First, satellite navigation chip invention patent infringement case

Second, "artificial bone" technology investment patent rights case

Third, genetic fingerprinting detection of new plant varieties

4. Patent infringement case of "High tower granulation Production granular compound fertilizer"

Case by case application for provisional protection fee of invention patent

Vi. Infringement of technical secrets involving criminal and civilian cross

Seventh, innovation "double cycle, multiple rounds" identification of computer software infringement cases

Eight, "friends of the general manager" wechat marketing software unfair competition case

Ix. Case of patent application right for service invention of "Take-up switching device"

10. German enterprise "modified polyisocyanate" invention patent infringement case

The original told that it is the patentee of the invention patent "a method and system for accelerating the first positioning time of a GNSS receiving device". On its official website, UBEiluo promises to sell chip module products named NEO-M8N and NEO-M8Q. Ubeiluo Wireless Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. is the only wholly-owned subsidiary of Ubeiluo in China and the R&D and production center of related chips established by Ubeiluo in China. The plaintiff made a preliminary comparison between the sued products and the patents involved and found that the chip module products named NEO-M8N and NEO-M8Q fell into the protection scope of the patent rights involved, and the two defendants constituted infringement and sued for compensation of 1 million yuan.

Guangzhou intellectual Property Court after hearing, found that the two defendants constitute infringement. As for the amount of compensation, given that it is difficult to determine the loss of the right holder, the benefits obtained by the infringer due to the infringement and the patent license fee, the amount of the plaintiff's claim is fully supported by the comprehensive consideration of the types of patents involved, the business scale of Youbeiluo Company, the nature and circumstances of the infringement, and the reasonable rights protection fees paid by the plaintiff, according to the facts identified.

After the verdict of the first instance, the two defendants appealed to the Supreme People's Court and are now in the second instance trial stage.

【Typical significance】

This case involves the invention patent of "a method and system for accelerating the first positioning time of GNSS receiver", which is a satellite navigation positioning technology that enables navigation equipment to achieve rapid positioning in weak signal environments. The technology in the field of satellite navigation has the characteristics of interconnection, information exchange, multi-equipment cooperation, etc. Most of the related patents exist in the form of method patents. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that such patented methods were solidified in the equipment when the accused product was manufactured, so the corresponding hardware containing solidified software should be technically tested and reasonably interpreted when the infringement determination was made. First of all, on the basis of fully listening to the opinions of the parties, combined with the opinions of technical investigators and technical experts, according to the patent specification and the public knowledge in the field, scientific determination of technical testing and inspection methods, and the interpretation of test data by excluding reasonable test errors. Secondly, satellite navigation module is often a part of related industrial products, the accused product after the navigation chip into the end product of many types, high value, the plaintiff faces information asymmetry, difficulty in obtaining evidence and other problems, often only can obtain evidence of some types of chips. After technical comparison, part of the accused products fell into the scope of patent protection. For the same specification, the same functional use or in line with the same technical specifications of the accused product, according to the characteristics of the technical scheme, in the case of the manufacturer of the accused product has not presented contrary evidence, the evidence rule can be used to reasonably assume that the relevant model product that has not been obtained is an infringing product.

The patent infringement disputes involving satellite navigation technology are relatively rare in judicial practice. For such new technology cases, the court scientifically determines technical testing and interpretation methods according to technical characteristics, carries out professional technical facts identification, and makes new attempts and explorations in improving the trial level of new types of difficult technology cases and solving the difficulty of proving evidence in new types of technology cases through reasonable allocation of the burden of proof. It demonstrates the ability and determination of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court to develop high-quality intellectual property judicial services.

