Shanghai Quanneng Trading Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration
(against an administrative decision on patent infringement disputes)@#
[Summary]@#
The people's court shall, when hearing cases regarding administrative decisions on patent infringement disputes, focus on examining whether the facts of production or sale of alleged infringing products as determined in such decisions are objective and accurate on the basis of a comprehensive legality examination by referring to the characteristics of trial of civil cases regarding patent infringement disputes.@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Shanghai Quanneng Trading Co., Ltd., domiciled at 1 North Zhongshan Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Wei Wei, Chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration, domiciled at Julu Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Lv Guoqiang, director of this administration.@#
Third Party: Shanghai Jiadongli Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai.@#
Legal Representative: Ge Yongle, Chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The plaintiff, Shanghai Quanneng Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Quanneng Trading Company”) filed an administrative lawsuit with the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai against a decision of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “Shanghai IPA”) on patent infringement disputes (No. 22 [2008], IPA, Shanghai). Deeming that Shanghai Jiadongli Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jiadongli Company”) had a legal interest in this case, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai added Jiadongli Company as a third party.@#
Quanneng Trading Company alleged that: It had never produced or sold any unlabeled products titled “An Energy-Saving Atomizing Device for Air Conditioners” (patent number: ZL200510029351.6) in violation of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China, and, therefore, the decision of Shanghai IPA on patent infringement disputes was contrary to the facts. With the permission of Ningbo Rongsheng Electric Application Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Rongsheng Company”), a party not involved in this case, Quanneng Trading Company exploited a utility model patent titled “An Energy-Saving Atomizer for Air Conditioners” (patent number: ZL200720106248.1) and a design patent (patent number: ZL200730110936.0), and sold products called energy-saving atomizers for air conditioners, which should be protected by law. The technology used by Quanneng Trading Company was innovated technology on the basis of technology in the public domain, and its products were produced before those of the third party and were different from the patent or products of the third party in terms of structure, name, and trademark. Therefore, Quanneng Trading Company claimed that the decision of the defendant on patent infringement disputes was improper in fact finding and erroneous in application of law and the law enforcement procedure was illegal. Quanneng Trading Company requested the court to revoke the decision on patent infringement disputes (No. 22 [2008], IPA, Shanghai) issued by Shanghai IPA on June 19, 2009.@#
Quanneng Trading Co., Ltd. submitted three sets of evidence:@#
Evidence Set 1:@#
