|
|
|
|
|
Ainuo (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Hubei Wushi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Wang Junshe (Hubei Wushi Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd. v. Aonuo (China) Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Wang Junshe) (A Case of Disputes over Invention Patent Infringement)
(A Case of Disputes over Invention Patent Infringement)
澳诺（中国）制药有限公司诉湖北午时药业股份有限公司、王军社侵犯发明专利权纠纷再审案（湖北午时药业股份有限公司与澳诺(中国)制药有限公司、王军社侵犯发明专利权纠纷案）
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ainuo (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Hubei Wushi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Wang Junshe (Hubei Wushi Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd. v. Aonuo (China) Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. and Wang Junshe) (A Case of Disputes over Invention Patent Infringement) | | 澳诺（中国）制药有限公司诉湖北午时药业股份有限公司、王军社侵犯发明专利权纠纷再审案（湖北午时药业股份有限公司与澳诺(中国)制药有限公司、王军社侵犯发明专利权纠纷案） |
| |
[裁判摘要] |
| |
在解释权利要求时，可以结合专利说明书中记载的技术内容以及权利要求书中记载的其他权利要求，确定该权利要求中技术术语的含义。 |
| |
专利权人在专利授权程序中通过对权利要求、说明书的修改或者意见陈述而放弃的技术方案，无论该修改或者意见陈述是否与专利的新颖性或者创造性有关，在侵犯专利权纠纷案件中均不能通过等同侵权将其纳入专利权的保护范围。 |
Supreme People's Court | |
最高人民法院 |
Civil Judgment | |
民事判决书 |
(No. 20 [2009], Civil, Certiorari) | |
(2009)民提字第20号 |
BASIC FACTS | |
|
Retrial petitioner (defendant in the first instance trial and appellant in the second instance): Hubei Wushi Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd., domiciled at No. 137 Biyun Road, Anlu City, Hubei Province. | |
申请再审人(一审被告、二审上诉人)：湖北午时药业股份有限公司。 |
Legal Representative: Cheng Renzhang, chairman of the company's board of directors. | |
法定代表人：程仁璋，董事长。 |
Attorney: Jiang Hongyi, lawyer of Beijing LexField Law Offices. | |
委托代理人：蒋洪义，北京市联德律师事务所律师。 |
Attorney: Liu Yongquan, lawyer of Beijing LexField Law Offices. | |
委托代理人：刘永全，北京市联德律师事务所律师。 |
Respondent (plaintiff in the first instance trial and appellee in the second instance): Aonuo (China) Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., domiciled at 1099 Cuiyuan Street, Baoding City, Hebei Province. | |
被申请人(一审原告、二审被上诉人)：澳诺(中国)制药有限公司。 |
Legal Representative: Liu Hong, chairman of the company's board of directors. | |
法定代表人：刘宏，董事长。 |
Attorney: Zhang Hui, lawyer of Shanghai Fangda Partners, Shenzhen Branch. | |
委托代理人：张辉，上海市方达律师事务所深圳分所律师。 |
Attorney: Cao Jinyan, female, patent agent of Beijing Panawell & Partners, LLC, domiciled at Suite 11, Building 7, Beijing Friendship Hotel, Haidian District, Beijing. | |
委托代理人：曹津燕。 |
Defendant in the first instance trial: Wang Junshe, male, born on March 27, 1965, of the Han ethnic group, proprietor of Xinkang Pharmacy at Beishi District, Baoding City, domiciled at 93 Langhu Street, Baoding City, Hebei Province. | |
原审被告：王军社。 |
PROCEDURAL POSTURE | |
|
The retrial petitioner, Hubei Wushi Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wushi Pharmaceuticals”) filed a retrial petition with this Court against a Civil Judgment (No. 23 [2007], Final, Civil Division III, Hebei) of the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province for the disputes over invention patent infringement between it and the respondent, Aonuo (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Aonuo Company”), and the defendant in the trial at first instance, Wang Junshe. This Court made the No. 458 [2008] Civil Ruling on December 25, 2008 to retry the case. Later, this Court formed a collegial panel according to law to hold a public rehearing of the case. Attorneys Jiang Hongyi and Sun Xi Noon representing Wushi Pharmaceuticals, as well as Aonuo Company's attorneys Zhang Hui and Cao Jinyan, appeared in the proceedings, while Wang Junshe failed to appear in court despite being legally summoned. So far, the retrial of this case has been concluded. | |