Yuan told that Trachma Wenkui had invested in the plaintiff company with artificial bone technology, and was mainly responsible for the technical support and clinical transformation of the "bioactive hydroxyapatite bone implant material project, that is, the rhBMP-2 bone implant material project". In the process of cooperation, Jack Wenkui applied for the core technology of the project "human bone morphogenetic protein 2 mature peptide and its expression" as its personal patent. The plaintiff believes that the patent is mainly completed by using its company's funds, equipment and technical support, and should be a service invention, so the court is requested to order that the above patent rights belong to its name. Wenkui argued that the patent had been completed before the technology investment, and the clinical conversion did not involve technology research and development, and the patent was not a job invention.

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the disputed patent actually used the relevant tests carried out by the plaintiff as embodiments to further support and publicize the implementation effect of its patented technology, and then met the conditions for the adequacy of the disclosure of the pharmaceutical and chemical patent specification before it was granted an invention patent. Therefore, the patent involved in the case is based on the artificial bone technology received by the plaintiff, and then by carrying out relevant tests to obtain relevant test data and finally formed, that is, mainly by using the "undisclosed technical data" in the material and technical conditions of the company, which is a service invention.

After the verdict of the first instance, the two defendants appealed to the Supreme People's Court and are now in the second instance trial stage.

【Typical significance】

This case is a patent ownership dispute case in the field of medicine, mainly involving whether clinical conversion trials in the field of medicine belong to the scope of patent research and development, and whether follow-up improvement results can be formed. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that full disclosure of the specification is one of the bases for patent authorization and invalidation. In the field of medicine, due to the poor predictability of the effect of its technical solutions, the judgment of whether to solve the technical problems to be solved or to achieve the expected technical effects mostly depends on the verification of the corresponding experimental results. The supplementary experimental evidence submitted after the application can at most be used to confirm what has been disclosed in the patent application specification, and cannot change the disclosed facts established on the basis of the original application document. Therefore, the experimental data has particularity in determining whether the specification is fully disclosed and is an important evidence of whether the expected technical effect is fully disclosed. Therefore, the development of relevant experiments and the acquisition of experimental data, such as clinical trial data, is crucial to obtaining and maintaining patent rights in the field of medicine, and helps to promote the formation of subsequent improvement results, which belongs to the scope of patent research and development.

This case also involves the ownership of the right to obtain the patent for subsequent research and development in the case that the non-patented technology investment agreement on subsequent technical achievements is unclear. Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court believes that after the technology is invested, the invested technology belongs to the transferee company, if the relevant patent mainly uses the transferee technology research and development, it should be determined that the patent law mainly uses the company's material and technical conditions in the "not public technical data". Therefore, in the absence of agreement between the two parties, the relevant patent as the result of the subsequent improvement of the funded technology belongs to the service invention and belongs to the company rather than the technology investor.

The trial of this case will help clarify the ownership of patent rights related to technology investment, clarify the ownership rules of the rights of the pharmaceutical industry to continuously innovate and apply for patents using clinical trial data, and accurately stimulate the innovation and development of clinical medicine in China.

The plaintiff filed four lawsuits on the grounds that the plant propagation materials planted, cut and grafted by the defendant infringed on its rights to new plant varieties such as "Xia Mengyanping", "Xia Mengxiaoxun", "Xia Qixin" and "Xia Yong Guose", and asked the defendant to compensate for a total of 5.457 million yuan in economic losses in the four cases.

After hearing, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court explained to the parties and facilitated the negotiation of the parties to select the genetic fingerprinting detection method as a method to determine whether the characteristics and characteristics of the reproduction materials of the accused plants are the same as those of the authorized new plant varieties. This case is the first time to use gene fingerprinting detection method to determine the characteristics of camellia woody plant varieties in infringement litigation. On the basis of the testing conclusions made by the molecular determination Laboratory of New Varieties of Plants of the National Forestry and Grassland Administration, the court comprehensively considered the agreement on the standard of authorization license fee in the "Exclusive License Agreement for the Commercial Operation of New Varieties of Camellia" and the Agreement on Authorized Production Cooperation, the agreement on land planting area in the Agreement on land contract, and the market price of camellia plants of different specifications. As well as the nature of intentional infringement and other factors, combined with the license fee standard of the new plant variety right and the number of plants and market price standard, it was determined that the defendant paid a total of 1.35 million yuan to the plaintiff in the four cases, and the case No. 329 fully supported the plaintiff's lawsuit request.

