it doesn't have the novelty of patent right. Comments first of all, according to the patent law, inventions and utility models granted patent rights should have novelty, creativity and practicality, that is, the three characteristics of patents. Among them, novelty means that no same invention or utility model has been published in domestic and foreign publications, used in China or known to the public in other ways before the application date, and no same invention or utility model has been applied to the Patent Office by others and recorded in the patent application documents published after the application date. Creativity means that compared with the technology before the filing date, the invention has outstanding substantive features and remarkable progress, and the utility model has substantive features and progress. Practicality means that the invention or utility model can be manufactured or used and can produce positive effects. The above "three characteristics" must be met at the same time before the applicant can obtain the patent right. Secondly, the key of this case lies in whether the novelty of the energy-saving electromagnet technology is available. The criterion for judging whether an invention is novel is publicity or not. China adopts the principle of combining world novelty with domestic novelty. For written publication, China adopts world novelty, that is, it has not been published at home and abroad before the application date; For the use of public or in other ways (such as oral) public, the domestic novelty standards are adopted. It is difficult to find out whether the invention or utility model has been publicly used abroad or in other ways before the filing date by adopting different standards. From the date of publication, China takes the date of filing as the dividing line. An invention-creation is novel as long as the same invention-creation has not been disclosed before the application date. In this case, all the sufficient evidence of a research proves that the utility model patent of the factory has been published before the application date, both published and used in China, and it does not belong to the situation that the patent law allows it not to be considered as a loss of novelty, so the technology of the factory does not have novelty and cannot be granted a patent right. Thirdly, the patent right granted by the patent office is not unchangeable. With limited personnel, it is impossible for the Patent Office to be familiar with all technical fields and read all public magazines. Because of this, the patent law has specially set up two systems to correct possible mistakes. One is the revocation system of patent right. Within six months from the date when the Patent Office announced the grant of the patent right, any unit or individual may request the Patent Office to revoke the patent right if it thinks that the grant of the patent right is not in conformity with the provisions. The patent office shall examine the request for revocation of the patent right, make a decision to revoke or maintain the patent right, and notify the requester and the patentee. The other is the system of invalidation of patent right. After the expiration of six months from the date when the Patent Office announced the grant of the patent right, any unit or individual may request the Patent Reexamination Board to declare the patent right invalid if it considers that the grant of the patent right is not in conformity with the provisions. The Patent Reexamination Board shall examine the request for invalidation of the patent right, make a decision, and notify the claimant and the patentee. In this case, a research institute made a request six months after the patent right of a factory was granted, demanding that the patent right be declared invalid, and the evidence was conclusive, which met the situation of declaring the patent right invalid. Finally, the Patent Reexamination Board shall send a copy of the request for invalidation of the patent right and a copy of the relevant documents to the patentee, requiring him to state his opinions within a specified time limit. The patentee may modify the patent documents, but shall not expand the scope of the original patent protection; Failure to reply within the time limit shall not affect the trial of the Patent Reexamination Board. Vii. Anti-unfair Competition Law 1. Case Introduction The "Happiness" brand nutrient solution produced by A Food Factory was well received by consumers. In 1999, A Food Factory registered the "Happiness" trademark. In 2, A food factory signed a trademark license contract with B food factory, allowing B food factory to use the registered trademark of "Happiness". After the license of "Happiness" trademark expired, Factory B slightly modified its nutrient solution formula and registered the trademark of "Fukang". In order to make its products enter the market quickly, the second factory used advertising to say that "Fukang" nutrient solution is the replacement product of "Happiness" nutrient solution and the improvement of "Happiness" nutrient solution. After the advertisement, consumers thought that "Fukang" nutrient solution was a new generation product, which must be more advanced than "Happiness" nutrient solution, so they switched to buy "Fukang" nutrient solution, which made the products of A factory unsalable and caused huge economic losses. After learning this situation, Factory A reported to the industrial and commercial administration authorities that it wanted to stop the behavior of Factory B and demanded compensation from Factory B.. Question: 1. How should the administrative department for industry and commerce handle this case? 2. Is the requirement of Food Factory A correct? Case analysis 1. The commercial administrative organ shall order Factory B to stop broadcasting or publishing advertisements, and eliminate the influence, and impose a fine according to the circumstances. In order to open up the market, Factory B used advertising to make consumers mistakenly think that the products of Factory B are a new generation of products, which made the products of Factory A unsalable. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that "business operators shall not make misleading false propaganda on the quality, ingredients, performance, use, producer, expiration date and place of origin of goods by advertising or other methods". According to the above facts and legal provisions, the behavior of Factory B constitutes unfair competition, and the administrative department for industry and commerce may, according to the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, order Factory B to stop broadcasting or publishing advertisements, explain the truth through various channels, and eliminate the influence of false advertisements, and impose a fine of 1, yuan to 2, yuan according to its circumstances. 2, a factory's request is correct, can ask factory b to compensate for the losses. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates: "If an operator violates the provisions of this law and causes damage to the infringed operator, he shall be liable for damages. If the losses of the infringed operator are difficult to calculate, the amount of compensation shall be the profits obtained by the infringer during the infringement period; It should also bear the reasonable expenses paid by the infringed operator for investigating the unfair competition behavior of the operator against its legitimate rights and interests. " According to the above legal provisions, a factory has the right to demand compensation from B factory. If the loss of a factory is difficult to calculate, the profit gained by B factory during the infringement period can be used as compensation. If Factory A pays a reasonable fee for investigating the infringement of Factory B, the fee shall be borne by Factory B.. 2. Case introduction of advertising infringement: On January 22, 1994, Hansenzhai Supply Station in Xi 'an entrusted an advertising company to plan advertisements and promote the washing powder distributed by itself, and then contacted a newspaper for publication. The advertisement reads: "Hansenzhai Supply Station recommends the use of domestic washing products such as Vitality 28 washing powder, Yizhihua washing powder and Weike 88 washing powder to users in the province, which will save you money, water and electricity after use. Hansenzhai Supply Station reminds you not to use colored washing powder again. Our domestic products have always been among the best in the world. " Shandandan brand washing powder produced by Xi 'an Daily Chemical Company is pink, and it has been rated as a national excellent product and a ministerial excellent product for many years. From 1991 to 1993, the sales volume of Shandandan brand washing powder has remained above 2, tons. In 1994, it dropped to 15, tons. Question: Does the advertisement of Hansenzhai Supply Station constitute an infringement? If not, why? If so, who should bear the legal responsibility? Case Analysis 1. The advertisement of Hansenzhai Supply Station has constituted infringement. Because the advertisement of Hansenzhai Supply Station devalues the quality of Shandandan brand washing powder produced by Xi 'an Daily Chemical Company, people misunderstand that the quality of colored washing powder is not good. Hansenzhai Supply Station violated the advertising law and the anti-unfair competition law, which harmed the economic interests of Xi 'an Daily Chemical Company. Hansenzhai Supply Station and the advertising company should be ordered to stop publishing and publicly correct, confiscate the advertising fee, and impose a fine of more than 1 time and less than 5 times the advertising fee. And compensate Han Sen Company for its economic losses. VIII. Product Quality Law 1. Liability case introduction of products that have not been put into circulation: In order to express condolences, an enterprise distributed a batch of self-produced washing machines that passed the inspection but were not put into circulation as welfare to employees before the New Year. Employee A was very happy after getting the washing machine distributed in the factory, and took the washing machine home. It happened that his wife B was here, so he asked her to help him wash the sofa cover at home with the washing machine. As a result, because the washing machine leaked electricity, B was electrocuted on the spot, so A brought a lawsuit to the people's court. Question: 1. If Party A sues the enterprise, can it win? Why? Case Analysis Article 29 of China's "Product Quality Law" stipulates: "If personal injury or property other than the defective product (hereinafter referred to as other people's property) is caused due to defects in the product, the producer shall be liable for compensation. The producer shall not be liable for compensation if he can prove that one of the following circumstances exists: (1) the product has not been put into circulation; (2) when the product was put into circulation, the defect that caused the damage did not exist; and (3) when the product was put into circulation, the scientific and technological level could not find the defect. In this case, the product has not been put into circulation, so the producer shall not be