申请再审人湖北午时药业股份有限公司(简称午时药业公司)因与被申请人澳诺 (中国)制药有限公司(简称澳诺公司)、原审被告王军社侵犯发明专利权纠纷一案，不服河北省高级人民法院(2007)冀民三终字第23号民事判决，向本院申请再审。本院于2008年12月25日作出(2008)民申字第458号民事裁定，提审本案。本院依法组成合议庭公开开庭审理了本案。午时药业公司的委托代理人蒋洪义、孙喜，澳诺公司的委托代理人张辉、曹津燕到庭参加诉讼，原审被告王军社经本院合法传唤未到庭。本案现已审理终结。 |
On November 25, 2006, Aonuo Company filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province, alleging that Wushi Pharmaceuticals produced and sold Xin'gaite (Brand) “Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution”, which is a brand product of the plaintiff, in Hebei Province and other places. The company bought the allegedly infringing product from Xinkang Pharmacy at Beishi District, Baoding City, which was run by Wang Junshe, the whole process of which has been notarized. Now that Wushi Pharmaceuticals and Wang Junshe both have infringed upon Aonuo Company's invention patent, the Company requested the court to order: 1. Wushi Pharmaceuticals and Wang Junshe to stop producing and selling Xin'gaite “Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution”; 2. Wushi Pharmaceuticals and Wang Junshe to publish an apology in China Pharmaceutical News; 3. Wushi Pharmaceuticals and Wang Junshe to compensate Aonuo Company 1,941,371.44 yuan for its economic losses and pay the attorney fees and litigation costs for this case. | |
2006年11月25日，澳诺公司起诉至河北省石家庄市中级人民法院称，澳诺公司发现午时药业公司生产并在河北等地广泛销售其产品新钙特牌“葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液”，并在王军社经营的保定市北市区鑫康大药房公证购买了被诉侵权产品，午时药业公司和王军社侵犯其发明专利权，请求法院判令：1．午时药业公司和王军社停止生产、销售新钙特牌“葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液”；2．午时药业公司、王军社在《中国医药报》上刊登致歉声明；3．午时药业公司和王军社赔偿澳诺公司经济损失 1 941 371．44元，并承担本案律师代理费、诉讼费。 |
Upon trial of the first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang City found that: on December 5, 1995, Kong Yanping filed an application with the Patent Office of the State Intellectual Property Office for an invention patent entitled “A Drug for Prevention and Treatment of Calcium Deficiency and Preparation of the Drug” and was granted the patent on December 15, 2000 by the Office with the patent number ZL95117811.3. The date of authorized announcement of the patent was January 10, 2001. Claim 1 of this patent reads: “a drug for prevention and treatment of calcium deficiency. Features: it is an agent made from the following ingredients in respective weight ratios: active calcium, 4~8; zinc gluconate, 0.1~0.4; glutamine or glutamate, 0.8~1.2.” On April 3, 2006, Kong Yanping, the patentee, reached a Patent Licensing Contract with Aonuo Company, which then was using the name “Aonuo Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd.” and renamed to Aonuo (China) Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. later at the Industry and Commerce Bureau. As prescribed in the contract, “Kong Yanping shall grant Aonuo Company exclusive right to the patent without geographical confinement or restrictions on the use methods for a term of the same length of patent. In case this patent is infringed on by any third party, the licensee shall independently bring an action against the infringing party and assume all relevant legal consequences (either benefits or losses).” | |
河北省石家庄市中级人民法院一审查明，1995年12月5日，孔彦平向国家专利局申请“一种防治钙质缺损的药物及其制备方法”发明专利，2000年12月15日，国家知识产权局授予其专利权，专利号为 ZL95117811．3，授权公告日为2001年1月 10日。该专利权利要求1为：“一种防治钙质缺损的药物，其特征在于：它是由下述重量配比的原料制成的药剂：活性钙4-8份，葡萄糖酸锌0．1-0．4份，谷氨酰胺或谷氨酸 0．8-1．2份。”2006年4月3日，专利权人孔彦平与澳诺公司签订《专利实施许可合同书》，当时澳诺公司名称为澳诺制药有限公司，后在工商局变更为澳诺(中国)制药有限公司。该合同约定：孔彦平将涉案专利许可澳诺公司独占实施，授权期限同专利期限，无地域和使用方式限制，如发生第三方实施对本专利的侵权行为，由被许可方独立向侵权行为人提起诉讼，相关法律后果 (利益或损失)均由被许可方承担。 |