After the verdict of the first instance, the defendant appealed, and the Supreme People's Court upheld the verdict of the second instance.

【Typical significance】

Strengthening the judicial protection of seed industry intellectual property rights is related to the self-reliance of agricultural science and technology. The adoption of field observation and detection methods for new plant variety rights disputes usually takes one year, or even up to two or three years. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court facilitated the parties to the case to jointly select the genetic fingerprint detection method and cooperate with the sampling and inspection, from the material inspection to the issuance of the identification report within three months, and then determine the camellia woody plant variety characteristics. The court improved the strength and efficiency of judicial protection of new plant variety rights by means of modern plant gene technology, explored and solved the problem that it was difficult to efficiently determine the characteristic identity of the accused breeding materials and authorized varieties due to the lack of authorized varieties gene fingerprint, and contributed to the formation of the first camellia plant varieties gene fingerprint database. This series of cases supported a total of more than 1.3 million yuan of litigation claims by the owners of new plant varieties.

The new plant varieties involved in this series of cases belong to the independent intellectual property rights of the flower and garden industry with a breakthrough, and Gaozhou city is the largest camellia planting base in Guangdong Province. Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court strengthened the protection of new varieties of plants through new detection technology, promoted the development of gene fingerprint database of plant varieties, played a positive role in the healthy development of local pillar industries, helped to encourage independent innovation of seed industry, promoted the green development of new countryside, and demonstrated the firm determination to strengthen judicial protection of intellectual property of seed industry. Embodies the judicial responsibility of escorting "rural revitalization".

On the grounds that the defendant infringed its invention patent right of "method and equipment for the production of pellet compound fertilizer by high tower granulation" and caused great economic losses, the plaintiff appealed to the defendant to stop the infringement, dismantle the high tower granulation equipment for the production of fertilizer, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan. At the time of filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff filed an application for evidence preservation, requesting the court to inspect the internal structure of the high tower granulation equipment of the accused product, seal up the raw materials used in the production of compound fertilizer, and obtain the production operation manual and other materials of the production process of compound fertilizer.

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court examined the plaintiff's application for evidence preservation and found it reasonable and necessary. However, the use of the evidence preservation method of stoppage inspection will cause the defendant to suffer huge losses due to the stoppage, which is easy to trigger potential conflicts. At the same time, the spring ploughing season, stop the operation of compound fertilizer production equipment, may affect the local spring ploughing fertilizer supply and fertilizer price stability. Accordingly, the court explained to the plaintiff, guided it to change the preservation ideas, and determined the product characteristics by applying for the EIA report and environmental acceptance report of the project involved, so as to minimize the possible impact of evidence preservation measures. The change in the way of evidence preservation effectively resolved the contradictions and losses that may be caused by the evidence preservation measures. Under the promotion of the court, the two parties finally reached a settlement by paying the annual user fee, and the plaintiff withdrew the case.

【Typical significance】

The evidence preservation system aims to avoid the possibility of loss of evidence or difficult to obtain later, which will lead to the difficult to determine the facts of the case, and the necessity of evidence preservation and the examination criteria of the rationality of the preservation measures should be consistent with this. In technical cases, the main function of evidence preservation is to fix the technical scheme used by the products involved. The necessity of evidence preservation in technical cases and the rationality of the preservation measures must be examined in combination with the technical characteristics and specific technical schemes of the cases. For the handling of evidence preservation in intellectual property infringement disputes involving people's livelihood, the issue of ensuring people's livelihood and promoting stability should be taken into account. On the basis of full research and judgment on the characteristics of the patented technology and equipment involved, the preservation method with the least impact on the parties should be selected as far as possible.

