorded on page 40 that "as shown in Figure 8, R19, R32, R14, R31, C8, R24, etc., constitute a synchronous circuit". It is intended to prove that the materials submitted by ArACE to the appraisal body, namely Exhibit 17, have been modified to intentionally mislead the appraisal body.

The cross-examination opinions of Yalesi Company on the above evidence are: the authenticity of evidence A and B is recognized, the authenticity of evidence C cannot be verified, and the materials provided to the authentication institution shall prevail.

In view of the above evidence of Tuobang Company, the certification opinion of the court is as follows: Yalosi Company recognizes the authenticity of evidence A and B, and the court confirms the authenticity of evidence A and B after review. Evidence C is the "after-sales service manual" of Araes Company downloaded from Baidu website, it is impossible to verify the authenticity of the uploaded file itself, and Araes company does not recognize the authenticity of the evidence, and the court does not confirm the authenticity of evidence C.

The original trial court found that the facts were true, and the court confirmed them.

The Court also found that:

(1) The prior art defense

On July 19, 2017, at the end of the first session of the original trial court, Araes entrusted a litigant to ask: "Now that the period of evidence has exceeded, can the defendant also submit evidence?" The collegiate panel informed him that "no evidence that is not relevant to comparison can be submitted again, such as evidence about prior art defenses can not be submitted again." On September 4, 2017, the Court of First Instance held its second session. On December 27, 2018, Yalos submitted a master's thesis "Design of Electric Control Part of Induction Cooker" and asserted that the accused infringing product belongs to prior art. On January 29, 2019, the original trial court held its third session and did not investigate the prior art defense and the above evidence.

(2) About the infringement scale of Yalesi Company

In the original trial, the company submitted a printout of the official website of the company, which showed that "the company... The daily output of finished products reaches 30,000 units ". Arace Company in the original trial did not recognize the authenticity of the evidence. After verification, the official website of the company does exist this statement.

The Court holds that the focus of the dispute in this case is: (1) whether the accused infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent right involved; (2) whether the prior art defense proposed by Arace is established; (3) whether the amount of compensation awarded in the original judgment is appropriate.

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

Yalos Company believes that the original judgment found that the accused infringing products fell into the scope of protection of the patent rights involved. It is mainly reflected in: 1. The synchronization circuit of the accused infringing product is not equivalent to the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in feature B of the patent involved; 2. The synchronization circuit of the accused infringing product is not directly connected to the current detection circuit, while the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in feature D of the patent involved is directly connected to the current detection circuit, and the two are not equivalent; 3. The accused infringing product does not have the communication module used for data conversion in F, G and H of the patent involved; 4. The characteristics of the fault handling information of the accused infringing product are not the same as the feature J of the patent involved, "the control panel receives the fault protection information sent by the main control panel"; 5. The control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product is not the same as or equivalent to the control chip of the patent involved.

Paragraph 1 of Article 59 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Law) stipulates that 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. Article 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 (hereinafter referred to as Judicial Interpretation of Patent Infringement I) provides that when the people's court determines whether the technology scheme accused of infringement falls within the scope of protection of the patent right, it 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. Article 17 (2) of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Dispute Cases stipulates that equivalent features mean basically the same functions and basically the same effects achieved by basically the same means as the recorded technical features. And the characteristics that ordinary technicians in the field can associate without creative labor when the alleged infringement occurs.

1. About "Adaptive synchronization circuit" in Feature B

The company believes that the "adaptive synchronization circuit" in the patent is non-standard, the specification does not disclose its definition and circuit structure, and the description of "adaptive synchronization circuit" is not clear; The "adaptive synchronization circuit" in the patent in question can be switched on at the lowest collector voltage of the insulated gate transistor in different power segments, while the "synchronization circuit" of the accused infringing product is used for synchronization signals and can only be switched on at a fixed power value, and the two do not constitute equivalent characteristics.