On September 28, 2006, as notarized by the No. 2 Notary Public of Baoding City, Aonuo Company bought 2 boxes of Xin'gaite “Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution” from Xinkang Pharmacy at Beishi District, Baoding City, which were produced by Wushi Pharmaceuticals. The ingredients stated in the product specifications are: “each 10 ml contains 600 mg of calcium gluconate, 30 mg of zinc gluconate and 100 mg of lysine hydrochloride.” The drug registration approval document (Approval Document No.: 2005S009711) issued by the State Food and Drug Administration also indicated the following specifications of the product: “for per 10 ml: 0.6 g of calcium gluconate, 0.03 g of zinc gluconate and 0.1 g of lysine hydrochloride.” | |
2006年9月28日，经保定市第二公证处公证，澳诺公司在王军社经营的保定市北市区鑫康大药房购买了午时药业公司生产的新钙特牌“葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液” 2盒。产品说明书载明的成分为：每10ml含葡萄糖酸钙600mg、葡萄糖酸锌30mg、盐酸赖氨酸100mg。国家食品药品监督管理局药品注册批件(批件号：2005S009711)中对该产品的规格也表明为：10ml：葡萄糖酸钙0．6g、葡萄糖酸锌O．03g和盐酸赖氨酸0．1g。 |
In the public text of application for the patent under dispute, the independent claim was soluble calcium, which contained calcium gluconate, calcium chloride, calcium lactate and calcium carbonate or active calcium. According to the notice of initial review by the State Intellectual Property Office, the reviewers held that by using a superordinate concept “soluble calcium,” which included a variety of calcium-containing soluble substances, the claims referred to a fairly large extent of protection. However, the applicant only provided the examples for preparing the “calcium gluconate” and “active calcium” therein while omitting the formulations and implemented examples of other kinds of soluble calcium to demonstrate their effectiveness. It was difficult for a technician in the corresponding technical field to predict whether other calcium preparations, as produced according to the instruction of this invention, would be equivalently effective in the human body. In essence, the claims could not be supported by the patent specification and thus should be modified. Upon the request of the reviewers, the applicant modified the claims by changing “soluble calcium” into “active calcium.” | |
涉案专利申请公开文本中，其独立权利要求为可溶性钙剂，可溶性钙剂包括葡萄糖酸钙、氯化钙、乳酸钙、碳酸钙或活性钙。国家知识产权局第一次审查意见通知书中，审查员认为，该权利要求书中使用的上位概念“可溶性钙剂”包括各种可溶性的含钙物质，它概括了一个较宽的保护范围，而申请人仅对其中的“葡萄糖酸钙”和“活性钙”提供了配制药物的实施例，对于其他的可溶性钙剂没有提供配方和效果实施例，所属技术领域的技术人员难于预见其他的可溶性钙剂按本发明进行配方是否也能在人体中发挥相同的作用，权利要求在实质上得不到说明书的支持，应当对其进行修改。申请人根据审查员的要求，对权利要求书进行了修改，将“可溶性钙剂”修改为“活性钙”。 |
To determine whether the technical characteristics of the “Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution” produced by Wushi Pharmaceuticals fell into the scope of patent protection as claimed by Aonuo Company, the court of the first instance commissioned Beijing Zitu Intellectual Property Rights Identification Center to carry out a technical identification. According to the identification report issued by the center, the product of Wushi Pharmaceuticals contained calcium gluconate while the patent at issue contained active calcium. Active calcium and calcium gluconate were both edible calcium supplements absorbable by the human body. They were equivalent and interchangeable alternatives as an ingredient in calcium supplements. The product of Wushi Pharmaceuticals also contained lysine hydrochloride while the patent under dispute contained glutamine or glutamate. Although lysine hydrochloride and glutamate are two different kinds of amino acid with different nutritional value, they are both compatible with calcium in drugs for treatment of calcium deficiency, and both of them have the function and effect of promoting calcium absorption. Therefore, they are equivalent to each other. Apart from the above equivalent characteristics, the purposes of use of the product of Wushi Pharmaceuticals and that of the patent in this case are identical. So were their remaining ingredients: zinc gluconate, with equal ratios of respective ingredients. The identification concluded that: “The ‘Xin'gaite Brand' Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution manufactured by Hubei Wushi Pharmaceuticals Industry Group Co., Ltd. is identical with the technical solution of the patent under dispute.” | |