This case not only involves the huge disputes and production suspension contradictions between the two parties, but also involves the livelihood security issues of the local spring ploughing and spring planting and agricultural yield. While practicing the concept of strict protection of intellectual property rights, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court considered the overall situation of ensuring people's livelihood and promoting stability, and flexibly guided the plaintiff to change the object of the evidence preservation application through repeated research and judgment on the patent technology scheme and the environmental protection standards of the equipment involved, providing a basis for resolving the infringement contradiction and alleviating the conflict of interest, facilitating the two sides to reach cooperation and achieve a win-win situation. And finally effectively avoid the local farmers spring ploughing delay and compound fertilizer price fluctuation problems. The handling of this case demonstrates the court's judicial responsibility and determination to escort rural revitalization, ensure people's livelihood and promote stability, and better achieve the unity of social and legal effects, which is highly recognized by the society.

The plaintiff is the patentee of an invention patent for "an automatic parting mechanism for bulk cable ties." The plaintiff finds that the defendant produces, sells or promises to sell the same product as the patent involved without permission, and believes that the defendant should pay the royalty during the temporary protection period of the invention patent but fails to pay it; After the announcement of the invention patent authorization, the defendant constitutes patent infringement, so the lawsuit is filed.

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court found out after hearing that there were special circumstances between the mother case application and the sub-case application for the patent right, and the invention in this case belonged to the sub-case application. The plaintiff claims that the period of payment of the license fee for the temporary protection period of the sub-case application is from 2017, the date of publication of the patent application for the parent case, to 2021, the date of authorization announcement for the sub-case application, and claims that the prerequisite for payment is that the sued technical solution falls into the protection scope of the patent application for the sub-case application when it is published in 2020 and the protection scope of the patent announcement when it is authorized in 2021. The court found that the royalty for the temporary protection period of the patent applied for in this case should be calculated from the date of publication of the patent application for the sub-case application to the date of publication of the patent authorization announcement for the sub-case application, rather than extending forward to the date of publication of the patent application for the parent case application, and made a corresponding judgment.

After the verdict of the first instance, the defendant appealed to the Supreme People's Court and is now at the stage of second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is the first civil case in the domestic judicial field on the dispute over the starting point of the provisional protection fee for patent applications. As to whether the starting point should be based on the date of publication of the sub-case application or the date of publication of the parent application, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that, first of all, according to the provisions of Article 31 of the Patent Law on the singleness of patent application, although the parent application and the sub-case application patent may have a certain connection in the invention concept, Some of the technical features of the claims may also exist in the same situation, but the two are still two independent patents, so when the technical scheme of the mother case application is published to the society, it does not mean that the public can certainly know the technical scheme of the sub-case application. Secondly, the "invention patent" mentioned in Article 13 of the Patent Law shall include the invention patent filed in the sub-case, and the "invention patent application after publication" mentioned in the patent application shall correspondingly refer to the date of publication of the sub-case application. Since the parent application patent is an independent patent, taking the publication date of the parent application as the starting point of the provisional protection period license fee is not only inconsistent with the provisions of this article, but also will lose the legal significance of the patent application publication date of the sub-case application. Thirdly, according to the provisions of the judicial interpretation on the license fee of the temporary protection period, the license fee is paid on the premise that the sued technical solution "falls into" two protection ranges within the date of publication of the patent application and the date of authorization announcement, and if the third protection range is added to the date of publication of the earlier public application as the starting point of the temporary protection period, Contradiction with the "double fall" rule of the provision. Accordingly, the court ruled that the license fee for the temporary protection period of the subcase application in this case should be calculated from the date of publication of the patent application for the subcase application to the date of patent authorization announcement for the subcase application.

The judgment of this case reflects the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court's exploration of new types of patent cases.

