How to determine manufacturing behavior in patent infringement disputes?-Industry News-Shenzhen deep trust patent Agency Co., LTD

News Updates

NEWS CENTER

Related News

There is currently no data available

Home

How to determine manufacturing behavior in patent infringement disputes?

Release Time：

2022-07-07

Related Case Analysis In the retrial case of utility model patent infringement between Shenyang China Railway Safety Equipment Co., Ltd. and Harbin Railway Bureau’s Reducing Top Speed Regulation System Research Center and Ningbo China Railway Safety Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme Court No. 122],

In patent infringement disputes, accountability for the manufacturing of infringing products is often the focus of rights holders.

Usually, it is relatively easy to identify sales activities. Generally, it is enough to purchase infringing products through notarization. However, the proof and identification of manufacturing activities are more complicated. Specifically, on the one hand, since manufacturing is generally carried out in factories and manufacturers usually do not participate in retail sales, it is difficult for rights holders to obtain evidence; on the other hand, in order to avoid bearing heavier infringement liability in infringement disputes, manufacturers often It only admits its sales behavior, but denies its manufacturing behavior through legal source defense.

At present, the patent law does not clearly stipulate the standards for the identification of manufacturing activities. In judicial practice, what facts and factors need to be considered in the identification of manufacturing activities in patent infringement disputes? The following author analyzes the determination of manufacturing behavior in patent infringement disputes through cases from the Supreme People's Court for readers' reference.

Relevant case analysis

In the retrial case of utility model patent infringement between Shenyang China Railway Safety Equipment Co., Ltd. and the Harbin Railway Bureau’s Reducing Roof Speed Regulation System Research Center and Ningbo China Railway Safety Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. [(2017) Supreme Court No. 122], the Harbin Railway Reducing Roof was The center signed a deceleration roof supply contract with Ningbo China Railway Company, stipulating that Ningbo China Railway Company will be responsible for processing the deceleration roof model "tdj-205", and the Harbin Railway Deceleration Roof Center will sell the processed deceleration roof. The Supreme People's Court held that although the Harbin Railway Reducing Roofing Center did not physically perform manufacturing activities, it was based on its control over the manufacturing activities of Ningbo China Railway Company and the fact that the final product was marked with the exclusive product model and unit name of the Harbin Railway Reducing Roofing Center. , it should be determined that the Harbin Railway Speed Reducer Roofing Center is not only the seller of the accused infringing product in this case, but also the manufacturer.

It can be seen from the above cases that in the absence of direct evidence that can prove the defendant’s manufacturing behavior, the following factors are mainly considered in current judicial practice to determine whether the defendant has committed manufacturing behavior:

First of all, based on the information on the sold infringing products or their packaging, product manuals, etc. that can indicate the defendant's manufacturing, the trademarks and product models displayed on the infringing products can be used as direct evidence to determine that the defendant has carried out manufacturing activities; if the defendant's production and business scope includes manufacturing, the proof can be further strengthened, except where there is sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, if the legal source defense of the defendant who has carried out the sales behavior is not established, whether it and the supplier have carried out the infringing act of joint manufacturing will mainly be based on the information of the defendant who has carried out the sales behavior marked on the infringing products. , and it is necessary to prove that it provides technical solutions or technical requirements to realize patent protection technical solutions. If these two requirements are met, it can be determined that it participated in the manufacturing of infringing products and committed the infringement of joint manufacturing.

Based on the above analysis, if the patentee cannot obtain direct evidence of the infringer’s manufacturing behavior when safeguarding its rights, it may consider collecting as much evidence as possible from the above aspects when obtaining evidence of the defendant’s sales behavior. For example, the information marked on the infringing product and the defendant's production and business scope should be verified and supported by each other as much as possible to form a complete evidence chain and achieve a high degree of proof standard to prove the infringer's manufacturing behavior.

Source: Source: China Intellectual Property News/China Intellectual Property Information Network

More intellectual property information and services

Pay attention to [Shenkexin Intellectual Property] Official subscription number

More deeply credible dynamic news, important data/report/case, etc.

Pay attention to the [Shenkexin Intellectual Property Service Platform] official service number