Liu Baochang v. Anhui Dongtai Textile Co., Ltd.
(A Case about disputes over patent infringement)@#
@#
@#
Supreme People's Court@#
Civil Ruling@#
No.46-1 (2007), Civil Division III, Supervision@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Retrial petitioner (plaintiff of first instance and appellant of second instance): Liu Baochang, male, born in December 1948, Han Chinese, a retiree of former Anhui No.2 Cotton Textiles Plant, domiciled at Room 304, Building 3, Second Textile Village, Heping Road, Yaohai District, Hefei City, Anhui Province.@#
Respondent (defendant of first instance and appellee of second instance): Anhui Dongtai Textiles Co., Ltd., domiciled at 97 West Longquan Road, Dianbu Town, Feidong County, Anhui Province.@#
Legal representative: Zhang Weiguo, chairman of the board of directors.@#
Authorized representative: Wei Shenghua, male, an employee of Anhui Dongtai Textiles Co., Ltd., residing in the Dormitory of New Textiles Village, Dianbu Town, Feidong County, Anhui Province.@#
Attorney: Li Fengsheng, a lawyer of Anhui Ludong Law Firm@#
For the case about disputes over patent infringement between Liu Baochang, the retrial petitioner, and Anhui Dongtai Textiles Co., Ltd., the respondent, (hereinafter referred to as “Dongtai Company”), the Higher People's Court of Anhui Province rendered a civil judgment (No.0021 [2006], Civil Division III, Final, Anhui) on December 5, 2006, which has come into force. On August 26, 2008, Liu Baochang filed a petition with this Court for retrial of the case. This Court duly formed a collegial panel and reviewed the case. The review of this case has been concluded.@#
In his retrial petition, Liu Baochang asserted that: 1. It should be admitted that the patent involved in this case was neither the same as nor equal to the existing technologies, including the former adjustment method for shuttle changing of automatic shuttle changing looms, provided that the patent involved in this case was valid. The patent involved in this case could lead to great technological progress without any component of the loom being added or removed and with the structure, usage and operating pattern of the machine being unchanged, which proved a huge economic value of the involved patent. Dongtai Company could meet its expected functional requirements only by using the patented method. As Dongtai Company had not applied for invalidation of the patent, it could be presumed that it had used the patented method involved in this case. 2. It could be presumed that Dongtai Company must have used the patented method involved in this case and infringed the patent involved in this case as long as it was proven that the automatic shuttle changing loom used by Dongtai Company was same as the patent involved in this case in the machinery structure and usage, provided that the machinery structure, usage and operating pattern of the automatic shuttle changing loom all remained unchanged. The affirmation in the judgment of the second instance that the original shuttle changing adjustment method of automatic shuttle changing looms was neither the same as nor equal to the patented method involved in this case was wrong in fact finding. 3. The retrial petitioner's acquisition of the patented method involved in this case could prove that the existing technologies developed before the date of patent application, i.e. the former shuttle changing method of automatic shuttle changing looms, could not meet the expected functional requirements of the machine and that the existing shuttle changing method would necessarily be washed out. The patented method involved in this case was the only way to achieve the expected functional requirements without changing the conventional machinery structure and so on, and Dongtai Company could conduct production only by using the patented method involved in this case.@#
．．．．．．

刘保昌与安徽省东泰纺织有限公司侵犯专利权纠纷案@#
[裁判摘要]@#
发明专利权的保护范围以其权利要求的内容为准，权利要求中记载的全部技术特征共同限定了专利权的保护范围，故只有当被控侵权方法的技术特征与权利要求中记载的全部技术特征分别相同或等同时，方能认定被控侵权方法落入专利权的保护范围。@#
最高人民法院@#
民事裁定书@#
(2007)民三监字第46-1号@#
@#
申请再审人(一审原告、二审上诉人)：刘保昌，男，1948年12月出生，汉族，原安徽第二棉纺织厂退休职工，住安徽省合肥市瑶海区和平路纺织二村3幢304号。@#
被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)：安徽省东泰纺织有限公司，住所地安徽省肥东县店埠镇龙泉西路97号。@#
法定代表人：张卫国，董事长。@#
委托代理人：韦升华，男，安徽省东泰纺织有限公司员工，住安徽省肥东县店埠镇纺织新村宿舍。@#
委托代理人：李丰升，安徽庐东律师事务所律师。@#
申请再审人刘保昌与被申请人安徽省东泰纺织有限公司(简称东泰公司)侵犯专利权纠纷一案，安徽省高级人民法院于 2006年12月5日作出(2006)皖民三终字第0021号民事判决，已经发生法律效力。 2008年8月26日，刘保昌向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查，现已审查终结。@#
刘保昌申请再审称，1．在涉案专利有效的前提下，应当承认涉案专利与现有技术相比，包括与自动换梭织机原有的换梭调整方法相比，是既不相同也不等同的，涉案专利可以在不增、减织机的任何零部件，机器结构、用途和运转规律都不变的情况下，获得巨大的技术进步，具有巨大的经济价值，东泰公司必须使用专利方法才能满足预期的功能要求，由于东泰公司未申请专利权无效，故可以推定其使用了涉案专利方法。2．在自动换梭织机的机器结构、用途和运转规律都不变的情况下，只要能够证明东泰公司使用的自动换梭织机在织机结构、用途与涉案专利一样的情况，就可以推定东泰公司必然使用了涉案专利方法，侵犯了涉案专利权，二审判决认定自动换梭织机原有的换梭调整方法与涉案专利方法相比既不相同也不等同，属于认定事实错误。3．申请再审人获得涉案专利方法，可以证明申请日以前的现有技术，即自动换梭织机原有的换梭调整方法不能满足机器预期功能要求，现有的换梭方法必然被淘汰，涉案专利方法是在不改变传统的机器结构等的情况下，达到预期功能要求的唯一方法，东泰公司只有使用涉案专利方法才能生产。@#
被申请人东泰公司辩称，1，刘保昌提出再审申请没有事实依据。2．被申请人使用三用定规的方法进行换梭调整，该方法是一个涉案专利申请日之前已有的方法，在河南省纺织管理局编写的《纺织保全》工具书中有记载，一审法院证据保全时所拍摄的照片也可以证明。@#
@#
安徽省合肥市中级人民法院(简称一审法院)查明，刘保昌于2002年3月16日向国家知识产权局申请了专利号为 02112782．4，名称为“自动换梭织机适用有梭织机用木梭换梭调整方法”发明专利(以下简称涉案专利)，于2005年6月22日获得授权，涉案专利包含两项权利要求，其中权利要求1为独立权利要求，权利要求2为从属权利要求。权利要求1包括如下技术特征：“一种自动换梭织机适用有梭织机用木梭换梭调整方法，其特征在于：(1)当 V型螺丝把动力由冲嘴传递给推进滑动器，推进滑动器在梭库脚上把所用的有梭织机用的木梭由一边推到该木梭后上棱刚被推到前闸轨前边沿或该木梭后上棱已被推进距前闸轨前边沿2mm深位置瞬间时，先用手扶住该木梭，保持该木梭底部的平面与梭库脚导梭面的平面密接关系，再调整梭库上的可动轴在可动轴托脚上的位置，使前闸轨前边沿与前面凸边板之间-即喇叭口的水平垂直距离大于该木梭后侧面的宽度，该水平垂直距离等于木梭后侧面的宽加上2-7mm的间隙，使木梭后侧面的宽处在喇叭口中间的位置上；(2)当前闸轨抬足时，即所使用的有梭织机用的木梭最高处轧在前闸轨与前面凸边板之间时，调整梭箱扬起背板臂杆用的螺丝分别在梭箱扬起背板长、短臂中的位置，使梭箱扬起背板底部的铁丝以该铁丝中间直线部分为准与梭箱底板平面等高，其误差不超过±1 mm；再调整铁丝的弯曲程度，使梭箱扬起背板底部的铁丝与梭箱底板后边沿平行，之间间隙为该木梭宽的1／3-1／4。@#
刘保昌于2006年4月20日起诉至安徽省合肥市中级人民法院称，东泰公司未经许可使用了专利技术，侵犯了原告的专利权，请求人民法院判决东泰公司停止侵权行为，赔偿被告经济损失10000元。为支持其诉讼请求，刘保昌向一审法院提供了以下证据：证据一是涉案专利的专利证书、专利说明书及交纳年费收据的复印件，用于证明原告享有专利权；证据二是中华人民共和国纺织行业标准《FZ／T 94002- 1991(换梭式木质梭子)》和《FZ／T 94021- 95(换梭棉织机)》的复印件，用于证明涉案专利突破了两个行业标准，具有成为专利技术的必备条件；证据三是《1515型织机修理工作法》封面及第152页的复印件，证明被告现在这个织机自动换锁调整方法，已经没有这样去调整的理由；证据四是教科书《织机》的封面及第152-155页的复印件，用于说明织机自动换梭机构的结构；证据五是根据刘保昌的申请，一审法院在证据保全时在东泰公司布机车间内所作的谈话笔录和现场拍摄的照片五张，用于证明被告在使用与涉案专利有直接牵连的自动织机生产织物。@#
．．．．．．