为判断午时药业公司生产的“葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液”技术特征是否落入澳诺公司所主张的专利权保护范围，一审法院委托了北京紫图知识产权鉴定中心进行了技术鉴定。该机构做出的鉴定报告认为：午时药业公司产品含有葡萄糖酸钙，而涉案专利是活性钙，活性钙与葡萄糖酸钙同样都是可食用的能被人体吸收的钙剂，作为补钙药剂的原料两者是等同的，可供任意选择的；午时药业公司产品为盐酸赖氨酸，涉案专利为谷氨酰胺或谷氨酸，盐酸赖氨酸与专利的谷氨酸是不同的氨基酸，具有不同的营养价值，但在防治钙质缺损的药物中两者是与钙剂配伍使用，且均实现促进钙吸收的功能和效果，所以二者等同；除上述特征等同外，午时药业公司产品与涉案专利两者用途相同，其余原料相同，均为葡萄糖酸锌，各种原料的用量比例相同。鉴定结论为：“湖北午时药业股份有限公司生产的‘新钙特牌'葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液药品与涉案专利的技术方案相等同。” |
Aonuo Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed an application with the State Intellectual Property Office for an invention patent entitled “An Oral Solution for Prevention or Treatment of Calcium Deficiency and Drug Preparation” on February 19, 2003, with the patent number ZL03104587.1 (hereinafter referred to as Patent 587). The independent claim 1 states: “An oral solution for prevention or treatment of calcium deficiency: Features: it is made from the following ingredients in respective weight ratios: soluble calcium, 4~9; zinc gluconate, 0.1~0.4; lysine hydrochloride, 0.8~1.2.” During the trial, Wushi Pharmaceuticals argued that even the allegedly infringing product was identical with Patent 587, the fact that it was granted patent proved that this invention was a creation rather than an equivalent replacement of Patent 587. | |
澳诺制药有限公司于2003年2月19日就“一种防止或治疗钙质缺损的口服溶液及其制备方法”，向国家知识产权局申请了发明专利，专利号为ZL03104587．1(简称 587号专利)。其独立权利要求1为：一种防止或治疗钙质缺损的口服溶液，其特征在于它是由下述重量比计的配方和原料制成的制剂：可溶性钙剂4-9份，葡萄糖酸锌 0．1-0．4份，盐酸赖氨酸0．8-1．2份。庭审中，午时药业公司认为，被诉侵权产品与 587号专利相同，而该专利既然得到授权，说明是有创造性的，并不是涉案专利的等同替换。 |
Upon trial of the first instance, in the opinion of the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang City, the patent in this case owned by the patentee, Kong Yanping, and the contract for exclusive licensing of patent implementation signed between him and Aonuo Company are legal and valid, which should be protected by law. As identified by a commissioned identification agency, the technical characteristics of the “Calcium and Zinc Gluconates Oral Solution” produced and sold by Wushi Pharmaceuticals are identical with the composite of the patent in dispute claimed by Aonuo Company. Without permission from the patent holder, Wushi Pharmaceuticals produced and sold the above product, which had constituted infringement of Aonuo's patent. | |
河北省石家庄市中级人民法院一审认为，专利权人孔彦平享有的涉案专利权及其与澳诺公司签订的独占实施许可合同合法有效，应受法律保护。午时药业公司生产、销售的“葡萄糖酸钙锌口服溶液”，经委托鉴定机构鉴定，其产品的技术特征与澳诺公司主张的涉案专利构成等同，午时药业公司未经专利权人许可生产、销售上述产品，已构成侵权。 |
Not all modifications to or statement of opinions on claims in the process of patent application would lead to the application of the estoppel doctrine; only those aiming to have the patent licensing authority acknowledge the novelty or creativity of the patent under application should have the effect of estoppel. In this case, the patentee modified the claims according to the determination of the reviewers during the process of application by changing “soluble calcium” to “active calcium” in the independent claim. He did not intend to add novelty or creativity to his patent application by so doing, but to make the claims justifiable by the patent specification. Therefore, such modification should not give rise to estoppel.
．．．．．． | |
只有为了使专利授权机关认定其申请专利具有新颖性或创造性而进行的修改或意见陈述，才产生禁止反悔的效果，并非专利申请过程中关于权利要求的所有修改或意见陈述都会导致禁止反悔原则的适用。本案专利权人在专利申请过程中根据专利审查员的意见对权利要求书进行了修改，将独立权利要求中的“可溶性钙剂”修改为“活性钙”，并非是为了使其专利申请因此修改而具有新颖性或创造性，而是为了使其权利要求得到说明书的支持，故此修改不产生禁止反悔的效果。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥900.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|