(1) the operating principle of “An Energy-Saving Atomizer for Air Conditioners” to prove that the identical part of the operating principle of the plaintiff's energy-saving atomizer for air conditioners and the invention patent of the third party, Jiadongli Company, was all from the public domain while the differences were all innovations from the plaintiff; (2) the utility model patent specification of the control circuit of the atomizing device for air conditioners cooled by atomizing water (patent number: ZL200520044748.8); (3) the utility model patent specification of a split air conditioner cooled by spraying water (patent number: ZL200520040406.9); (4) the public statement regarding an invention patent application for “An Energy-saving Atomizing Device for Air Conditioners” (patent application number: 200510029351.6) (Evidence (2)-(4) proved violations of law in the application for the above patent; (5) the inspection report issued by the Shanghai Product Quality Inspection Institute to prove that the products of Jiadongli Company were JDL-35GW household air conditioners irrelevant to the products sold by the plaintiff; (6) the utility model patent specification of “An Energy-Saving Atomizer for Air Conditioners” (patent number: ZL200720106248.1); (7) the certificate of a design patent titled “An Energy-Saving Atomizer for Air Conditioners” (patent number: ZL200730110936.0); (8) an inspection report issued by the Shanghai Institute of Quality Inspection and Technical Research; (9) receipts of patent fees; (10) a trademark registration application, contracts, and notice of acceptance of an application for registration; (11) the notice of acceptance of an application for the registration of trademark “Lineng”; (12) an application form for new industrial product programs of Ningbo City in 2007 and a summary form of the first batch of new industrial product programs under trial production of Ningbo City in 2007; (13) photocopies of business cards of patent agents; (14) enterprise standards and technical support protocols filed by Rongsheng Company, a party not involved in this case, with the relevant authorities for its brushless DC electric motors and atomizers for air conditioners; (15) an intellectual property right transfer contract entered into by the plaintiff and Rongsheng Company and a power of attorney issued by Rongsheng Company; (16) materials filed with the Zhejiang Intellectual Property Office for a patent licensing contract; (17) the guide to entry inspection, rules on inspection and testing, methods for controlling substandard products, and requirements for (regular) inspections of RSW5000A energy-saving atomizers for air conditioners; (18) exhibition materials and honor certificates of the plaintiff and Rongsheng Company since 2007; (19) the project quotation service agreement for Shanghai Environment Energy Exchange and invoices for quotation fees; (20) a notice of acceptance of a notarization application of the plaintiff and other materials related to the notarization; and (21) atomizers bought by the plaintiff for provision of evidence and invoices. Evidence (6)-(21) proved that the plaintiff produced and sold the alleged products with a patent license from Rongsheng Company and the source of such products was legal.@#
．．．．．．

上海全能科贸有限公司诉上海市知识产权局专利侵权纠纷处理决定案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
人民法院审理专利侵权纠纷处理决定行政案件，应当结合专利侵权纠纷民事案件的审理特点，在展开全面合法性审查的基础上，重点审查专利侵权纠纷处理决定中所认定的制造、销售涉嫌侵权产品的事实是否客观准确。@#
@#
原告：上海全能科贸有限公司。@#
法定代表人：魏玮，该公司董事长。@#
被告：上海市知识产权局。@#
法定代表人：吕国强，该局局长。@#
第三人：上海佳动力环保科技有限公司。@#
法定代表人：葛永乐，该公司董事长。@#