(1) The meaning of "adaptive synchronous circuit module" in the patent involved

The meaning of the technical term in the claim shall be understood from the perspective of ordinary technicians in the field, combined with the overall content of the specification, especially the function of the component represented by the technical term and the connection relationship between it and other components.

First of all, according to the instructions, the invention in this case is based on the existing single-chip controlled electromagnetic heating system, by changing the single-chip control to dual-chip control, to overcome the drawbacks of concentrating all functions on a single chip. The adaptive synchronization circuit is not the improvement point of the invention in this case, and it can be seen from the attached figures 1 and 2 of the specification that there is also an adaptive synchronization circuit module in the scheme of the background technology. Secondly, it is recorded in the manual that the adaptive synchronization circuit module is connected with the current detection circuit 14, the inverter module 6, and the microcontroller 10, and is connected at both ends of the heating coil 2, and the inverter module 6 is controlled through the heating coil power control module in the microcontroller 10 combined with the adaptive synchronization circuit module 15. It can be realized in different power segments when the collector voltage of the insulated gate transistor is lowest, reducing the on-loss and reducing the self-heating of the insulated gate transistor of the inverter device. The function of the adaptive synchronous circuit module described in the patent is basically the same as that of the synchronous circuit module in the field of induction cooker. Therefore, from the perspective of ordinary technicians in the field, the description of the adaptive synchronization circuit module in the patent specification is clear, and the meaning of the synchronization circuit in the field of induction cooker is basically the same.

(2) The accused infringing product has the "adaptive synchronous circuit module" in the patent involved.

It can be seen from the AK diagram of the accused infringing product that the accused infringing product also has a synchronization circuit [15]. As induction stoves operating under various powers, the protection of insulated gate transistors under different powers is an inevitable requirement and a routine design of such products. The accused infringing products also need to achieve the protection of insulated gate transistors in different power segments, and such protection can only be achieved through the heating coil power control module combined with the synchronous circuit [15]. Control the inverter module [6] to achieve. Arace claims that the alleged infringing product is only switched on at a fixed power value, but does not provide any evidence to support this. Therefore, the reason for appeal that the synchronization circuit of the accused infringing product is not the same or equivalent to the adaptive synchronization circuit module in the patent concerned is not valid.

2. About "Connection between adaptive synchronization circuit module and current detection circuit" in feature D

Araes believes that the adaptive synchronization circuit in the patent involved is directly connected to the current detection circuit, while the synchronization circuit in the accused infringing product is connected to the CPU, the CPU is connected to the current detection circuit, and the synchronization circuit is not connected to the current detection circuit, and the two do not constitute the same characteristics.

Claim 1 limits that "the adaptive synchronization circuit module is connected with the current detection circuit, inverter module and microcontroller respectively, and is straddled at both ends of the heating coil", and it can be determined that the adaptive synchronization circuit module is directly connected with the current detection circuit in the patent in combination with Figure 2 attached to the specification, that is, the control circuit block diagram of the invention in this case. The working principle of the patent involved should be that the adaptive synchronization circuit module takes the synchronization signal of the synchronization circuit, the current signal of the current detection circuit and the output signal of the microcontroller as the input, and outputs the control signal directly to the inverter module to control the IGBT turn-on, so as to reduce the IGBT turn-on loss in different power segments.

Analyze the AK circuit diagram of the accused infringing product. First of all, both [13] and [14] are voltage detection circuits based on the principle of voltage division. The difference is that the signal detection end of module [13] is not connected with a filter capacitor, so it can detect the surge peak signal in the power grid voltage. Module [13] should be the voltage surge detection circuit, and module [14] should be the voltage detection circuit. The input "PA7" of module [16] is connected with the current sampling resistor RJ, and module [16] should be a current detection circuit. The identification of module [13] [14] [16] is incorrect in the appraisal opinion. Secondly, the current detection circuit [16], synchronization circuit [15] and inverter circuit [6] are all connected to the CPU [10], and the synchronization circuit [15] is not directly connected to the current detection circuit [16], and the synchronization circuit [15] and inverter circuit [6] are not directly connected. The working principle of the accused infringing product should be that the CPU [10] receives the synchronization signal of the synchronization circuit [15] and the current signal of the current detection circuit, and after processing, outputs the control signal to the inverter module to control the IGBT turn-on, so as to reduce the IGBT turn-on loss in different power segments.

