In patent infringement cases, where the evidentiary embodiment of the alleged infringing product submitted by the patent holder lacks certain components that presented in the product images publicly exhibited by the alleged infringer, the People's Court may determine the relevant technical features of the alleged infringing technical solution through an assessment of such component’s structure, installation positions, combination relationship, technical effect, and practical installation feasibility.
Finnish Company A claimed: they are the patentee of an invention patent entitled "Screening, Crushing, or Mixing Bucket" (hereinafter referred to as the patent in question). Anhui Company B’s manufacture, sale, and offering for sale of buckets incorporating all technical features described in claim 1 of the patent in question constituted patent infringement. Pursuant to applicable laws, the Anhui Company must cease infringement, compensate for losses, and pay punitive damages. Natural person X, who assisted the Anhui Company in committing the alleged infringing acts, constitutes joint infringement and should bear joint liability. Finnish Company A therefore requested the following orders: 1. The Anhui company must immediately cease the alleged infringing acts, including but not limited to cessation of manufacturing, use, sale, and offering for sale, and destroy the infringing inventory, as well as specialized molds and equipment; 2. The Anhui Company and X must jointly compensate the Finnish Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling CNY 1 million.
The Anhui Company argued that the alleged infringing technical solution did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent in question. Even if their acts were deemed as infringement, the compensation and reasonable expenses claimed by the Finnish Company were excessive.
X argued that the alleged infringing product was independently designed by Anhui Company Band did not infringe the patent in question. X lacked the subjective intent and objective conduct to commit joint infringement and should not be held liable.
The court found that during the second-instance trial, all parties to the case presented technical comparisons. The Anhui Company argued that the alleged infringing technical solution lacked four technical features, including a fender. The parties concerned confirmed that the alleged infringing product, preserved in evidence by the first-instance court, differed only in the fender/cover from the images of the alleged infringing product displayed by the Anhui Company at exhibitions and in brochures, which were obtained and notarized by the Finnish Company. The former lacked the fender, while the latter had the fender/cover. Other than this difference, the remaining technical features of the two products were identical. The Finnish Company stated that, according to its customers’ feedback, without the fender, components such as the working drum would need replacement approximately every three months, whereas with the fender installed, the bucket's service life could reach up to 10 years.
The court of first instance issued a civil ruling ordering Anhui Company B to cease infringement and compensate Finnish Company A for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling CNY 360,000. Both the companies were dissatisfied and appealed the ruling separately. On September 27, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued a final judgment, overturning the first-instance ruling and ordering Anhui Company B to cease infringement and compensate Finnish Company A for economic losses of CNY 551,250 and reasonable expenses of CNY 100,000.
The court's effective judgment held that the alleged infringing technical solution possesses all the technical features of claim 1 of the patent in question and falls within its scope of protection.
Regarding the third technical dispute raised by the Anhui Company, i.e., the alleged infringing product lacks the fender and corresponding features:
First, although the Anhui Company claims that the cover in the notarized photo is not a fender, based on the overall bucket structure and the cover’s position within the bucket, the cover can prevent some crushed material from entering the gap between the working drum and the hopper shell when the bucket in the notarized photo is operating. This means that the cover objectively functions as a fender, and it being named as a cover does not create a substantial difference from the fender in the patent in question. Second, although the Anhui Company claims that the alleged infringing product in the first-instance court's evidence preservation lacks a fender, the evidence clearly shows that the bucket shell has mounting screw holes, which are technically capable of mounting a fender. Lastly, the alleged infringing product in the first-instance court's evidence preservation may not be the final product. The final product should be the screening and crushing bucket product displayed by the Anhui Company in brochures and exhibitions. However, the screening and crushing bucket products displayed by the Anhui Company in brochures and at exhibitions are both equipped with fenders as shown in both photos and real products. Moreover, the alleged infringing product, which was preserved as evidence by the first-instance-court, also has screw holes reserved on the bucket frame plate for mounting fenders. The alleged infringing product has the fender and corresponding features described in claim 1 of the patent in question.
(2024) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 550
If you have any question about the protection of intellectual property rights, please feel free to send us emails. For patent-related matters, please send to info@afdip.com. For trademark/litigation/legal matters, please send to info@bhtdlaw.com.
