【 Case summary 】
On September 6, 2001, after confirming the validity of its US patent No. 5008,718 in the US patent litigation, Philips Lumens filed its first patent lawsuit against Crystal Optoelectronics in July 2004, and Crystal agreed to settle the case by paying a one-time patent license fee. According to the agreement between the two parties, in the future, if Philips Lumens files a patent infringement lawsuit against Crystal in the United States Patent No. 5008718, Crystal reserves the right to challenge the validity of the patent. Due to the fierce competition between the two sides in the global diode LED market, Philips Lumens filed a lawsuit against Crystal Optoelectronics to the United States International Trade Commission on April 11, 2005, and cited the infringement of its U.S. patent No. 5008718. Asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to protect all of its high brightness LED (HB-LEDs) technology and related patents.
The U.S. International Trade Commission concluded its investigation on December 8, 2005, finding that Wafer infringed Philips Lumins' U.S. Patent No. 5008,718. On January 1, 2007, Philips Lumins filed a restriction exclusion order with the U.S. International Trade Commission for the validity and enforceability of Patent No. 5008718 for LED products manufactured by Wafer with numbers OMA and GB. Jing Yuan argued that the ITC had misinterpreted the scope of the patent's validity and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on May 22, 2009, that the products of Crystal were infringing in the interpretation of the scope of the patent, but Crystal had reasons for the patent validity claims in the license agreement between the two parties, and that the exclusion restriction order agreed by the United States International Trade Commission extended to downstream manufacturers of the product, which was not in line with the spirit of contract law. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sent the case back to the U.S. International Trade Commission for a new trial. The result of remanding for a new trial prompted Philips Lumens to reach a settlement agreement with Crystal Optoelectronics, and Crystal successfully obtained the full license of its patent No. 5008,718 in the United States.
【 Case Revelation 】
This case is typical in that it is one of the few patent infringement lawsuits involving the electronic information industry in the United States that have been fully litigated. Philips Lumileds Lighting ConBany not only sued Epistar Corporation Ltd. in the United States International Trade Commission, but also appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court, and finally the two sides chose to settle the case. There are two important contents in this case: First, the application of the patent license agreement signed by the surviving enterprise with the acquired subsidiary and the third party; The second is whether the application of the restriction and exclusion order can be extended to the products of downstream manufacturers. As the new energy industry is an industry with a very close upstream and downstream supply chain, the result of patent litigation of upstream enterprises will directly affect the production of downstream industrial products, and then have a huge impact on the supply of the entire new energy industry in the industrial chain. In the global market supply link of the LED industry, Chinese enterprises play the role of downstream suppliers. Therefore, this case has important guiding value in guiding enterprises how to avoid patent licensing infringement of LED products, as well as signing agreements after settlement with foreign upstream enterprises.
Source: Shenzhen Intellectual Property Protection Center, China
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
Huawei vs Samsung 5G dispute case summary Involved in the patent (patent No. 200880007435.1) the name of the invention patent (referred to as the patent), applied on January 7, 2008 (the earliest priority date is January 5, 2007), authorized notice on July 23, 2014, The patent holder is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Samsung Corporation). Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Huawei) filed a request for invalidation of the patent with the Patent Reexamination Board of the former State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board) on September 2, 2016.
2022-05-17
Retrial of the applicant China Resources (Group) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Group) and China Resources Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Intellectual Property Company) for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes with the respondent China Resources Lighting Store (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Store) in Jinniu District, Chengdu, If you are not satisfied with the civil judgment No. 174 of Sichuan Higher People's Court (2020), apply to the court for a retrial.
2022-04-21
Us Steel and Baosteel 337 investigation
In May 2016, more than 40 Chinese steel companies, such as Baosteel and Shougang, launched a 337 investigation against carbon steel and alloy steel imported from China to the United States. From anti-monopoly, infringement of trade secrets, fictitious origin and other three aspects of the Chinese steel enterprises accused.
2021-08-31
Zhuhai Nastar Company and other responding to the case of "337 investigation" ink cartridges
On February 27, 2006, Epson filed a "337 investigation" application for several ink cartridge manufacturers, including Chinese enterprises, and then, on August 1 of the same year, when Epson's "337 investigation" case had not yet appeared, HP also filed a "337 investigation" application for three companies affiliated with Nastar Group.
2021-08-31
In January 2009, Cargill filed a "337" infringement lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission ITC on the grounds that six defendants such as Nantong Foreign Trade Medical and Health Products Co., Ltd. infringed its patent, and applied for a general exclusion order to prohibit all the vegetarian glycosamines and products containing the substance that infringed its patent from entering the United States market, regardless of origin.
2021-08-31
Resmed v. ABbot medical device patent infringement case
On March 28, 2013, Resmed filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against AB and its distributor, California's Driver Medical Design & Manufacturing, for illegally importing and selling "certain systems and components for the treatment of sleep disordered breathing. sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof) and other products infringed Resmed's seven patents related to humidity regulators and breathing masks.
2021-08-12
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