The original told that De Kailong Company, Li Bai 'an, Tan Guoguang, Du Junqi, Yang Kunpeng jointly implemented the unfair competition of infringing on the technical secrets of its paper processing machinery and equipment, and asked the defendants to stop the infringement, De Kailong company, Li Bai 'an, Du Junqi, Yang Kunpeng and joint compensation for economic losses of 3.5 million yuan and reasonable expenses.

After hearing, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the actions of the defendants were improper, and were conspiratorial cooperation in the implementation of the involved acts, which jointly infringed the plaintiff's technical secrets, and should bear the infringement liability such as stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. After verification, the related criminal case determined that Tan Guoguang and Li Bai 'an caused at least 2.3 million yuan of economic losses to the plaintiff. In this case, considering that Tan and Li have served their sentences, the products sold by De Kailong Company have been returned and have been completely discontinued, and the infringement has not been continued, the plaintiff's market has not actually been crowded, the technical information involved is kept confidential and the license fee remains high, and the plaintiff has not suffered serious economic losses; In addition, the related criminal case found that Tan and Li illegally obtained more secret technical information than in this case, and the object of sale for profit was not only De Kailong Company, so the economic loss caused by the joint civil tort should be less than the 2.3 million yuan recognized by the effective criminal judgment. In summary, the court referred to the plaintiff's exclusive implementation of licensing fees, combined with the benefit of the defendants' infringement, the severity of the judgment of Dekairon company compensation of 1.3 million yuan, Yang Kunpeng bear all joint and several liability for this, Li Bai 'an, Du Junqi bear joint and several liability within 400,000 yuan and 100,000 yuan respectively.

After the verdict of the first instance of the case, the defendant appealed, and the Supreme People's Court concluded the case through mediation of the second instance, and Dekailong Company compensated 800,000 yuan.

【Typical significance】

This case is a typical cross-disciplinary case of infringement of technical secrets. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court did not stop at the judgment result of related criminal cases, but simply referred to the amount of criminal losses to deal with the amount of compensation in civil cases, but based on the different legal systems of criminal and civil law on the different standards for the identification of related facts, and then made a different determination of the amount of economic losses from the judgment of criminal cases. After comprehensive consideration of related criminal cases, the court found that Tan and Li illegally obtained more secret technical information than in this case, the object of sale for profit was not only De Kailon Company, and the products sold in this case were returned and have been completely discontinued, the plaintiff's market was not actually crowded, the technical information involved was kept confidential and the license fee remained high, and no serious economic losses were caused to the plaintiff. The defendants' benefit from the infringement, the severity of the evidence and the factors of the infringement in the civil case, and the reference to the plaintiff's exclusive implementation license fee, the judgment is less than the amount of compensation recognized by the effective criminal judgment. After the judgment, although the amount of damages awarded was much lower than the demand, the plaintiff obeyed the judgment and did not appeal; After the defendant appealed, the mediation result of the second instance also showed the reasonableness of the compensation amount lower than that of the criminal case in the first instance.

Advanced technology has a profound impact on the industry's development prospects and competitive ecology. Protecting the achievements of independent innovation by means of technical secrets is an important way for science and technology enterprises to maintain competitive advantages, which can not be replaced by the protection of patent rights. However, technical secret disputes often trigger criminal and civil case procedures at the same time. How to accurately identify the facts of criminal and civil cases and decide the amount of compensation according to the different legal systems, litigation procedures and evidence rules of criminal and civil cases is an important practical topic. The judgment of this case has played a positive role in correcting the false understanding that there is no difference between criminal and civilian evidence and that civil evidence is useless, and has made a beneficial exploration on the different rules for determining related facts in different legal systems of criminal and civil cross-cases.

