>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Summary of the Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases (2019) [Effective]
最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2019)摘要 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Summary of the Annual Report of the Supreme People's Court on Intellectual Property Cases (2019) 

最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2019)摘要

(2020) (2020)

In 2019, the Supreme People's Court accepted a total of 3,845 intellectual property (“IP”) cases of various types. As classified according to the case trial procedure, such cases included 1,694 appeal cases, 197 direct retrial cases, 1,663 retrial petition cases, 31 instruction motion cases, two protest cases, one judicial sanction case, one administrative compensation cases, and 256 other cases (mainly involving intellectual property judicial management affairs). The cases as classified according to the types of case-related objects included 1931 patent cases, 965 trademark cases, 245 copyright cases, 18 monopoly case, 63 unfair competition cases, 34 new plant variety cases, 119 intellectual property contract cases, 169 technical contract cases, three integrated circuit layout design cases, and 298 other cases. The cases as classified according to the nature of the cases included 1112 administrative cases being comprised of 422 administrative patent cases, 688 administrative trademark cases, another administrative case, and one administrative compensation case; 2721 civil cases; 11 cases of criminal requests; and one judicial sanction case. 最高人民法院2019年全年共受理各类知识产权案件3845件。按照案件审理程序划分,共受理二审案件1694件,提审案件197件,申请再审案件1663件,请示案件31件,抗诉案件2件,司法制裁案件1件,行政赔偿案件1件,其他案件256件(主要涉及知识产权审判管理事务)。按照案件所涉客体类型划分,共受理专利案件1931件,商标案件965件,著作权案件245件,垄断案件18件,不正当竞争案件63件,植物新品种案件34件,知识产权合同案件119件,技术合同案件169件,集成电路布图设计案件3件,其他案件298件。按照案件性质划分,共受理行政案件1112件,其中专利行政案件422件,商标行政案件688件,其他行政案件1件,行政赔偿案件1件;民事案件2721件; 刑事请示案件11件,司法制裁案件1件。
Throughout the year, a total of 3,254 IP cases were concluded, including 1,192 appeal cases, 193 direct retrial cases, 1,580 retrial petition cases, 29 instruction motion cases, two protest cases, one judicial sanction case, one administrative compensation case, and 256 other cases. 1,580 retrial petition cases concluded included 1,270 cases dismissed by a ruling, 213 cases ruled to be retried, 40 cases retried by order or designation according to a ruling, 54 cases withdrawn by a ruling, and three cases ruled to be concluded. Among the 1,192 appeal cases concluded, 745 cases were concluded with the judgment of the original trial being maintained, 353 cases were concluded by mediation and withdrawal, and 94 cases were concluded by being sent back for retrial or reversal. 全年共审结各类知识产权案件3254件。其中,二审案件1192件,提审案件193件,申请再审案件1580件,请示案件29件,抗诉案件2件,司法制裁案件1件,行政赔偿案件1件,其他案件256件。在审结的1580件申请再审案件中,裁定驳回再审申请1270件,裁定提审213件,裁定指令或者指定再审40件,裁定撤诉54件,裁定终结3件。在审结的1192件二审案件中,维持原审裁判745件,调撤353件,发改94件。
The basic features of IP cases heard by the Supreme People's Court (“SPC”) in 2019 were: The number of newly accepted cases rose by 146%, the proportion of appeal cases rose from 1.5% to 44.1%, and the proportion of patent cases rose from 43.8% to 50.2%; claim interpretation in civil patent cases was still the focus and difficulty, the standards for determining the functional features were further clarified, and the guidance for intensifying the judicial protection of patents was more prominent; the judgment on creativity in administrative patent cases was the core issue, the standards for the judgment on creativity were further specified, judiciary supervision function for administration was further strengthened; the research on legal issues concerning foreign-related original equipment manufacture (“OEM”) in civil trademark cases was continuously deepened, and the application of law in new types of cases such as compensation for damages for malicious litigation and trademark preemption defense was actively explored; the judgment of the similarity of trademarks and commodities in administrative trademark cases remained one of the main issues, and the application standards for legal issues such as distinctiveness judgment, cross-class