>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 20: Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Kengzi Water Supply Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Kangtailan Water Treatment Equipment Co., Ltd. (Invention patent infringement dispute)
指导案例20号:深圳市斯瑞曼精细化工有限公司诉深圳市坑梓自来水有限公司、深圳市康泰蓝水处理设备有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 20: Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Kengzi Water Supply Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Kangtailan Water Treatment Equipment Co., Ltd.(Invention patent infringement dispute)

 

指导案例20号:深圳市斯瑞曼精细化工有限公司诉深圳市坑梓自来水有限公司、深圳市康泰蓝水处理设备有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案

(Issued on November 8, 2013, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) (最高人民院审判委员会讨论通过 2013年11月8日发布)

Guiding Case No. 20 指导案例20号
Keywords: 关键词
Civil; intellectual property right; infringement; invention patent; period of temporary protection; subsequent acts 民事 知识产权 侵害 发明专利权 临时保护期 后续行为
Judgment's Key Points 裁判要点
Where the alleged product infringing an invention patent was produced, sold, or imported during the period of temporary protection between the publication of an application for the patent and the granting of the patent, as not prohibited by the patent law, the subsequent use, promised sale, or sale of such products should not be deemed to have infringed upon the patent even without the permission of the patentee. However, the patentee may require the entity or individual that exploits the invention during the period of temporary protection to pay appropriate royalties in accordance with the law. 在发明专利申请公布后至专利权授予前的临时保护期内制造、销售、进口的被诉专利侵权产品不为专利法禁止的情况下,其后续的使用、许诺销售、销售,即使未经专利权人许可,也不视为侵害专利权,但专利权人可以依法要求临时保护期内实施其发明的单位或者个人支付适当的费用。
Relevant Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 11, 13, and 69 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国专利法》第十一条、第十三条、第六十九条
Basic Facts 基本案情
On January 19, 2006, Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Siruiman”) filed an application for an invention patent with the State Intellectual Property Office. The patent was published on July 19, 2006, and was issued on January 21, 2009, with the patented invention titled “equipment for preparing high-purity chlorine dioxide” and the patentee being Siruiman. The most recent payment of annuities for the patent was on November 28, 2008. On October 20, 2008, Shenzhen Kengzi Water Supply Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Kengzi”) and Shenzhen Kangtailan Water Treatment Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Kangtailan) entered into a Sales Contract, under which Kengzi purchased a set of Kangtailan chlorine dioxide generator from Kangtailan at the price of 260,000 yuan. On December 30, 2008, Kangtailan requested the tax authority to issue a uniform invoice for the payment received for the above product. Both parties agreed in the Sales Contract that Kengzi should pay for the equipment in installments and Kangtailan should provide Kengzi with installation, commissioning, repair, maintenance, and other technical support and after-sales services. 深圳市斯瑞曼精细化工有限公司(以下简称斯瑞曼公司)于2006年1月19日向国家知识产权局申请发明专利,该专利于2006年7月19日公开,2009年1月21日授权公告,授权的发明名称为“制备高纯度二氧化氯的设备”,专利权人为斯瑞曼公司。该专利最近一次年费缴纳时间为2008年11月28日。2008年10月20日,深圳市坑梓自来水有限公司(以下简称坑梓自来水公司)与深圳市康泰蓝水处理设备有限公司(以下简称康泰蓝公司)签订《购销合同》一份,坑梓自来水公司向康泰蓝公司购买康泰蓝二氧化氯发生器一套,价款26万元。康泰蓝公司已于2008年12月30日就上述产品销售款要求税务机关代开统一发票。在上述《购销合同》中,约定坑梓自来水公司分期向康泰蓝公司支付设备款项,康泰蓝公司为坑梓自来水公司提供安装、调试、维修、保养等技术支持及售后服务。
On March 16, 2009, Siruiman brought an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, alleging that: It owned an invention patent titled “equipment for preparing high-purity chlorine dioxide” (hereinafter referred to as the “invention patent involved”), and the equipment for producing chlorine dioxide as produced and sold by Kangtailan and used by Kengzi fell within the protective scope of the invention patent involved. Siruiman requested the court to order that the two defendants should cease the infringement, compensate it in the amount of 300,000 yuan for economic losses, and solely assume the litigation costs and other expenses. In this case, Siruiman did not claim payment of royalties during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent, and after the court of first instance made a clear explanation, Siruiman still insisted on its original claims. 2009年3月16日,斯瑞曼公司向广东省深圳市中级人民法院诉称:其拥有名称为“制备高纯度二氧化氯的设备”的发明专利(以下简称涉案发明专利),康泰蓝公司生产、销售和坑梓自来水公司使用的二氧化氯生产设备落入涉案发明专利保护范围。请求判令二被告停止侵权并赔偿经济损失30万元、承担诉讼费等费用。在本案中,斯瑞曼公司没有提出支付发明专利临时保护期使用费的诉讼请求,在一审法院已作释明的情况下,斯瑞曼公司仍坚持原诉讼请求。
Judgment 裁判结果
