|
|
|
|
|
Bai Wanqing v. Chengdu Hard-to-Find Article Marketing Service Center and Shanghai Tianxiang Co., Ltd. (Dispute on infringement of utility model patent)
柏万清与成都难寻物品营销服务中心、上海添香实业有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案
|
[Key Terms]
patent ; obvious flaw ; scope of protection ; infringement
[核心术语]
专利；明显瑕疵；保护范围；侵权
|
[Disputed Issues]
Where obvious flaws exist in the writing of patent claims that make it difficult for skilled technical personnel to determine the specific scope and meaning of the technical terms in the patent claims, and the scope of protection of the patent rights cannot be determined, can a ruling be made that the allegedly infringing technical solution is infringing?
[争议焦点]
专利权利要求的撰写存在明显瑕疵，本领域技术人员难以确定权利要求中技术术语的具体范围或者具体含义，无法准确确定专利权的保护范围的，能否认定被诉侵权技术方案构成侵权？
|
[Case Summary]
Under Article 56 Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law the scope of protection of patent rights for an invention or utility model is to be determined by the terms of the claims and the description and appended drawings may be used to interpret the claims. Where obvious flaws exist in the writing of patent claims and through the combination of the patent description...
[案例要旨]
《专利法》第五十六条第一款规定：“发明或者实用新型专利权的保护范围以其权利要求的内容为准说明书及附图可以用于解释权利要求。”如果权利要求的撰写存在明显瑕疵结合专利说明书、本领域的公知常识以及相关现有技术等仍然不能确定权利要求中技术术语的具体含义...
|
| Bai Wanqing v. Chengdu Hard-to-Find Article Marketing Service Center and Shanghai Tianxiang Co., Ltd. (Dispute on infringement of utility model patent) | | 柏万清与成都难寻物品营销服务中心、上海添香实业有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案 |
| [Judgment Abstract] | | 【裁判摘要】 |
| Accurately defining the scope of patent protection is the precondition for ascertaining whether the alleged infringing technical proposal constituted infringement. If the specific meaning of the technical terms in the claims is still unable to be defined or the scope of patent protection is unable to be accurately defined, in combination with the patent specification in dispute, general knowledge in the field, and relevant existing technologies, in the event of distinct flaws in the preparation of the claims, no meaningful infringement comparison is able to be made with the alleged infringing technical proposal. Therefore, for the patent with significantly unclear scope of protection, the infringing technical proposal in dispute should not be ascertained as having constituted infringement. | | 准确界定专利权的保护范围，是认定被诉侵权技术方案是否构成侵权的前提条件。如果权利要求的撰写存在明显瑕疵，结合涉案专利说明书、本领域的公知常识以及相关现有技术等，仍然不能确定权利要求中技术术语的具体含义，无法准确确定专利权的保护范围的，则无法将被诉侵权技术方案与之进行有意义的侵权对比。因此，对于保护范围明显不清楚的专利权，不应认定被诉侵权技术方案构成侵权。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| Civil Ruling | | 民事裁定书 |
| No. 1544 [2012], Civil Petition | | （2012）民申字第1544号 |
| BASIC FACTS | | |
| Retrial applicant (the plaintiff of the first instance and the appellant of the second instance): Bai Wanqing, male, Han ethnicity, born on July 13, 1938, domiciled at 4 Unit 1, 57 Binhe Road, Bldg. C, Lizhou District, Guangyuan City, Sichuan Province. | | 申请再审人(一审原告、二审上诉人)：柏万清，男，汉族，1938年7月13日出生，住四川省广元市利州区滨河路57号C幢 1单元4号。 |
| Agent: Liu Junshi, lawyer of Beijing Xinyuan Law Office. | | 委托代理人：刘俊仕，北京市新元律师事务所律师。 |
| Respondent (the defendant of the first instance and the appellee of the second instance): Chengdu Hard-to-Find Article Marketing Service Center, domiciled at 5-2-6, Jinxinyuan, 45 Jinsi Street, Chengdu City, Sichuan Province. | | 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)：成都难寻物品营销服务中心。住所地：四川省成都市金丝街45号金欣苑5-2-6号。 |
| Investor: Liu Wanjun, manager of the center. | | 投资人：刘万军，该中心经理。 |
| Respondent (the defendant of the first instance and the appellee of the second instance): Shanghai Tianxiang Co., Ltd., domiciled at Room 301, 518 West Jiangchang Road, Tianxiang Building, Shanghai City. | | 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)：上海添香实业有限公司。住所地：上海市江场西路518号添香大厦301室。 |
| Legal representative: Xu Rugen, chairman of the board of directors of this company. | | 法定代表人：许如根，该公司董事长。 |
| Agent: Li Guodong, employee of the company. | | 委托代理人：黎国栋，该公司员工。 |
| Agent: Yu Wei, employee of the company. | | 委托代理人：俞炜，该公司员工。 |
| The retrial applicant Bai Wanqing filed an application for retrial with this Court against the civil judgment (No. 391 [2011], Final, Civil, Sichuan) of the Higher People's Court of Sichuan Province, for the case of dispute on infringement of utility model patent against the respondent Chengdu Hard-to-Find Article Marketing Service Center (hereinafter referred to as “Hard-to-Find Center”) and the appellee of the second instance, Shanghai Tianxiang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianxiang Company”). This Court formed a collegial panel according to the law to review the case. On December 11, 2012, this Court organized an inquiry for this case. Liu Junshi, the agent of Bai Wanqing, and Li Guodong and Yu Wei, the agents of Tianxiang Company participated in the inquiry. The review of the case has been concluded. | | 申请再审人柏万清因与被申请人成都难寻物品营销服务中心(以下简称难寻中心)、二审被上诉人上海添香实业有限公司 (以下简称添香公司)侵害实用新型专利权纠纷一案，不服四川省高级人民法院(2011)川民终字第391号民事判决，向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查。2012年12月11日，本院对本案进行了询问，柏万清的委托代理人刘俊仕，添香公司的委托代理人黎国栋、俞炜到庭参加询问。本案现已审查终结。 |