protection of famous trademarks, and rush registration by agents were further clarified; in copyright cases, protection of copyright of computer software and works of punctuating and emending ancient books were difficult problems; unfair competition cases involved technical secrets, lists of clients, packaging and decoration, false publicity, and other different types, the contents and boundaries under the protection of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law were still difficulties in the trial of cases, and the procedural rules for technical secret cases were further clarified; the legal issues emerging in new plant variety cases were becoming more diversified, identification of technical facts and determination of infringement nature constituted difficulties in the trial of such cases, and the standards for the application of law in the determination of breeding materials, the determination of qualifications of the subject of litigation in rights licensing, and other problems were further specified; assertion of default facts in technical contract cases involving technical issues constituted the key points and difficulties of the trial of cases, and difference in the difficulty of the trial of individual cases varied due to relatively large difference in the degree of specificity of the contract agreement and the difficulty in finding out the technical facts; and there were a large number of various procedural cases such as objection to jurisdiction, trial resources were rationally allocated, and the prominent direction of judicial policies for safeguarding the lawful rights of rights holders was fully guaranteed. 最高人民法院2019年审理的知识产权案件的基本特点是:新收案件数量上涨了146%,二审案件占比从1.5%上涨至44.1%、专利案件占比从43.8%上涨至50.2%;专利民事案件中权利要求解释仍是焦点和难点,功能性特征的认定标准进一步明确,加大专利司法保护力度的导向更加突出;专利行政案件中创造性判断是核心问题,创造性判断标准进一步细化,司法对行政的监督职能进一步强化;商标民事案件中对涉外定牌加工相关法律问题的研究不断深入,并积极探索恶意诉讼损害赔偿、商标先用权抗辩等新类型案件的法律适用;商标行政案件中商标近似和商品类似的判断仍然是主要焦点问题之一,显著性判断、驰名商标跨类保护、代理人抢注等法律问题的适用标准进一步明确;著作权案件中计算机软件的著作权保护、古籍点校作品是难点问题;不正当竞争案件中涉及技术秘密、客户名单、包装装潢、虚假宣传等不同类型,反不正当竞争法保护的内容和边界仍是案件审理中的难点,技术秘密案件程序性规则得到进一步澄清;植物新品种案件中涌现的法律问题愈发多元,技术事实的查明和侵权性质的认定构成该类案件审理中的难点,关于繁殖材料认定、权利许可中诉讼主体资格的确定等问题的法律适用标准进一步明确;技术合同案件中涉及技术问题的违约事实查明构成案件审理的重点和难点,由于合同约定明确程度和技术事实查明难度存在较大差异,个案审理难度差异较大;管辖权异议等程序性案件数量大、类型多,有关合理调度审判资源,充分保障权利人维权的司法政策导向凸显。
This Annual Report covers 60 model cases selected from intellectual property cases concluded by the SPC in 2019. We have summarized 67 issues on application of law that are of certain guiding significance and reflect the trial ideas and judgment methods of the SPC in handling new, difficult and complicated cases in the field of intellectual property, which are hereby issued. 本年度报告从最高人民法院2019年审结的知识产权案件中精选了60件典型案件。我们从中归纳出67个具有一定指导意义的法律适用问题,反映了最高人民法院在知识产权领域处理新型、疑难、复杂案件的审理思路和裁判方法,现予公布。
I. Trial of patent cases   一、专利案件审判
1. Trial of civil patent cases (一)专利民事案件审判
(1) Determination of functional features 1.功能性特征的认定
In the case of appellants Xiamen Lukasi Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Fuke Automobile Parts Co., Ltd. v. appellee VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE and defendant Chen Shaoqiang in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “wiper connector”) [No. 2 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If a technical feature in the claim of a patent has defined or implied the specific structure, components, steps, and conditions or the relationships among them, even though the technical feature has also defined the function or effect that it realizes, such technical feature is not the functional feature specified in Article 8 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases. 在上诉人厦门卢卡斯汽车配件有限公司、厦门富可汽车配件有限公司与被上诉人瓦莱奥清洗系统公司、原审被告陈少强侵害发明专利权纠纷案(以下简称“刮水器连接器”专利侵权纠纷案)【(2019)最高法知民终2号】中,最高人民法院指出,如果专利权利要求的某个技术特征已经限定或者隐含了特定结构、组分、步骤、条件或其相互之间的关系等,即使该技术特征同时还限定了其所实现的功能或者效果,亦不属于《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释(二)》第八条所称的功能性特征。
(2) Patent review files may be used for interpreting claims 2.专利审查档案可以用于解释权利要求
