In patent infringement lawsuits, defendants often file invalidation requests with the China National Intellectual Property Administration for the patents involved. After the review of the invalidation procedure, the China National Intellectual Property Administration will make a review decision on the invalidation request. The original claims may be declared to be fully valid or completely invalid or partially valid or partially invalid, or after modification, all valid, partially valid or invalid. This makes the patentee's original claims in the patent infringement lawsuit against the alleged infringer infringing his patent right may be declared invalid or partially valid and partially invalid.
First trial case number: (2018) Shandong People’s Court 01 Civil Preliminary Judgment No. 2077
Second trial case number: (2019) Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Civil Administrative Final Judgement No. 161
【The main takeaway of the trial】
In the first-instance procedure of a patent infringement dispute case, the right holder’s claim on which the patent right is claimed is declared invalid, however, if the patent right involved is maintained on the basis of other original claims or new claims formed through amendments, the right holder shall be allowed to redefine the claims on which the patent right is claimed. If the right holder chooses a currently valid claim to claim a patent right, the court of the first instance shall continue the trial; it is clarified that if the right holder still insists on claiming rights based on the invalidated claim, the court of the first instance may rule to dismiss the prosecution.
【Case Introduction】
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Shenyang Sky Air-Ship Digital Printing Equipment Co.,Ltd. (referred to as Sky Air-Ship Company)
Appellee (Defendant in the original trial): Qingdao Hanze Electric Co., Ltd. (referred to as Hanze Company)
The patent in question is an invention patent titled "A synchronous single/double-sided digital inkjet printer and its winding method" (hereinafter referred to as the patent in question). The Sky Air-Ship Company is the patentee and filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the court of the first instance. In the process of patent infringement litigation, Hanze Company filed a request for invalidation of the patent in question to the China National Intellectual Property Administration. On May 16, 2019, the China National Intellectual Property Administration made a decision on the examination of invalidation request No. 16225 (Decision 16225 for short), announcing the invalidity of the patent rights involved in the case, and the patent in question continued to be valid on the basis of claims 1-9 filed by the patentee on January 9, 2019. Among them, the claim 1, which is maintained in force, is modified after the patentee adds the technical features "the two driving rollers are the first driving roller (5) and the second driving roller (20)" in the original claim 2 and the technical features "the front and back sides of the canvas (24) are in contact with the first and second driving rollers (5, 20) in sequence, and the first and second driving rollers (5, 20) are composed of two independent" of original claim 6 to the original claim 1.
The original trial of the Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province held that if the right holder's claim in the patent infringement lawsuit was declared invalid by the Patent Reexamination Board, the people's court hearing the patent infringement dispute case may rule to dismiss the right holder's prosecution based on the invalid claim. Before the invalidation of the patent in question, the Sky Air-Ship Company made it clear that the original claim 1 before the amendment was the protection scope claimed by the court, and after the Decision 16225 was made, the content of claim 1 of the patent in the case has been changed, the Sky Air-Ship Company’s right to file a lawsuit in this case was lost and it should be dismissed, so it directly ruled against the Sky Air-Ship Company's prosecution. The Sky Air-Ship Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that the original trial court did not give the right holder the procedural right to re-clarify the claims, and directly ruled that the prosecution of the Sky Air-Ship Company was dismissed without explanation. It is an error of the applicable law and the decision is as follows: (1) Revoke the civil ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province (2018) Lu 01 Minchu No. 2077; (2) The case instructs the Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province to try.
【Typical meaning】
Patent claims often have more than two claims. When the right owner filed a patent infringement lawsuit, some of the indictments contained the claims for which the accused infringer has infringed their patent rights, while others were undocumented or unclear. For unrecorded or unclear circumstances, the people's court shall require the right owner to clarify.
In patent infringement lawsuits, defendants often file invalidation requests with the China National Intellectual Property Administration for the patents involved. After the review of the invalidation procedure, the China National Intellectual Property Administration will make a review decision on the invalidation request. The original claims may be declared to be fully valid or completely invalid or partially valid or partially invalid, or after modification, all valid, partially valid or invalid. This makes the patentee's original claims in the patent infringement lawsuit against the alleged infringer infringing his patent right may be declared invalid or partially valid and partially invalid.
If the patent right involved is maintained on the basis of other original claims or new claims formed through amendments, how should the people's court handling infringement disputes handle them? Article 1 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases stipulates that right holders should specify their claims for protection in the indictment, and further stipulates that even if the right holder does not specify it in the complaint, the people's court should also clarify it by asking the right holder. Only if the right holder still does not make it clear, can the people's court rule to dismiss the prosecution. Regarding the case where the patent right in question remains valid on the basis of other original claims or new claims formed by amendments, the court of the second instance in this case, referring to the above-mentioned regulations, held that the right holder should be given the procedural right to clarify the claims on which the scope of protection is based, and continue the trial based on the rights holder's re-clarified claims. This approach can not only effectively protect the legitimate interests of patentees, but also make full use of the judicial procedures that have been carried out, thereby saving judicial resources.
京公网安备 11010802020770号