On January 6, 2010, the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province issued a civil judgment (No. 94 [2009], First, Civil Division III, Intermediate People's Court, Shenzhen): Kangtailan should cease the infringement, and Kangtailan and Kengzi should assume joint and several liability to compensate Siruiman for economic losses in the amount of 80,000 yuan. Both Kangtailan and Kengzi appealed. On November 15, 2010, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province issued a civil judgment (No. 444 [2010], Final, Civil Division III, Higher People's Court, Guangdong) to dismiss the appeals and uphold the original judgment. Against the judgment of the court of second instance, Kengzi filed a petition for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On December 20, 2011, the Supreme People's Court issued a civil judgment (No. 259 [2011], Civil, Direct Retrial) to revoke the judgments of the court of first instance and the court of second instance and dismiss the claims of Siruiman. 广东省深圳市中级人民法院于2010年1月6日作出(2009)深中法民三初字第94号民事判决:康泰蓝公司停止侵权,康泰蓝公司和坑梓自来水公司连带赔偿斯瑞曼公司经济损失8万元。康泰蓝公司、坑梓自来水公司均提起上诉,广东省高级人民法院于2010年11月15日作出(2010)粤高法民三终字第444号民事判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。坑梓自来水公司不服二审判决,向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2011年12月20日作出(2011)民提字第259号民事判决:撤销原一、二审判决,驳回斯瑞曼公司的诉讼请求。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
The Supreme People's Court held that: In this case, Siruiman did not claim payment of loyalties during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent. Therefore, the focal disputes in this case were whether Kengzi had infringed upon the invention patent involved by using, after the issue date of the invention patent involved, the alleged infringing product purchased from Kangtailan during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent involved and whether Kangtailan had infringed upon the invention patent involved by providing after-sales services, after the issue date of the invention patent involved, for the alleged infringing product used by Kengzi. 最高人民法院认为:斯瑞曼公司在本案中没有提出支付发明专利临时保护期使用费的诉讼请求,因此本案的主要争议焦点在于,坑梓自来水公司在涉案发明专利授权后使用其在涉案发明专利临时保护期内向康泰蓝公司购买的被诉专利侵权产品是否侵犯涉案发明专利权,康泰蓝公司在涉案发明专利授权后为坑梓自来水公司使用被诉专利侵权产品提供售后服务是否侵犯涉案发明专利权。
In the determination of any infringement upon a patent, the relevant provisions of the patent law should be comprehensively considered. According to the time when the alleged infringement was committed, the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China as amended in 2000 should be applicable to this case. Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Patent Law provided that: “After the grant of a patent for an invention or utility model, unless otherwise specified in this Law, no entity or individual may, without the permission of the patentee, exploit the patent, i.e. produce, use, promise the sale of, sell, or import the patented product, use the patented process, or use, promise the sale of, sell, or import any products directly obtained in the patented process, for business purposes.” Article 13 thereof provided that: “After the publication of an application for an invention patent, the applicant may require an entity or individual exploiting the invention to pay appropriate royalties.” Article 62 thereof provided that: “The time limitation for instituting an action for infringement upon a patent shall be two years commencing from the day when the patentee or any interested party knows or should have known the infringement. Where, after the publication of an application for an invention patent but before the granting of the patent, no appropriate royalties are paid for the use of the invention, the time limitation for the patentee to require payment of such royalties shall be two years, commencing from the day when the patentee knows or should have known the use of the invention by others. However, if the patentee knew or should have known the use of the invention before the issue date of the patent, the time limitation shall commence from the issue date of the patent.” In view of all of the aforesaid provisions, although the patent law provided that an applicant may require the entity or individual that exploits the invention during the period between the publication of an application for the invention patent and the issue date of the patent (i.e. the period of temporary protection of the patent) to pay appropriate royalties, i.e. entitled to payment of royalties during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent, the applicant was not entitled to require the cease of exploitation of the invention during the period of temporary protection of the patent. Therefore, the exploitation of an invention during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent was not prohibited by the Patent law卧槽不见了. Where the alleged product infringing an invention patent was produced, sold, or imported during the period of temporary protection of the patent, as not prohibited by the Patent Law, the subsequent use, promised sale, or sale of such products should be permitted even without the permission of the patentee. In other words, the patentee was not entitled to prevent others from the subsequent use, promised sale, or sale of the alleged infringing product produced, sold, or imported during the period of temporary protection of the patent, which, certainly, would not prejudice the patentee's right to require payment of appropriate royalties for the exploitation of the invention under Article 13 of the Patent Law. For the alleged infringing product produced, sold, or imported during the period of temporary protection of the patent, if the seller or user had provided a legitimate source, the seller or user should have no obligation to pay the appropriate royalties. 对于侵犯专利权行为的认定,应当全面综合考虑专利法