In the case of retrial petitioners Quanzhou Jiurong Sanitary Ware Development Co., Ltd. and Nan'an Luncang Jiurong Plumbing Fittings Store v. respondent Huang Zhenbo (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention) [No. 5730 (2018), Petition, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: The terminology of claims should have the same meaning in the process of patent review and in infringement proceeding. Therefore, in infringement proceeding, the patent review files play an important explanatory role for claims. 在再审申请人泉州市久容卫浴发展有限公司、南安市仑苍久容水暖配件经销店与被申请人黄振波侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2018)最高法民申5730号】中,最高人民法院指出,权利要求用语在专利审查过程中和侵权诉讼中应当具有相同的含义,因此,在侵权诉讼中,专利审查档案对于权利要求具有重要的解释作用。
(3) Substantial limitation role of the effects and functions recorded in the subject name on claims 3.主题名称所记载效果、功能对权利要求的实质限定作用
In the case of appellant Sun Xixian v. appellee Hunan Jingyi Ecological Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention) [No. 657 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If the effects and functions recorded in the subject name of claims are the difference between the patented technical solution and the existing technical solution, other than the effects or functions that may be realized by the structure, components, steps, conditions, or relationships among them recorded in the features of the claims, the effects and functions recorded in the subject name of the claims have substantial limitation role on the protection scope of the claims. 在上诉人孙希贤与被上诉人湖南景怡生态科技股份有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2019)高法知民终657号】中,最高人民法院指出,如果权利要求主题名称记载的效果、功能,不是该权利要求特征部分记载的结构、组分、步骤、条件或其之间的关系等能够实现的效果、功能,却是专利技术方案与现有技术方案的区别之所在,那么权利要求主题名称所记载的效果、功能对该权利要求的保护范围具有实质限定作用。
(4) Explanatory role of the technical effects recorded in the manual for the claims and impact of the application of the principle of equivalence 4.说明书技术效果的记载对权利要求的解释作用和适用等同原则的影响
In the case of retrial petitioner Xiao Yong v. respondent Shenzhen Senno Lighting Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention) [No. 365 (2019), Petition, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: To judge whether the relevant technical features of the claims should be subject to the limitation of the technical effects described in the manual, whether the technical effects are indeed caused by the technical features, the significance of the technical effects, and other factors should be comprehensively considered. On this basis, the technical effects that have been clearly recorded in the manual and can be determined by technicians in this field should be considered when applying the principle of equivalence. 在再审申请人肖勇与被申请人深圳市森诺照明有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法民申365号】中,最高人民法院指出,判断权利要求有关技术特征是否应当受到说明书记载的技术效果的限定,应当综合考量技术效果是否确因该技术特征产生,以及技术效果的显著程度等因素。在此基础上,对于说明书中已经明确记载且本领域技术人员能够确定的技术效果,在适用等同原则时,应当予以考虑。
(5) Judgment of infringement upon multi-actor method patent 5.多主体实施方法专利的侵权判定
In the case of appellant Shenzhen Tengda Technology Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd., and defendants Jinan Lixia Hongkang Electronic Product Management Department and Jinan Lixia Haowei Electronic Product Management Department in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “Router”) [No. 147 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: If the accused infringer fixes the essence of the patent method in the accused infringing product for the purpose of production and business operation, the act or the result of the act has played irreplaceable substantive role in the comprehensive coverage of the technical features claimed by the patent, and terminal users can naturally reproduce the process of the patent method in the normal use of the accused infringing product, it should be determined that the accused infringer has implemented the patent method and infringed upon the rights of the patentee. 在上诉人深圳市吉祥腾达科技有限公司与被上诉人深圳敦骏科技有限公司、原审被告济南历下弘康电子产品经营部、济南历下昊威电子产品经营部侵害发明专利权纠纷案(以下简称“路由器”专利侵权纠纷案)【(2019)最高法知民终147号】中,最高人民法院指出,如果被诉侵权行为人以生产经营为目的,将专利方法的实质内容固化在被诉侵权产品中,该行为或者行为结果对专利权利要求的技术特征被全面覆盖起到了不可替代的实质性作用,终端用户在正常使用该被诉侵权产品时就能自然再现该专利方法过程,则应认定被诉侵权行为人实施了该专利方法,侵害了专利权人的权利。
(6) Patent rights of appearance design that obviously belongs to an existing design should not be protected according to the law 6.明显属于现有设计的外观设计专利权依法不予保护