liable for compensation. However, neither Party A nor Party B is at fault, so the people's court can judge the enterprise to compensate it appropriately according to the principle of fairness in civil law. Case 1: The effectiveness of the operator's disclaimer. Case introduction: In November 1994, Zhang attended a clothing fair hosted by Fanchen Textile Co., Ltd., and saw a fur coat with a price of 2,1 yuan in front of the counter of the No.12 Bojia Leather Factory at the fair. It was novel in style and Zhang decided to buy it. When Zhang chose clothes, he saw a notice written in a conspicuous place on the counter that said "face-to-face inspection will not be returned". Zhang put it on after buying clothes, but I didn't expect that 1 days later, when Zhang oiled the leather coat, he found that the skin was peeling off, and the spots on the leather coat were very ugly. Zhang took the clothes to the exhibition and asked for a return, but the exhibition was over and the staff of Bojia Leather Factory had been evacuated. Zhang was very angry, so he called the TV station to report that there was something wrong with the quality of Bojia Leather Factory's products. The news media exposed the matter, and the sales volume of Bojia Leather Factory was greatly reduced. Bojia Leather Factory sued the court, claiming that when selling leather clothes, the factory had stated that "face-to-face inspection would not be returned", and Zhang knew that he still bought them, indicating that he agreed to be responsible for the quality risks of leather clothes. Now Zhang's behavior has violated the reputation of our factory, and Zhang is required to eliminate the influence, apologize and compensate for the economic losses. In reply, Zhang submitted to the court a certificate issued by the commodity inspection department that the leather clothes purchased by Zhang were unqualified. Question: 1. Is the notice of Bojia Leather Factory "Face-to-face inspection, no return" valid? Why? 2. Does Bojia Leather Factory think that Zhang has infringed the reputation right of the factory? Why? 3. Does Zhang have the right to claim compensation from Fanchen Textile Co., Ltd. for the quality of leather clothes? Case Analysis (1) The notice of Bojia Leather Factory "Face-to-face inspection, no return" is invalid. "Face-to-face inspection, no return" is both a overlord clause and an exemption clause. The leather garment factory exempts itself from the responsibility and aggravates the responsibility of consumers. Such exemption clause is invalid. (2) Zhang's behavior does not constitute infringement, because it is a fact that the quality of the leather clothes purchased by Zhang is unqualified, not false. The leather clothing factory violates the product quality law by selling unqualified products as qualified products, and the media exposure on this matter does not belong to infringement. (3) Zhang has the right to claim compensation from Fanchen Textile Company. According to the Consumer Protection Law, it is stipulated that the goods purchased by consumers at the fair have quality problems. If the fair ends, consumers have the right to claim compensation from the lessor at the counter or the organizer of the fair. 2. Case introduction: When shopping in a supermarket, Zhang looked at several bottles of cosmetics, felt dissatisfied and put them on the shelf. When leaving the supermarket, the security guards in the supermarket suspected that Zhang had taken cosmetics and didn't check out, stopped Zhang and forcibly searched Zhang, and opened Zhang's bag for inspection. Because no cosmetics were found, the security guards immediately apologized to Zhang and explained: "Our store has regulations. Because supermarkets adopt open-shelf sales methods, things will inevitably be lost, so security guards are required to strengthen management and have the right to search people suspected of theft. This regulation has posted notices at the gate of the mall. Zhang believes that the shopping mall has violated her personal rights and reputation, and filed a lawsuit with the people's court, demanding that the supermarket apologize and compensate for the losses. Question: 1. Does the supermarket infringe on Zhang's rights and interests? 2. The security personnel of the supermarket immediately apologized to Zhang. Is the supermarket liable for Zhang? Case Analysis 1. According to the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests, consumers have the right not to damage their personal and property safety when purchasing or using goods or receiving services, and to have their personal dignity and national customs respected. For business operators, business operators are not allowed to make unfair and unreasonable provisions to consumers in the form of standard contracts, notices, statements, shop notices, etc., or to reduce or exempt them from civil liability for harming the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. According to the above regulations, the mall has no right to search Zhang's belongings, although the supermarket has a notice first, which has no legal basis and is not protected by law. Therefore, the supermarket violated Zhang's personal rights and reputation rights, the right to maintain safety and the right to ensure safety. 2. Although the security personnel of the supermarket immediately apologized to Zhang, this cannot change the fact that the supermarket violated Zhang's rights. According to the Consumer Protection Law, the supermarket should stop the infringement, restore its reputation, eliminate the influence, apologize and compensate for the losses. According to the Consumer Protection Law