Although the inverter module in the patent involved is directly controlled by the adaptive synchronization circuit module, the current detection signal is introduced on the basis of ensuring synchronization, which can achieve current protection while reducing the on-off loss of IGBT. In the accused infringing products, the inverter module is controlled by the CPU. However, when the CPU generates the control logic, it is also necessary to consider the synchronization signal of the synchronization circuit and the current detection signal of the current detection module, and organically unify the synchronization and current protection. In the field of induction cooker technology, it is a very common way to realize a specific function by an independent hardware module or integrated into a microcontroller on the day when the infringement occurs. There is no substantive difference between the two technical means, and the functions and technical effects obtained are basically the same. As for which implementation method to choose, It is only the result of trade-offs made by ordinary people skilled in the field according to their specific needs. As far as adaptive synchronization circuit module is concerned, its working principle of reducing on-loss has been well known to ordinary technicians in this field. Based on this working principle, the synchronization function achieved by independent hardware module is integrated into the microcontroller, which is easy to be associated with and realized by ordinary technicians in this field.

In summary, although the connection relationship between the synchronization circuit and the current detection circuit in the involved patent and the accused infringing product is different, the two constitute the same characteristics, and the reason for the appeal of Yaros company cannot be established.

3. About "Communication module" in features F, G and H

The company believes that the communication module in the patent involved should have two functions of data transmission and data conversion, while the communication module of the accused infringing product only has the function of data transmission and does not have the function of data conversion.

Under normal circumstances, the communication module is used to convert data into a format that conforms to the communication protocol and is transmitted, and the module that transmits data only through line connectivity cannot be called a communication module. From the AK circuit diagram, main control board and electronic motherboard pictures of the accused infringing products, it can be seen that modules [8] and [9] only have line plug and strip interfaces, which can complete line connection and data transmission, but do not have the ability of data conversion. However, the electronic motherboard and the main control board of the accused infringing products have CPU chips and control chips respectively, and the chips of the two circuit boards must communicate, and there must be data conversion and transmission. According to the circuit structure of the accused infringing product, it can be determined that the data conversion is integrated in the chip, and then the data transmission is carried out by modules [8] and [9]. This kind of technical means of data conversion and transmission directly through the control chip, and the technical means of using a special communication module to independently realize the communication function, are common data communication means in this field, and the functions and technical effects of the two are basically the same.

In summary, the accused infringing product has the same technical characteristics as the "communication module" of the patent involved, and the reason for the appeal of Araes company cannot be established.

4. About Feature J "The control panel receives fault protection information sent by the main control panel"

The company believes that the feature J of the patent involved is that the control panel receives the fault protection information sent by the main control board, while the accused infringing product sends the fault processing information from the main control board to the electronic main board, and the means, functions and effects of the two are different.

The AK circuit diagram of the accused infringing product is the circuit diagram of the electronic motherboard, which has voltage detection, current detection, voltage surge detection circuit, the lower right corner of the figure shows that there is also IGBT temperature protection and furnace surface temperature protection circuit module, it can be seen that the accused infringing product, overvoltage, overcurrent, overheating and other fault protection information are tested and processed by the electronic motherboard. Then it is transmitted to the main control board for display and other related operations. Therefore, the accused infringing product is also the main control board to receive the fault protection information sent by the electronic motherboard, which is no different from the patent involved. Arace's claim lacked evidence to support it, and the grounds of appeal were untenable.

5. About the control chip

Araes believes that the control chip 4 of the patent involved can only be used for receiving and sending key signals and does not have management functions, while the chip of the accused infringing product has management functions, which are not the same or equivalent.