In the case of retrial petitioner Luo Xuan'an v. respondent Guangzhou Ming Jing Stage Lighting Equipment Co., Ltd. and defendant in the original trial and appellant Chongqing Zhengzhen Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon an appearance design patent) [No. 136 (2019), Retrial, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: Where a patent holder has already actively disclosed an appearance design patent that should not be authorized and that obviously does not belong to the “legitimate rights and interests” to be protected by the Patent Law, the people's court should not protect the patent in the infringement proceeding according to the law. 在再审申请人罗宣安与被申请人广州市明静舞台灯光设备有限公司,一审被告、二审上诉人重庆市征真电子科技有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法民再136号】中,最高人民法院指出,对于专利权人已经在申请日前主动公开,本不应获得授权的外观设计专利权,显然不属于专利法应予保护的“合法权益”,人民法院在侵权诉讼中依法不予保护。
(7) Basic principles for comparison of infringement upon appearance design 7.外观设计侵权比对的基本原则
In the case of retrial petitioner MTG Co., Ltd. v. respondents Guangzhou Baiyun District Shengjiemei Beauty Instrument Factory and Guangzhou Shengjiemei Beauty Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon an appearance design patent) [No. 142 (2019), Retrial, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: In the comparison of infringement upon an appearance design, on one hand, all visual design features including the similarities and differences are within the scope of comparison. On the other hand, even if the particularity of some features earns key attention for it in comparison, it does not mean that other design features can be ignored. But these parts of design features have relatively small impact on the overall visual effect. 在再审申请人株式会社MTG与被申请人广州市白云区圣洁美美容仪器厂、广州市圣洁美美容科技有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法民再142号】中,最高人民法院指出,外观设计的侵权比对中,一方面,包括相同点和区别点在内的全部可视设计特征均在比对范围之内。另一方面,即便部分特征的特殊性使其在比对时需给予重点关注,但这并不意味着可以忽略其他设计特征,只是这部分设计特征对整体视觉效果的影响相对较小而已。
(8) Impact of changes in the number of design units on the similarity determination of the appearance design 8.设计单元的数量变化对外观设计近似性认定的影响
In the case of retrial petitioners Zhejiang Lanxi Shengpeng Tourism Craft Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Wanlai Tourism Craft Co., Ltd. v. respondent Sun Xinghua (disputes over infringement upon an appearance design patent) [No. 278 (2019), Retrial, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: The accused infringing design adopts the same design method as the existing design. The only difference is increase and decrease in the number of design units. Under the circumstance that the overall structural layout of the product remains unchanged, this kind of change in quantity is uneasy to be noticed by general consumers, and the accused infringing design is similar to the existing design. 在再审申请人浙江兰溪圣鹏旅游工艺品有限公司、浙江万来旅游工艺品有限公司与被申请人孙兴华侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法民再278号】中,最高人民法院指出,被诉侵权设计与现有设计采用了相同的设计手法,区别仅在于设计单元数量的增减变化。在产品的整体结构布局不变的情况下,该种数量变化不容易被一般消费者所注意,被诉侵权设计与现有设计构成近似。
(9) Consideration of the invention points in the determination of prior art defense 9.现有技术抗辩认定中的发明点考量
In the case of appellant Wang Yeci v. appellee Xuzhou Huasheng Industrial Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention, hereinafter referred to as the case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “motor casing of submersible pump”) [No. 89 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: When a patent in dispute specifies the invention points of its technical solution and emphasizes that the technical features other than the invention points are general components, if the technical features corresponding to the invention points have been disclosed for a prior technology, the remaining technical features are not disclosed by the prior technical feature, but the prior technology inevitably combines with the general components and forms an overall prior technical solution corresponding to the technical solution of the patent in dispute, it may be determined that the prior art defense is tenable. 在上诉人王业慈与被上诉人徐州华盛实业有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案(以下简称“潜水泵电机壳”专利侵权纠纷案)【(2019)最高法知民终89号】中,最高人民法院指出,涉案专利明确指出其技术方案的发明点,并强调发明点以外的技术特征均为通用部件时,如果该发明点对应的技术特征已经为一项现有技术公开,其余技术特征虽未被该现有技术公开,但该现有技术与通用部件必然结合形成与涉案专利技术方案相对应的整体现有技术方案,则可以认定现有技术抗辩成立。