Bai Wanqing alleged in the application for retrial: 1. On the understanding of “high magnetic permeability” in the claim 1 of the patent in dispute. (1) The claims should be interpreted from the standpoint of ordinary technicians in the field, in combination with the reference books, textbooks, other general knowledge literatures and common understanding of ordinary technicians in this field. (2) Magnetic permeability, also called magnetic conductivity, is a technical term of electromagnetism meeting international standards, including relative magnetic conductivity and absolute magnetic conductivity. Relative magnetic conductivity is a ratio of the magnetic induction intensity in a homogeneous medium to the magnetic induction intensity in vacuum. Absolute magnetic conductivity is the ratio of the magnetic induction intensity of a point in the magnetic field of a magnetic medium to the magnetic field intensity. Absolute magnetic conductivity is more commonly used, so absolute magnetic conductivity is referred to as magnetic permeability in most textbooks and technical data. (3) Magnetic permeability, as a ratio of magnetic induction intensity to magnetic field intensity, is a physical quantity relevant to magnetic induction intensity and magnetic field intensity. Under certain physical conditions, magnetic permeability is a describable and measurable value of different figures. (4) With relevant evidence, it could be proved that high magnetic permeability is a technical common knowledge known to all ordinary technicians in this field. High magnetic permeability in the sense of international standard unit is an internationally recognized expression. According to relevant existing technology, the magnetic permeability from 80 Gauss / Oersted, 1850 Gauss / Oersted, to 34 × 104 Gauss / Oersted or 83.5 × 104 Gauss / Oersted, respectively representing three different levels including high, very high, and extremely high (super high), is within the range of high magnetic permeability and understandable by ordinary technicians in this field. (5) The purpose of anti-electromagnetic pollution, namely anti-electromagnetic radiation was defined in the claim 1 of the patent in dispute. High magnetic permeability, under specific circumstances, could be specifically defined. In reality, people's various demand for radiation prevention could be roughly determined. For different anti-radiation environments, ordinary technicians of the field could choose magnetic permeability materials capable of realizing the purpose of anti-radiation after measuring the radiation value. There was the clear definition for "high magnetic permeability” in the claim 1 of the patent in dispute. Namely, the magnetic permeability higher than a safe lower limit of the magnetic permeability value of a magnetic medium which was previously determined is high magnetic permeability. The lower limit value could differ in different environments. 2. The magnetic permeability and residual magnetism of the magnetic medium in the alleged infringing product could be determined through forensic identification. If the parties failed to apply for a forensic identification, the people's court should exercise the interpretation right. Bai Wanqing requested a forensic identification for the alleged infringing product according to the law. There should be no residual magnetism in an anti-electromagnetic radiation product. Or demagnetization treatment should be conducted in the event of residual magnetism, until no residual magnetism is left. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the alleged infringing product to have significant residual magnetism. Bai Wanqing filed an application for retrial in accordance with the provision of paragraph 1 (2) and (6), Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
．．．．．． | | 柏万清申请再审称：1．关于涉案专利权利要求1中的“导磁率高”的理解问题。(1)解释权利要求时应当站在本领域普通技术人员立场上，结合工具书、教科书等公知文献以及本领域普通技术人员的通常理解进行解释。(2)导磁率又称为磁导率，是国际标准的电磁学技术术语，包括相对磁导率与绝对磁导率。相对磁导率是磁体在某种均匀介质中的磁感应强度与在真空中磁感应强度之比值。绝对磁导率是在磁介质所在的磁场中某点的磁感应强度与磁场强度的比值。绝对磁导 率更为常用，所以绝对磁导率在多数教科书与技术资料中简称为磁导率。(3)导磁率是磁感应强度与磁场强度之比值，是一个与磁感应强度和磁场强度都相关联的物理量。在特定的物理条件下，导磁率是可以描述、测量出的数值，可以有大小高低之分。(4)相关证据可以证明高导磁率是本领域普通技术人员公知的技术常识。国际标准单位意义上的高导磁率是国际公认的表达。相关现有技术中，从80高斯／奥斯特、1850高斯／奥斯特到34×104高斯／奥斯特或者83．5×104高斯／奥斯特，分别代表了高、很高、特高(极高)三个不同级别，但都属于高导磁率范围，都属于本领域普通技术人员理解的高导磁率范围内。(5)涉案专利权利要求1中限定了防电磁污染即防电磁辐射用途，高导磁率具有特定的具体环境，可以具体确定其含义。现实中，可以大致确定人们对各种辐射的防范需求。对于不同的 防辐射环境需要，本领域普通技术人员可以先测定出辐射数值，然后选择能够实现防辐射目的的导磁率材料。涉案专利权利要求1中的“导磁率高”具有明确的含义。即首先确定出磁介质的导磁率数值的安全下限，然后高于这个下限数值的就是导磁率高。这个下限数值可以因使用环境不同而有所区别。2．被诉侵权产品中的磁介质导磁率与剩磁可以通过司法鉴定查明。在当事人未申请司法鉴定的情况下，人民法院应当行使释明权。柏万清请求依法对被诉侵权产品进行司法鉴定。防范电磁辐射的产品应当无剩磁，或者有剩磁时进行退磁处理，直至无剩磁。因此，被诉侵权产品有明显的剩磁亦不合理。柏万清依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十九条第一款第(二)项、第(六)项之规定申请再审。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥400.00】 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|