土豪我们做朋友好不好

的相关规定。根据本案被诉侵权行为时间,本案应当适用2000年修改的《中华人民共和国专利法》。专利法十一条第一款规定:“发明和实用新型专利权被授予后,除本法另有规定的以外,任何单位或者个人未经专利权人许可,都不得实施其专利,即不得为生产经营目的制造、使用、许诺销售、销售、进口其专利产品,或者使用其专利方法以及使用、许诺销售、销售、进口依照该专利方法直接获得的产品。”第十三条规定:“发明专利申请公布后,申请人可以要求实施其发明的单位或者个人支付适当的费用。”第六十二条规定:“侵犯专利权的诉讼时效为二年,自专利权人或者利害关系人得知或者应当得知侵权行为之日起计算。发明专利申请公布后至专利权授予前使用该发明未支付适当使用费的,专利权人要求支付使用费的诉讼时效为二年,自专利权人得知或者应当得知他人使用其发明之日起计算,但是,专利权人于专利权授予之日前即已得知或者应当得知的,自专利权授予之日起计算。”综合考虑上述规定,专利法虽然规定了申请人可以要求在发明专利申请公布后至专利权授予之前(即专利临时保护期内)实施其发明的单位或者个人支付适当的费用,即享有请求给付发明专利临时保护期使用费的权利,但对于专利临时保护期内实施其发明的行为并不享有请求停止实施的权利。因此,在发明专利临时保护期内实施相关发明的,不属于专利法禁止的行为。在专利临时保护期内制造、销售、进口被诉专利侵权产品不为专利法禁止的情况下,其后续的使用、许诺销售、销售该产品的行为,即使未经专利权人许可,也应当得到允许。也就是说,专利权人无权禁止他人对专利临时保护期内制造、销售、进口的被诉专利侵权产品的后续使用、许诺销售、销售。当然,这并不否定专利权人根据专利法十三条规定行使要求实施其发明者支付适当费用的权利。对于在专利临时保护期内制造、销售、进口的被诉专利侵权产品,在销售者、使用者提供了合法来源的情况下,销售者、使用者不应承担支付适当费用的责任。
The determination that the subsequent use, promised sale, or sale, among others, of any products obtained by exploiting an invention during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent after the issue date of the patent did not constitute infringement was consistent with the legislative purposes of the Patent Law. On the one hand, the original intention in the design of the patent system was to “exchange publication of a patent for protection of the patent,” and the patentee could request protection of the patent only after the patent was granted. As for an application for an invention patent, the exploitation of the invention before the date of publication did not constitute any infringement, and after the date of publication, the subsequent exploitation of the product obtained from the previous exploitation of the invention should also be permitted; during the period from the date of publication to the issue date of the patent, temporary protection was provided for the application for an invention patent, and the exploitation of the invention during this period was not prohibited by the patent law. Likewise, after this period, the subsequent exploitation of the product obtained from the exploitation of the invention should also be permitted, but after an applicant was granted the patent, the patentee was entitled to require payment of appropriate royalties for the exploitation of the invention during the period of temporary protection. Since the exploitation of an invention before the