The patent specification is a dictionary compiled by the patentee of the patent involved. The technical terms in the claims cannot be interpreted mechanically without the context of the patent specification. First of all, the patent claim 1 is limited, "The control chip on the control panel is used for the processing of the human-machine interaction interface of the display control module and the realization of the function menu process, and is used to control the power output and power size of the main control board, and receive the detected temperature data, voltage data and various fault protection information sent from the main control board." The electromagnetic heating is controlled according to the received data." This shows that the control panel can independently perform a series of control functions, and cooperate with the main control panel. Secondly, the invention purpose of the patent involved is to "provide a dual-chip control electromagnetic heating control system, and provide application-level interface control mode, through the control panel simple control command can handle the complex electromagnetic heating system, thus simplifying the development process and reducing unnecessary repetitive labor process." Obviously, both the main control board and the control chip on the control panel need to undertake important control tasks. The last paragraph on page 7 of the manual also records that "each module is processed by the control chip 4." This shows that in addition to receiving and sending signals, the control chip 4 also has to undertake control tasks. Although the second to last paragraph on page 7 of the manual records that "the entire circuit is controlled by the real-time control program software embedded in the microcontroller 10", combined with the context of the expression, the "entire circuit" should refer to the entire circuit of the electromagnetic heating part, rather than the entire circuit of the induction cooker, and it cannot be concluded that the "control panel" only has the function of receiving and sending key signals. Even considering the evidence submitted by ArACE in the second instance, it cannot be concluded that the control chip 4 in the patent involved only has the function of receiving and sending key signals, but does not have the function of management. Arace's grounds of appeal are untenable.

In summary, all the reasons why Aras appeals that the accused infringing products do not fall within the scope of protection of the patent claim 1 are not valid. Although the identification of modules [13] [14] [16] in the evaluation opinion is wrong, the typical writing method of identification is not adopted when issuing the evaluation opinion, and it is discussed one by one from the four aspects of basically the same means, basically the same function, basically the same effect, and the characteristics that can be associated by ordinary technicians in the field without creative labor. However, on the whole, it does not affect the conclusion of the original judgment that the accused infringing products fall within the scope of protection of the patent claim 1 involved.

(2) Whether the prior art defense proposed by Arace is established

Based on evidence 18 combined with evidence 19-20 and evidence 21 combined with evidence 22-28, Yalos claims that the accused infringing product constitutes prior art.

According to the provisions of Article 62 and Article 22, Paragraph 5 of the Patent Law, in a patent infringement dispute, where the accused infringer has evidence to prove that the technology implemented by him belongs to prior art, it does not constitute an infringement of the patent right. Prior art means technology known to the public at home and abroad before the filing date. Article 14, Paragraph 1, provides that "Where all the technical features alleged to fall within the scope of protection of the patent right are the same or have no substantial differences with the corresponding technical features in a prior art scheme, the people's court shall determine that the technology implemented by the accused infringer belongs to the prior art provided for in Article 62 of the Patent Law." To determine whether the prior art defense is valid, the accused infringing product can only be compared with a prior art scheme to investigate whether the prior art scheme discloses technical features that are the same or not materially different from all the technical features alleged to fall within the scope of patent protection. Multiple prior art solutions cannot be combined to compare with the alleged infringing product.

1. Combine Evidence 19-20 with evidence 18

Yalos Company believes that compared with evidence 18, the difference is only that the electronic motherboard and main control board of the accused infringing product are set in the lower shell, but Tuopang company in the original trial that the distinguishing feature is the public knowledge of the field of induction cooker. In addition, the HT16512 chip and 74LS164 chip disclosed in evidence 18 are equivalent to the control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product. Topang claims that the accused infringing products use two chips of the nature of the processor to achieve the corresponding control functions, while evidence 18 is disclosed that a processor chip and a driver chip are used, and the circuit connection mode of the two is not the same.

FIG. 2.1 on page 8 of Exhibit 18 discloses the principle block diagram of the induction cooker. There is only one single chip microcomputer HT46x22 as the main circuit microcontroller of the induction cooker, and the main control functions of the induction cooker, including power control, fault protection, fan control, keyboard display control, etc., are completed by the single chip microcomputer. The question of whether HT16512 chip is equivalent to the control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product. It can be seen from the contents of page 42 and page 57 of Evidence 18 that HT16512 chip is the control device of VFD dynamic display panel, and PA7 and PB8 of SCM serve as keyboard input signals K1 and K2 respectively. PA4, PA5, PA6 and PA0 of the single chip are used as CS, CLK, Din and Dout of the VFD control device HT16512 chip respectively. At the rising edge of CLK, HT16512 reads data and outputs data along the falling edge. Din is the external data input terminal and Dout is the external data output terminal. The content further confirms that the keyboard input signal is connected to the single chip microcomputer, that is, the single chip microcomputer responds to the user's keyboard operation for processing, while the single chip microcomputer controls the display content. HT16512 chip is only used for VFD display control, does not involve key information processing and other human-computer interaction interface response operations, and the control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product is different. On whether the 74LS164 chip is equivalent to the control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product. As can be seen from FIG. 4.20 on page 56 and page 62 of Evidence 18, the 74LS164 chip is an 8-bit serial shift register, which determines the light emitting diode lighting position by the level of its output bits. Although it is connected with the key, it is only used for the light emitting diode driving and key value reading, which is functionally different from the control chip on the main control board of the accused infringing product. In summary, evidence 18 disclosed is that only a single chip microcomputer as a microcontroller to complete the main control function of the induction cooker technical scheme, and the accused infringing products in the electronic motherboard and the main control board respectively set the microprocessor and control chip division of labor cooperation of the technical scheme is substantially different.

Although the HT16512 chip is mentioned in Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20, it does not prove that the HT16512 chip in Exhibit 18 is not used solely for VFD display control. Moreover, to judge whether the prior art defense can be established, it is to compare the alleged infringing product with a prior art solution, and it cannot combine multiple prior art solutions to compare the alleged infringing product. Based on evidence 18 and evidence 19-20, Arace's appeal that the accused infringing product belongs to prior art cannot be established.

2. Combined with evidence 22-28 relative to evidence 21

The company believes that evidence 21 discloses the technical scheme of the accused infringing product, evidence 22 proves that the 74LS164 chip is also a chip that can be used to receive key information, and evidence 23-28 proves that the control chip 4 and the function processing module 7 are common technical means in the field.

Exhibit 21 discloses an induction cooker computer controller whose hardware circuit is divided into three circuit boards, namely, a power board, a control board, and a key plate, which are connected by a socket. Among them, The circuit distributed by the control board includes microcomputer controller integrated circuit IC1, pot bottom temperature detection circuit, high power tube surface temperature detection circuit, reset circuit, clock circuit, cooling fan control circuit, sound prompt circuit, output switch circuit, output power control circuit, PWM circuit, transient pulse protection circuit, reverse voltage control circuit, current feedback circuit, power supply Circuit and cooling fan power supply. The circuit distributed by the key plate includes the key input circuit, the display circuit, the digital tube, etc. The integrated circuit IC uses the 74LS164 chip. In combination with the evidence attached in Figure 1-4, it can be seen that the technical scheme disclosed in evidence 21 is that only a microcomputer controller set on the control board is used to complete various control functions of the induction cooker, including power control, fault protection, key response, display control, fan control, etc. The integrated circuit chip 74LS164 on the keyboard is used as the shift register of serial input and parallel output, which is only used to read the key value into the single chip microcomputer and the digital tube display driver, which is obviously different from the technical means that the microprocessor and the control chip are set up on the electronic motherboard and the main control board respectively. In addition, Exhibit 21 does not disclose the features of functional processing modules on the main control board of the alleged infringing product.

In view of evidence 22-28, on the one hand, as mentioned above, to judge whether the prior art defense is valid, it is to compare the alleged infringing product with a prior art solution, and not to combine multiple prior art solutions to compare the alleged infringing product; On the other hand, even if these evidences can show that the functional processing module is the usual technical means in the field of induction cooker, it can not show that on the basis of the existing technology in evidence 21, the technical means of setting the microprocessor and control chip on the electronic motherboard and the main control board respectively are the usual technical means in the field of induction cooker.