The original told that the defendant infringed on its small scanning software and the copyright of the "quick setting", and demanded to stop the infringement and compensate for losses. In order to prove that the plaintiff enjoys the copyright involved in the case, the plaintiff submitted the complete source code of the small code scanning software involved in the case, the content of the software registered with the National Copyright Administration, two plaintiff scanning gun products containing the small code scanning software involved in the case, the object code of the small code scanning software involved in the case, and a method to record how to compile the source code of the small code scanning software involved in the case into the object code. In order to prove the fact of the defendant's infringement, the plaintiff submitted evidence such as the scanning gun sold by the defendant which was notarized and preserved.

On the basis of the plaintiff's application for appraisal, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court set detailed and complete appraisal requirements, through which it found out that the plaintiff enjoyed the copyright of the software involved and the fact that the defendant infringed on the copyright of its computer software, and decided that the defendant should stop the infringement and compensate for the loss.

After the verdict of the first instance, the defendant appealed, and the Supreme People's Court upheld the verdict of the second instance.

【Typical significance】

This case is a computer software copyright infringement dispute filed by Taiwan businessmen in the mainland. The computer software involved in the case is attached to the hardware product, the software registration does not need to submit the complete source code, and the creation, dissemination and use of the software works involved in the case have the characteristics of alternating between the mainland and Taiwan, so it is relatively difficult for the plaintiff to prove. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court comprehensively reviewed the evidence of the whole case, and creatively organized the two parties to adopt the closed-loop appraisal method of "double cycle and multiple rounds" according to the software comparison appraisal when the plaintiff exhausted the ability to prove evidence, put the ownership identification in the appraisal to multiple rounds of verification, and examined the two issues of ownership and infringement together. The first cycle is about the identity identification of the plaintiff's ownership evidence, that is, the complete source code submitted by the plaintiff, part of the source code extracted and registered with the Copyright Office, the software in the scanning gun produced by the plaintiff, and the software object code submitted by the plaintiff are compared in "multiple rounds" to verify whether there is a ppair correspondence. Thus, the two core problems of insufficient proof of ownership of part of the registered code and the lack of time proof of the complete source code are solved, and a closed loop on proof of ownership is formed. The second cycle is to compare the software in the plaintiff's above five pieces of ownership evidence with the software in the accused product in "multiple rounds", so as to form a closed loop of infringement proof. The appraisal conclusion reached in this way, combined with the auxiliary examination of the technical investigation officer, finally concluded that the plaintiff enjoyed the copyright of the software involved, and the defendant constituted infringement.

This case completely presents the particularity of computer software infringement cases in determining whether the plaintiff is the copyright owner and whether the infringement is established through the infringement comparison. The trial of this case solved the above key issues through scientific identification work, reflecting that the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court has actively explored the identification of computer software technical facts, protected innovation in an innovative way, improved the ability to identify technical facts, and equally protected the legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan parties.

The two Tencent companies said in the first instance that Qiaopusch and Kuaguanzhu developed the accused software such as "Youji Chief" and "N+" specifically for wechat products and services, installed them on Huawei and other Android phones, and sold the accused phones to other countries, which constituted unfair competition. It requires the three accused infringer to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 30 million yuan. The court of first instance ordered Qiaobushi Company and Kuaiguanzhu Company to stop the infringement and pay 3 million yuan in compensation.

The second instance of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that wechat software has a very high reputation and extensive market influence. Qiaopushi Company and Kuaguanzhu Company, as operators in the same industry, adopted technical means to develop a number of marketing functions for wechat products that violate the regulations of the wechat platform, and automatically and mass-send high-frequency marketing information to unspecified wechat users. Moreover, wechat users cannot automatically shield or avoid the above functions. The actual implementation of the above functions interferes with and modifies the relevant operation process of wechat software, breaks through the function setting of wechat, causes frequent harassment to wechat users, and destroys the normal operation order of wechat platform. Article 12, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law "Other acts that hinder or destroy the normal operation of network products or services lawfully provided by other business operators." Qiaobushi Company and Kuaiguanzhu Company violated the principle of good faith and basic business ethics, disrupting the order of market competition, taking into account the relevant factors of the case, the judgment of the first instance is upheld.