(10) Determination of “main technical drawings” in preemption defense 10.先用权抗辩中“主要技术图纸”的认定
In the aforesaid case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “motor casing of submersible pump,” the SPC stated that: Design drawings are the fundamental basis for product processing and inspection in the field of machinery manufacturing. Under the circumstance that the accused infringer has designed the drawings of the key components of the accused infringing product and other components of the product are common ones, it may be determined that it has completed the main technical drawings required for the implementation of invention and has made necessary preparations for manufacturing the accused product, and its preemption defense is tenable. 在前述“潜水泵电机壳”专利侵权纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,设计图纸是机械制造领域产品加工、检验的基本依据,在被诉侵权人已经设计出被诉侵权产品关键部件图纸且该产品的其他部件均为通用部件的情况下,可以认定其已经完成了实施发明创造所必需的主要技术图纸,为生产被诉侵权产品做好了必要准备,其先用权抗辩成立。
(11) Examination of seller's legitimate source defense 11.销售者合法来源抗辩的审查
In the case of appellant Baokou (Xiamen) Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. v. appellee Guantao County Peilong Plumbing Installation and Maintenance Store (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 118 [2019], Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: To be tenable, a seller's legitimate source defense should concurrently meet the objective condition that the alleged infringing product is acquired from a legitimate source and the subjective condition that the seller has no subjective fault. And the two essential elements are mutually connected. If the seller can prove that he complies with the legal and normal market trading rules, and obtains the products sold from clear source and legitimate channel at reasonable price, and his sales behavior follows the principle of good faith and conforms to transaction practice, he can be presumed to have no subjective fault. In this case, the right holder should provide the opposite evidence. Where the right holder fails to further provide any contrary evidence sufficient to overturn the aforesaid presumption, the seller's legitimate source defense should be determined to be tenable. 在上诉人宝蔻(厦门)卫浴有限公司与被上诉人馆陶县佩龙水暖安装维修门市侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终118号】中,最高人民法院指出,销售者合法来源抗辩的成立,需要同时满足被诉侵权产品具有合法来源这一客观要件和销售者无主观过错这一主观要件,两个要件相互联系。如果销售者能够证明其遵从合法、正常的市场交易规则,取得所售产品的来源清晰、渠道合法、价格合理,其销售行为符合诚信原则、合乎交易惯例,则可推定其无主观过错。此时,应由权利人提供相反证据。在权利人未进一步提供足以推翻上述推定的相反证据的情况下,应当认定销售者合法来源抗辩成立。
(12) Assumption of right holder's reasonable expenses for protection of rights when the seller's legitimate source defense is tenable 12.销售者合法来源抗辩成立时权利人维权合理开支的承担
In the case of appellant Guangzhou Surui Machinery Equipment Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shenzhen Helitai Technology Co., Ltd., and defendant Guangdong Kuainv Biological Technology Co., Ltd. in the original trial (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 25 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Legitimate source defense is only a defense exempting liability for compensation, other than non-infringement defense. The seller's legitimate source defense is tenable, which neither changes the infringement nature of the act of selling infringing products nor exempts from the liability for selling infringing products. The reasonable expenses paid by the right holder for obtaining the relief of ceasing infringement shall still be assumed. 在上诉人广州市速锐机械设备有限公司与被上诉人深圳市和力泰科技有限公司、原审被告广东快女生物技术有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终25号】中,最高人民法院指出,合法来源抗辩仅是免除赔偿责任的抗辩,而非不侵权抗辩;销售者的合法来源抗辩成立,既不改变销售侵权产品这一行为的侵权性质,也不免除停止销售侵权产品的责任,仍应承担权利人为获得停止侵害救济所支付的合理开支。
(13) Calculation of compensation for damages when the accused infringer refuses to provide infringing account books without justified reasons 13.被诉侵权人无正当理由拒不提供侵权账簿资料时损害赔偿的计算