@#
原告上海全能科贸有限公司(以下简称全能科贸公司)不服被告上海市知识产权局(以下简称市知产局)作出的沪知局处字[2008]第22号专利侵权纠纷处理决定，向上海市第二中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。上海市第二中级人民法院认为上海佳动力环保科技有限公司(以下简称佳动力公司)与本案有法律上的利害关系，追加其为第三人参加诉讼。@#
原告全能科贸公司诉称：原告从未生产制造、经营销售过违反《中华人民共和国产品质量法》规定的名称为“空调器用节能雾化装置”(专利号为ZL200510029351．6)无标产品，被告市知产局所作的专利侵权纠纷处理决定与事实不符。原告根据案外人宁波荣盛电器有限公司(以下简称荣盛公司)的许可，实施其“空调节能雾化器”实用新型专利(专利号为ZL200720106248．1)和外观设计专利　(专利号为 ZL200730110936．0)，经营“空调节能雾化器”产品，应受法律保护。原告所使用的技术基于公知技术并有所创新，生产的产品先于第三人的产品，且在结构、名称、商标等均与第三人的专利或产品不同。原告认为，被告所作出的专利侵权纠纷处理决定，认定事实不当，适用法律错误，执法程序不合法，故请求撤销市知产局于2009年6月 19日作出的沪知局处字[2008]第22号专利侵权纠纷处理决定。@#
原告全能科贸公司提供以下三组证据材料：@#
第一组证据：@#
1．“空调节能雾化器”产品工作原理，该证据用以说明原告的空调节能雾化器的工作原理，与第三人佳动力公司发明专利相同的都是公知的，不相同的都是原告方的创意。2．专利号为ZL200520044748．8的雾化冷却式空调器用雾化装置的控制电路装置实用新型专利说明书；3．专利号为ZL200520040406．9的喷水冷却分体式空调器实用新型专利说明书；4．专利申请号为200510029351．6的空调器用节能雾化装置发明专利申请公开说明书。证据2-4证明上述专利申请有违法之处。5．上海市产品质量监督检验所检验报告，该证据证明第三人的产品是家用空调，规格为JDL- 35GW，该产品与原告经营的产品无关。6．专利号为ZL200720106248．1的“空调节能雾化器”实用新型专利说明书；7．专利号为 ZL200730110936．0的“空调节能雾化器”外观设计专利证书；8．上海市质量监督检验技术研究院检验报告；9．专利收费收据；10．商标注册申请书、合同书、注册申请受理通知书；11．“立能”商标申请注册的受理通知书；12．2007年度宁波市工业新产品计划项目申报表、2007年宁波市第一批工业新产品试产计划项目汇总表；13．专利代理人名片复印件；14．案外人荣盛公司无刷直流电动机、空调雾化器企业标准及技术服务协议备案材料；15．荣盛公司与原告签订的知识产权转让委托合同、荣盛公司的授权委托书；16．专利实施许可合同在浙江省知识产权局的备案材料；17．空调节能雾化器 RSW5000A进厂检验指导书、检验和试验规定、不合格品的控制办法、检验要求(定期检查)；18.2007年以来原告和荣盛公司各类参展活动的材料、荣誉证书；19．上海环境能源交易所项目挂牌转让服务协议及挂牌费发票；20．与原告所作公证相关的公证受理告知等材料；21．原告为举证所购雾化器实物及发票。证据6-21用以证明原告经营的产品出自荣盛公司的专利授权等，来源合法。@#
第二组证据为23份实用新型专利说明书，具体如下：@#
1．专利号为ZL96213165．2的电动喷雾器；2．专利号为200420011322．8的高效轻便农用喷雾器；3．专利号为 ZL200420015841．1的一种弥雾机喷头；4．专利号为ZL95228127．9的一种微功率电动喷雾器；5．专利号为ZL94242515．4的一种新型电动喷雾器；6．专利号为ZL03219104．9的弥雾机喷头；7．专利号为ZL91230083．3的空调喷水节能器；8．专利号为ZL982437315的空调冷凝水雾化器；9．专利号为ZL02261354．4的空调冷凝器喷雾冷却节能器；10．专利号为 ZL200420011257．9的空调滴水雾化器；11．专利号为ZL97242917．4的空调滴水雾化器：12．专利号为ZL03245955．6的空调冷凝水雾化器；13．专利号为ZL01213934．3的分体空调冷凝水喷雾器；14．专利号为 ZL01130815．X的用于空调器的冷凝水的处理装置：15．专利号为ZL93226666．5的空气调节和增湿的弥雾装置；16．专利号为 ZL97240570．4的空调器冷凝水处理装置；17．专利号为ZL200420036205．7的空调节能提效装置；18．专利号为ZL200410055494．X的夏季空调节能降耗冷凝水处理装置；19．专利号为ZL91225068．2的便携式电动喷雾器； 20．专利号为ZL93204108．6的便携式电动喷雾器；21．专利号为ZL93228585．6的离心式喷雾器；22．专利号为ZL99254762．8的冷凝水集流雾化器；23．专利号为 ZL200520030649．4的利用空调冷凝水的空调室外机。上述证据用以证明雾化器早已有之，为公知技术，原告全能科贸公司产品是依据公知技术生产的。@#
第三组证据：@#
1．“空调节能雾化器”与产品“空调器用节能雾化装置”比对意见；2．“立能”商标注册申请受理通知书；3．“立能”商标申请注册的受理通知书；4．商标注册申请书；5．“空调节能雾化器”实用新型专利实施许可合同备案证明；6．“空调节能雾化器”外观设计专利实施许可合同备案证明；7．宁波润泽电器有限公司关于“立能”商标的授权委托书：8．案外人荣盛公司关于“立能”商标的授权委托书；9．知识产权转让委托合同；10．原告全能科贸公司申请保全网页证据所得的公证书。上述证据用以证明涉嫌侵权产品取得外观设计专利的实施许可、商标使用许可等事实。@#
被告市知产局辩称：被告作出沪知局处字[2008]第22号专利侵权纠纷处理决定程序合法，认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，请求法院维持该决定。@#
被告市知产局提交了以下证据和法律依据：@#
一、关于被告市知产局的职权依据：沪府办发[2000]64号《上海市人民政府办公厅关于印发上海市知识产权局职能配置、内设机构和人员编制规定的通知》，用以证明其负有依法处理上海市专利纠纷的职责。@#
二、关于被诉具体行政行为执法程序的证据：@#
1．第三人佳动力公司的专利侵权调处请求书，用以证明第三人于2008年9月 17日向被告市知产局提出专利侵权纠纷处理请求；@#
2．沪知局处字[2008]第22002号、第 22003号专利侵权纠纷处理请求受理通知书、沪知局处字[2008]第22004号答辩通知书及送达回证、原告全能科贸公司的答辩书、沪知局处字[2008]第22005号、第 22006号口头审理通知书及口头审理回执、沪知局处字[2008]第22007号、第 22008号口头审理通知书及口头审理回执、被告市知产局2008年11月12日的口头审理笔录、沪知局处字[2008]第22号专利侵权纠纷处理决定书及送达回证和国内邮政回执，以上证据用以证明被告在收到第三人佳动力公司的专利侵权纠纷处理请求后，经过了立案受理、当事人答辩、召开口头审理会、作出专利侵权纠纷处理决定、向当事人送达决定书等程序，执法程序合法。@#
三、关于被诉具体行政行为认定事实的证据：@#
1．专利号为ZL200510029351．6的《发明专利证书》和专利年费收据、发明专利说明书、专利实施许可合同和专利实施许可合同备案证明，以上证据用以证明第三人佳动力公司是专利号为ZL200510029351．6的发明专利的独占被许可人，该专利真实有效以及该专利的保护范围；@#
2．“空调节能雾化器RSW5000A”的雾化器实物、原告全能科贸公司空调节能雾化器的产品说明书、发票号码为04401068的上海市商业统一发票、原告的营业执照，以上证据用以证明原告制造销售的“空调节能雾化器RSW5000A”的雾化器全面覆盖了专利号为ZL200510029351．6的发明专利的全部必要技术特征；@#
．．．．．．