【Typical significance】

The Internet platform is the field where the new unfair competition dispute cases are concentrated. With the diversified and secretive development of technological updates, the first three items listed in Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are difficult to fully cover the specific implementation methods of acts of unfair competition on the Internet in practice. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the accused software was installed on the Android system, and the accused mobile phone was used to automatically control multiple wechat accounts and simulate real people's mobile phones to operate wechat, so as to realize the unfair competition behavior of "external" marketing functions such as virtual positioning station, fixed point adding powder, automatic liking and comments, automatic sending friends circle, and mass sending of clear powder. It has the characteristics of strong concealment, non-typified manifestation, large scope of influence and rapid expansion of damage. In this regard, the court has accurately understood and applied the "other acts that hinder or destroy the normal operation of network products and services" in the Internet Special Article of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and when applying the fourth "backstop clause" to regulate, it is based on the constituent elements of general acts of unfair competition and the special elements of the Internet special Article. The influence of the accused behavior on public interest, operator's interest and consumer's interest is considered comprehensively.

Encouraging and guaranteeing innovation is the core driving force for building an intellectual property power in the new era, and the competitive order of online platforms plays an important role in the current high-quality development. In this case, the new unfair competition behavior of wechat platform is tried, the competition relationship between the two parties, the types of technical means, implementation methods and results of the accused behavior are analyzed and discussed in detail, and the "free riding" behavior that violates integrity and maliciously steals others' business opportunities and competitive advantages is strictly regulated. It fully reflects the value goal of the Anti-unfair Competition Law to protect the "triple superposition" interests of the public interests of the market order, the interests of operators and the interests of consumers, and has the effect of sanctioning unfair competition behaviors of Internet platforms, strengthening the judicial protection of intellectual property rights related to the digital economy and Internet platforms.

The original told that CAI Liang, his former employee, entered the defendant's company within less than one year after leaving the company, and applied for the invention patent of "a winding switch device applied to the self-adhesive label winding machine" as an inventor, which was related to CAI Liang's own work and assigned tasks in the plaintiff's company, and CAI Liang made creative contributions to the patent involved. Knowing that the patent involved is a service invention, the defendant maliciously applied for it, seriously infringing the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests, and should compensate the plaintiff for reasonable rights protection expenses.

After hearing, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that whether the invention and creation made by the employee is a job invention and creation should meet two conditions: first, the time requirement, that is, the invention and creation involved should be made within one year after the termination of the employee's labor and personnel relations; Second, the content requirements, that is, the invention and creation involved in the original unit to undertake their own work or task. In determining whether the invention-creation involved in the case is a "relevant invention-creation" as provided for in the third paragraph of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law, attention should be paid to maintaining the balance of interests between the original unit, the former employee and the new unit of the former employee. Focus on reviewing the relevance of the technical field of the resigned employee's own work or work task, the work content or job responsibilities, technical themes, technical ideas, etc., without requiring the consistency of specific technical solutions. The patent involved in the case is a service invention completed by CAI Liang in the execution of the plaintiff's task, and its application right shall belong to the plaintiff. In the case that the law does not clearly stipulate that the reasonable expenses of the winning party in the ownership dispute should be paid by the losing party, the plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove that the defendant applied for and withdrew the patent involved in bad faith, so the reasonable expenses claimed by the plaintiff are not supported.

The plaintiff filed six cases involving six patents, and the court found that the patent or patent application belonged to the plaintiff. After the judgment of the first instance of the six cases, both parties served the judgment.

【Typical significance】

The frequent disputes of patent ownership reflect the urgent need for the protection of the ownership of inventions and creations in the modern society with the rapid development of science and technology. Whether the invention is related to the work undertaken by the original unit or the task assigned by the original unit is the core dispute of patent ownership dispute. This case clarifies the legal relationship adjusted by the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Patent Law and the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law, the former is used to resolve disputes between employees and units due to patent ownership, while the latter is used to resolve disputes between employees' original units and new units due to the ownership of inventions and creations. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that in determining whether the invention-creation in question is a service invention, it is usually not necessary to make a comparison of technical solutions, let alone that the technical solutions of the invention-creation in question are essentially the same as those already formed by the original unit. It should focus on examining the relevance of the technical field of the resigned employee's own work or work task, the work content or job responsibilities, technical themes, technical ideas, etc., so as to determine whether the patent involved is a service invention.

The plaintiff in this case is a national high-tech enterprise specializing in research and development, production, sales and after-sales service, which is committed to label and packaging and intelligent digital post-printing processing technology. The judgment of this case determined that the patent involved belongs to the service invention and creation completed by the execution of the plaintiff's task, strengthened the judicial protection of innovation and creation of high-tech enterprises, reached the interest balance between protecting the material and technological investment of enterprises and protecting and encouraging the proper flow of talents, and created a good legal environment for the continuous innovation of technology in this industry.

The plaintiff is the patent holder of the invention patent named "modified polyisocyanate", claiming that the "water-dispersible isocyanate curing agent" manufactured, sold and promised to sell by the defendant infringes its patent right, and requires the defendant to compensate for economic losses of 4 million yuan.

According to the needs of the trial of the case, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court entrusted the Beijing Guowei Intellectual Property Judicial Authentication Center to compare and append whether the accused product is the same or equivalent to the patent claims 1-5. Beijing Guowei Intellectual Property Judicial Appraisal Center issued the Appraisal Opinion, concluding that the accused product contains all the technical features of the patent claims 1-5. During the trial of the case, the plaintiff made a written application to the court to order Topu company to disclose evidence, and the court ordered the defendant to disclose evidence after approval, but the defendant did not disclose the evidence completely. After the two parties cross-examined the Appraisal Opinion and examined the Appraisal Opinion according to law, the court accepted the comparison conclusion of the Appraisal Opinion and found that the accused product contained all the technical features of the patent involved, the accused product had the same technical features as the patent claims 1-5, fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved, and constituted infringement. In view of the fact that the patent in this case is an invention patent with high market value, the defendant intentionally committed infringement, the infringement circumstances were relatively serious, the number of sued products was larger, the range of sued products was wider, the duration of infringement was longer, the infringement profit was higher, the disclosure evidence was not comprehensive, and the principle of good faith litigation was seriously violated, etc. The court decided that Topu company should compensate for economic losses of 3 million yuan.

After the judgment of the first instance of the case, the defendant files an appeal and fails to pay the appeal fee within the prescribed time limit, the Supreme People's Court of second instance shall automatically withdraw the appeal.

【Typical significance】

This case involves the invention patent modified polyisocyanate in the chemical field. The accused product is a water-dispersible isocyanate curing agent. In the infringement comparison, the technical characteristics of the accused product need to be determined through testing and analysis, and then compared with the patent claims. After hearing by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, after the judicial appraisal opinion is cross-examined by the parties, the court focuses on whether the appraiser has the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to solve the relevant specialized problems; Whether the appraisal methods and procedures are standardized and whether the technical means are reliable; Whether there is any legal reason for the appraiser to withdraw; After examining whether there is favoritism and fraud or other circumstances affecting the fair appraisal in the appraisal process, the appraiser takes into account the comparison conclusion of the appraisal opinion, determines that the sued product falls within the scope of patent protection, and protects the interests of the patentee according to law. At the same time, this case, based on the evidence disclosure rules, increased the intensity of compensation, reflecting the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court attaches importance to the protection of high-value innovative technological achievements, highlighting the determination to comprehensively strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights of scientific and technological innovation achievements, and is an important embodiment of intellectual property judicial services and protection of scientific and technological innovation.

More information and services

The official subscription number of "Deep Trusted Intellectual Property Rights" on the code

Code on the concern [deep trusted intellectual property service platform] official service number