In the aforesaid case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “router,” the SPC stated that: The patentee claims that the compensation for damages should be calculated on the basis of the benefits from infringement and has already completed preliminary evidence production for the scale and fact of infringement, but the accused infringer refuses to provide the corresponding evidence materials on the scale and basic facts of the infringement without justified reasons, making that the basic facts used for calculating the benefits from infringement are unable to be accurately determined. Its defense reasons such as degree of contribution of the patent in dispute to the benefits from infringement are not required to be considered. 在前述“路由器”专利侵权纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,专利权人主张以侵权获利计算损害赔偿数额且对侵权规模事实已经完成初步举证,被诉侵权人无正当理由拒不提供有关侵权规模基础事实的相应证据材料,导致用于计算侵权获利的基础事实无法精准确定,对其提出的应考虑涉案专利对其侵权获利的贡献度等抗辩理由可不予考虑。
(14) Scope and conditions of administrative complaints against infringement upon patent rights constituting infringement warnings 14.专利侵权行政投诉构成侵权警告的范围与条件
In the case of appellants VMI HOLLAND B.V. and Cooper (Kunshan) Tire Co., Ltd. v. appellee Safe-run Huachen Machinery (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (disputes over the confirmation of non-infringement upon patent rights) [No. 5 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Where the patent right holder only files a request for handling disputes over infringement upon patent rights with the patent administrative department against some manufacturers, sellers, and users of the accused infringing product, which makes the business operation of the manufacturers, sellers or users not participating in the administrative proceedings be in an uncertain status, it may be determined that the request for handling the disputes over infringement upon patent rights constitutes infringement warnings for the aforesaid manufacturers, sellers and users not participating in the administrative proceedings. 在上诉人VMI荷兰公司、固铂(昆山)轮胎有限公司与被上诉人萨驰华辰机械(苏州)有限公司确认不侵害专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终5号】中,最高人民法院指出,专利权人仅针对被诉侵权产品的部分生产者、销售者、使用者向专利行政部门提起专利侵权纠纷处理请求,导致未参与该行政处理程序的生产者、销售者、使用者的经营处于不确定状态的,可以认定该专利侵权纠纷处理请求对于上述未参与行政处理程序的生产者、销售者、使用者构成侵权警告。
(15) Judgment of “invention related to the original employer” in disputes over the ownership of a service invention patent 15.职务发明专利权属纠纷中“与原单位有关的发明创造”的判断
In the case of retrial petitioner Li Jianyi and Shenzhen Remote Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. v. respondent Shenzhen WEIBOND Technology Co.,Ltd. (disputes over the ownership of a patent) [No. 6342 (2019), Petition, Civil Division, SPC], the SPC stated that: When judging whether a patent in dispute is an “invention related to the employment work assumed at the original employer or the employment task assigned by the original employer,” attention should be paid to maintaining the balance of interests among the original employer, the separated employee and the new employer of the separated employee, and comprehensive consideration should be given to the following factors: first, the content of the original employment tasks of the separated employee; second, the relationship between the content of the patent in dispute and the original employment task; third, the relevant technology research and development work carried out by the original employer or the legal source of the technology; and fourth, the rationality of explanation of the inventor and right holder on the source of the technology. 在再审申请人李坚毅、深圳市远程智能设备有限公司与被申请人深圳市卫邦科技有限公司专利权权属纠纷案【(2019)最高法民申6342号】中,最高人民法院指出,判断涉案专利是否属于“与在原单位承担的本职工作或者原单位分配的任务有关的发明创造”时,应注重维护原单位、离职员工以及离职员工新任职单位之间的利益平衡,综合考虑如下因素:一是离职员工原工作任务的内容;二是涉案专利内容与原工作任务的关系;三是原单位开展有关技术研发工作的情况或技术的合法来源;四是发明人、权利人对技术来源解释的合理性。
(16) Handling the relationship between temporary injunction and preliminary judgment 16.临时禁令与部分判决的关系处理
In the aforesaid case of disputes over infringement upon the patent of “wiper connector,” the SPC stated that: Where a party not only applies for conduct preservation of ordering the accused infringer to cease infringement, but also applies for a preliminary judgment of ordering ceasing infringement during the procedures of infringement upon patent rights, the people's court should examine the application for conduct preservation, other than rejecting to handle the application for conduct preservation due to rendering of a preliminary judgment of ceasing infringement; and render a ruling in a timely manner, where the conditions for conduct preservation are met. 在前述“刮水器连接器”专利侵权纠纷案中,最高人民法院指出,当事人在专利侵权程序中针对被诉侵权人既申请作出责令停止侵害的行为保全,又申请作出判令停止侵害的部分判决的,人民法院不应因作出停止侵害的部分判决而对该行为保全申请不予处理,而应对该行为保全申请予以审查;符合行为保全条件的,应及时作出裁定。