issue date of a patent on the invention was not prohibited by the patent law, the subsequent exploitation of any products produced before the issue date of the patent did not constitute any infringement either; otherwise, protection would have been provided for technical solutions not published or patented, contrary to the legislative purposes of the patent law. On the other hand, the patent law provided for a prior user right, according to which the continued production of the same product or use of the same method by a prior user within the original extent should not be deemed to be an infringement, but contained no provision on whether the subsequent exploitation of the same product produced or the product produced in the same method constituted an infringement. One could not determine that the aforesaid subsequent exploitation constituted an infringement because there was no specific provision in the patent law; otherwise, the prior user right prescribed in the patent law would make no sense. 认定在发明专利授权后针对发明专利临时保护期内实施发明得到的产品的后续使用、许诺销售、销售等实施行为不构成侵权,符合专利法的立法宗旨。一方面,专利制度的设计初衷是“以公开换保护”,且是在授权之后才能请求予以保护。对于发明专利申请来说,在公开日之前实施相关发明,不构成侵权,在公开日后也应当允许此前实施发明得到的产品的后续实施行为;在公开日到授权日之间,为发明专利申请提供的是临时保护,在此期间实施相关发明,不为专利法所禁止,同样也应当允许实施发明得到的产品在此期间之后的后续实施行为,但申请人在获得专利权后有权要求在临时保护期内实施其发明者支付适当费用。由于专利法没有禁止发明专利授权前的实施行为,则专利授权前制造出来的产品的后续实施也不构成侵权。否则就违背了专利法的立法初衷,为尚未公开或者授权的技术方案提供了保护。另一方面,专利法规定了先用权,虽然仅规定了先用权人在原有范围内继续制造相同产品、使用相同方法不视为侵权,没有规定制造的相同产品或者使用相同方法制造的产品的后续实施行为是否构成侵权,但是不能因为专利法没有明确规定就认定上述后续实施行为构成侵权,否则,专利法规定的先用权没有任何意义。
In this case, Kangtailan sold the alleged infringing product during the period of temporary protection of the invention patent involved, as not prohibited by the patent law. Under the circumstances, Kengzi's subsequent use of the purchased alleged infringing product should also be permitted. Therefore, Kengzi's subsequent use did not infringe upon the invention patent involved. Likewise, Kangtailan's provision of after-sales services for the alleged infringing product used by Kengzi after the invention patent involved was granted did not infringe upon the invention patent involved either.

 本案中,康泰蓝公司销售被诉专利侵权产品是在涉案发明专利临时保护期内,该行为不为专利法所禁止。在此情况下,后续的坑梓自来水公司使用所购买的被诉专利侵权产品的行为也应当得到允许。因此,坑梓自来水公司后续的使用行为不侵犯涉案发明专利权。同理,康泰蓝公司在涉案发明专利授权后为坑梓自来水公司使用被诉专利侵权产品提供售后服务也不侵犯涉案发明专利权。
 

     
     
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