In summary, evidence 21 discloses a technical scheme that uses only one single chip microcomputer as a microcontroller to complete the main control function of the induction cooker, which is substantially different from the technical scheme in which the accused infringing product sets the microprocessor and control chip on the electronic motherboard and the main control board respectively. The court does not support Arace's appeal that the accused infringing products belong to prior art based on evidence 21 and evidence 22-28.

In addition, after the review of the court, the prior art defense evidence submitted by the company in the original trial is evidence 18. As mentioned above, Exhibit 18 does not prove that the alleged infringing product belongs to prior art, and the original judgment did not examine the prior art defense claims and evidence, which did not affect the entity rights and interests of Aras. Therefore, the Court does not support Arace's appeal on the grounds that the original judgment was missed and should be set aside.

(3) whether the amount of compensation awarded in the original judgment is appropriate

The company believes that when the original trial court determined the amount of compensation, it did not consider the factors such as the minimal actual loss of Tuobang Company and the low price of the accused infringing products; In the event that Topon only provides evidence that Arace manufactured, promised to sell and sold the alleged infringing products, without providing any prima facie evidence of the quantity of the alleged infringing products, order Arace to provide evidence of the quantity of the alleged infringing products, and award the maximum legal damages if Arace refused to provide the corresponding evidence, The distribution of burden of proof and the application of discretion are obviously improper.

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Patent Law, where it is difficult to determine the loss of the right holder, the benefits obtained by the infringer and the patent license royalty, the people's court may determine the compensation of not less than 10,000 yuan but not more than one million yuan based on the type of the patent right, the nature and circumstances of the infringement and other factors. Article 27 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (II) provides that where the right holder has provided preliminary evidence of the interests gained by the infringer, and the account books and materials related to the patent infringement are mainly in the possession of the infringer, the people's court may order the infringer to provide the account books and materials; Where the infringer refuses to provide or provides false account books or materials without justifiable reasons, the people's court may, on the basis of the claims and evidence provided by the right holder, determine the interests obtained by the infringer due to the infringement.

According to the above provisions, the premise of ordering the infringer to provide evidence such as account books is that the right holder has provided preliminary evidence of the interests obtained by the infringer. With reference to the above provisions, when determining the amount of statutory compensation, when the alleged infringing product is indeed manufactured by the infringer, and the right holder has provided preliminary evidence of infringement, the people's court may order the infringer to provide information such as the number of products manufactured by the alleged infringing product; If the infringer refuses to provide compensation without justifiable reasons, the people's court may determine the amount of compensation according to the claims of the right holder and the nature of the infringing act. In this case, Topang company claims legal compensation, which submitted a printed copy of the official website of Yalosi Company in the original trial, showing that the production scale of Yalosi company is "product output of 30,000 units per day", although it can not be determined that this production scale is the production scale of the accused infringing products, but the original trial court based on this preliminary evidence, It is not improper to order Arace Company to provide the quantity of the actual manufacture and sale of the alleged infringing products. Moreover, there are no technical obstacles for manufacturers to provide production quantities of specified models. After the original trial court clarified the adverse consequences of refusing to provide relevant evidence without justifiable reasons, Arace Company still refused to provide relevant evidence. In combination with this situation, the original trial court took into account the types of patents of Tuobang Company, the market value of the infringing products, the nature of the infringement of Yalos Company, Tuobang Company's rights protection costs and other factors, and fully supported Tuobang Company's claim for compensation is not improper.

To sum up, the appeal request of Yalos company cannot be established, and the court rejects it. The original judgment clearly identified the facts and correctly applied the law, and should be upheld. In accordance with the provisions of Article 170 (1) (1) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

The second instance case acceptance fee of 13,800 yuan shall be borne by Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD.

This judgment is final.

The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

The second instance case acceptance fee of 13,800 yuan shall be borne by Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD.

This judgment is final.