Huawei vs Samsung in the 5G battle
Brief
The invention patent (Patent No. 200880007435.1) in question was filed on January 7, 2008 (the earliest priority date was January 5, 2007), and was authorized on July 23, 2014. The patentee is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (Samsung Corporation). Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Huawei) filed a request for invalidation of the patent with the Patent Reexamination Board of the former State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) on September 2, 2016. After examination, the Patent Reexamination Board made No. 33697 invalidation Request review decision (referred to as the lawsuit decision) on October 26, 2017, finding that the patent enjoys the corresponding priority, and Huawei's relevant reasons for invalidation cannot be established, and decided to maintain the validity of the patent.
Huawei is not satisfied with the decision of the lawsuit, and files a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting the cancellation of the decision of the lawsuit, and the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new decision. The Court of first instance held that the technical feature of the patent claim 1 "producing different orthogonal codes for different time slots" was not recorded in the prior application documents, so it cannot enjoy the corresponding priority. The respondent's decision is wrong, and Huawei's claim has factual and legal basis. Huawei's other claims are not valid. Accordingly, the court of first instance ruled to revoke the sued decision, and the Patent Reexamination Board made a reconsideration decision on Huawei's request for invalidation of the patent. Samsung filed an appeal against the ruling. During the trial of the second instance, Huawei made a written request to the court on March 31, 2019, and April 7, 2019, respectively, on the grounds that it and Samsung had reached an agreement. The Court of second Instance held that Samsung's grounds of appeal regarding the priority of the patent were not supported and that the Court was accused of making a mistake in determining whether the patent was entitled to priority. Although Huawei applied in writing to withdraw the prosecution, allowing it to withdraw the prosecution may "harm the national interests, social public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others", so the case does not have sufficient conditions to allow Huawei to apply for withdrawal of the prosecution. Accordingly, the court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
This case involves the basic patent of 5G technology, and the validity of this patent is closely related to the development of communication technology in China. The Court of second instance made it clear for the first time that in a patent confirmation case, under the premise that the first instance judgment determined that the patent did not enjoy priority, the court of second instance should not simply settle the application for withdrawal of the lawsuit by Huawei during the second instance, but should refer to the provisions of Article 338 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Review whether the application meets the conditions set out in the law. The focus should be examined if the conclusion of the invalidation decision is partially invalid or the patent right is declared valid, whether the determination of the valid part of the patent right in the first instance judgment has the opposite conclusion and materically affects the validity of the patent right, and therefore whether the decision to allow the withdrawal of the prosecution will harm the interests of the public or others. The adjudication rules established in this case not only have a guiding effect on whether to allow the parties to withdraw the suit during the second instance in the patent right confirmation case, but also have a reference significance for the court of first instance to allow the withdrawal of the suit in the patent right confirmation case.
Source: Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center, China
The selected cases of intellectual property are excerpted in the published cases and the following platforms
▲Top 10 intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2020
▲Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court services and safeguards scientific and technological innovation cases
▲Typical cases of intellectual property Court of the Supreme People's Court
▲Typical case of Beijing Intellectual Property Court
▲Typical case of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court
▲Selected typical cases of Intellectual Property Division of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court
▲"Lexmachina", "Westlaw" and other legal analysis platforms
Related Cases
The first instance told that the light distance company filed a lawsuit with the original trial court, and the original trial court accepted the case on November 27, 2020. Guang Distance Company sued to order Puneng Company: 1. Immediately stop manufacturing, selling, promising to sell products that infringe the patent rights involved; 2. Compensation for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) 800,000 yuan. The defendant of the first instance argued that the original trial of Panneng Company argued: the patentee involved is a Taiwan enterprise, the authenticity of the Patent licensing Agreement is not recognized, it is impossible to confirm whether the light distance company enjoys authorization when suing, and the light distance company is not the subject
2022-05-25
The appellant Zhongshan Yalesi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yalesi Company) is not satisfied with the civil judgment (2016) No. 1238 of Guangdong 03 Minchu made by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province on February 26, 2019, due to the invention patent infringement dispute with the appellant Shenzhen Topang Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Topang Company). Appeal to this court. After the filing of the case on July 2, 2019, the court formed a panel in accordance with the law, and tried the case in public on August 7, 2019. The appellant Yalesi Company appointed an agent AD litre Chen Wei, and the appellant Tuopang Company appointed an agent AD litre Yi Zhao to attend the court. The case is now closed.
2022-05-18
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