(17) Handling of procedures after the claims based on which the right holder claims patent rights are invalidated during the trial of a patent infringement case 17.专利侵权案件审理期间权利人据以主张专利权的权利要求被宣告无效后的程序处理
In the case of appellant Shenyang Skyjet Digital Printing Equipment Co., Ltd. v. appellee Qingdao Hanze Electric Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon a patent for an invention) [No. 161 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: In the procedure of original trial of the case of disputes over infringement upon patent rights, the claims based on which the right holder claims patent rights are invalidated, but the patent rights in dispute remain valid on the basis of other valid claims or new claims formed upon modification, the right holder should be allowed to re-specify the claims for claiming patent rights. Where the right holder chooses the claims that are currently valid to claim patent rights, the court of original trial should continue with the trial; and where after the explanation, the right holder still insists on claiming for rights based on the invalidated claims, the court of original trial may rule to dismiss the action. 在上诉人沈阳飞行船数码喷印设备有限公司与被上诉人青岛瀚泽电气有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终161号】中,最高人民法院指出,侵害专利权纠纷案件一审程序中,权利人据以主张专利权的权利要求被宣告无效,但涉案专利权在其他原有权利要求或者经修改形成的新的权利要求基础上维持有效的,应当允许权利人重新明确其据以主张专利权的权利要求。权利人选择现属有效的权利要求主张专利权的,一审法院应当继续审理;经释明,权利人仍然坚持基于已被宣告无效的权利要求主张权利的,一审法院方可裁定驳回起诉。
(18) Handling after the invalidation of some parallel technical solutions in the claims during the trial of a patent infringement case 18.专利侵权案件审理期间权利要求中部分并列技术方案被宣告无效后的处理
In the case of appellant Shenzhen Yunchongba Technology Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 350 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Where, during the period of a patent infringement action, corresponding parts of one or more parallel technical solutions in the claims of a patent in dispute are invalidated, but the corresponding parts of the remaining parallel technical solutions remain valid, and the patent right holder continue to claim rights based on the claims that remain valid, the people's court may dismiss the action for the claims invalidated, while proceeding with the trial and rendering a ruling for the claims that remain valid. 在上诉人深圳市云充吧科技有限公司与被上诉人深圳来电科技有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终350号】中,最高人民法院指出,专利侵权诉讼期间,涉案专利权利要求中一个或者多个并列技术方案的对应部分被宣告无效,但其余并列技术方案的对应部分仍维持有效,专利权人依据权利要求仍维持有效的部分继续主张权利的,人民法院可以就宣告无效部分的权利要求驳回起诉,同时就维持有效部分的权利要求进行审理并作出裁判。
(19) Impact of voluntary waiver of claims in administrative proceedings for invalidating a patent on patent infringement litigation 19.专利无效宣告行政程序中主动放弃权利要求对于专利侵权诉讼的影响
In the case of appellants Shandong Yanggu Dasheng Pipe Co., Ltd., and Shandong Zhuorui Dasheng Pipe Co., Ltd. v. appellee Shunfang Pipe Co., Ltd. (disputes over infringement upon utility model patent rights) [No. 145 (2019), Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, SPC], the SPC stated that: Where a right holder voluntarily waives the claims in a civil infringement case by deleting claims in the administrative proceedings for declaring invalidation of a patent in dispute, no matter whether the effectiveness of the administrative decision recording the waiver has been finalized, there is no possibility of reinstating the waived claims, and they can no longer be included in the scope of protection of patent rights in disputes over infringement upon patent rights. The basis of the right to claim infringement no longer exists, and the relevant claims can be dismissed by judgment.
......
 在上诉人山东阳谷达盛管业有限公司、山东卓睿达盛管业有限公司与被上诉人顺方管业有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案【(2019)最高法知民终145号】中,最高人民法院指出,权利人在涉案专利的无效宣告行政程序中以删除权利要求的方式主动放弃民事侵权案件中据以主张权利的权利要求,无论记载该放弃行为的行政决定的效力是否最终确定,被放弃的权利要求均无恢复之可能,不能在侵害专利权纠纷中再将之纳入专利权保护范围,其据以主张侵权的权利基础不复存在,有关诉讼请求可以判决方式驳回。
......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese