Case 1 Administrative Case of Invalidation of Invention Patent for Communication Control System
Case
Interactive Digital Technology Company is the patentee of the invention named "Automatic Power Control System for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication System". ZTE Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ZTE) filed a request for invalidation of the patent right with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board). The Patent Reexamination Board maintains the validity of the patent right. ZTE refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court made a judgment: annulling the invalid decision and ordering the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new invalid decision.
Comments
The method of judging patent infringement can be used to judge whether the technical scheme in dispute is novel. The basic idea of this method is that if the existing technology falls within the protection scope of the litigation technical scheme, the litigation technical scheme is not novel. On this basis, in order to judge the novelty, when comparing the technical scheme of litigation with the technical scheme as the existing technology, we can entrust a professional agency such as patent Baba to make a positive comparison instead of a reverse comparison. The so-called positive comparison is to analyze whether the technical scheme as the existing technology has all the technical characteristics of the litigation technical scheme. The so-called reverse comparison is to analyze whether the technical scheme of litigation has all the technical characteristics of the existing technical scheme. If the technical scheme of litigation does not have all the technical characteristics of the existing technical scheme, or the existing technical scheme has more technical characteristics than the technical scheme of litigation for patent, it is considered that the extra technical characteristics constitute the technical characteristics that distinguish the two, so it is determined that the technical scheme of litigation for patent has novelty. Reverse comparison is a wrong method to judge novelty and should be denied. In recent years, there have been frequent patent disputes in the communication field, and the conclusion of this case has important demonstration significance for patent protection and patent validity determination in the communication field. In particular, this case explores and clarifies the judgment method of patent novelty, which is conducive to the unification of judgment standards for patent authorization and confirmation cases.
Case II "Fixed Frame" Patent Infringement Case
Case
Harting Electronics Co., Ltd. and Harting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Harting Company) are the invention patentees named "Fixed Frame". Harting Company purchased the electrical connector products manufactured and sold by Zhejiang Yonggui Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yonggui Company) through Beijing Signum Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Signum Company). Harting Company believes that this product infringes its invention patent right and should undertake to stop the infringement according to law and compensate the economic loss of about 15 million yuan.
after hearing the case, the court made a judgment: Signum Company and Yonggui Company immediately stopped the infringement, and Yonggui Company compensated Harting Company for economic loss of 7, yuan and reasonable expenditure of 159,7 yuan.
Comment
How to divide the technical features is an important link in the interpretation of patent claims. However, how to scientifically and reasonably divide the technical features and whether the subject name belongs to the technical features or not, and whether it has a restrictive effect on the claims, has always been controversial in theory and practice. In this case, firstly, a useful attempt was made on the criteria for dividing technical features. From the perspective of agents such as patent Baba, the division of patent technical features was linked with each technical link to realize the overall technical effect of the invention. In addition, the case also accurately defines the limiting role of the subject name, and concludes that the subject name itself is not a necessary technical feature to solve technical problems. When determining the protection scope of the claim, the subject name recorded in the claim should be considered, but the actual limiting effect should depend on what influence the subject name has on the technical scheme to be protected by the claim itself. The ruling in this case has high academic research value. It has made active explorations in the interpretation rules of the right claim, the determination of the scope of protection and the calculation of the amount of compensation. It not only scientifically and reasonably defined the scope of protection and sanctioned the alleged infringer's infringement, but also paid attention to balancing the interests between the obligee and the public, supported the obligee's reasonable demands and achieved the unity of legal and social effects.
case 3 "QQ" trademark dispute administrative case
case
The trademark "QQ" (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) was applied by Tencent on May 19, 25, and the registration date was March 7, 28, and it was approved to be used on motorcycles, automobiles and other commodities. On November 26th, 29, Chery filed an application for cancellation of the disputed trademark with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) within the statutory time limit. On February 17, 213, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the disputed trademark should be revoked. Tencent refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit.
The court ruled after hearing that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was upheld.
Comments
According to Article 31 of China's Trademark Law, which came into effect in 21, an application for trademark registration shall not preempt the registration of a trademark that has been used by others and has certain influence by unfair means. Through publicity and use, the trademark owner has invested manpower and material resources, gained the recognition of consumers, and gradually accumulated goodwill on the trademark. These are the intangible property of the trademark owner. Although it is not as exclusive as a registered trademark, it is also protected by law to a certain extent. If the applicant knows or should know that others have used unregistered trademarks that have certain influence and register on different or similar goods or services first, it can be considered that he has adopted improper means. If the user of the prior trademark can provide evidence to prove that its prior trademark has a certain continuous use time, area, sales volume or advertising, it can be considered that it has certain influence.
case 4 "Daoxiang Village" trademark objection review administrative case
Case
On May 21, 1997, Beijing Daoxiang Village Food Group was approved to register the trademark of "Daoxiang Village" (category 3), and the registrant was changed to Beijing Daoxiang Village Company.
On July 18th, 26, Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company filed an application for the registration of the trademark "Daoxiang Village and Map" (hereinafter referred to as the objected trademark), and designated the goods to be used in the 3th category.
after the announcement of the preliminary examination and approval of the objected trademark, Beijing Daoxiangcun Company filed an objection application. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ruled that the objected trademark should be registered. Beijing Daoxiang Village Company applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for reexamination. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the objected trademark should not be registered. Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company refused to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court made a judgment: uphold the sued ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.
Comments
This case is a typical case of how two time-honored brands with historical origins can distinguish their respective markets through the judgment of trademark similarity. The trademark of "Daoxiang Village" that Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company applied for registration in this case is different from its prior trademark, but it is very close to the well-known trademark of Beijing Daoxiang Village Company, which will lead to confusion and misunderstanding of consumers, break the market reality that can be distinguished from the stable market order that has been formed, and will lead to confusion and misunderstanding of the source of goods by consumers, so registration should not be allowed. Through the trial of this case, the court established the basic rules that the time-honored brands should maintain a stable market order and not invade the other party's trademark protection field.
Case 5 Embedded Software Copyright Infringement Case
Case
Microsoft found that Windows CE 6. computer software was used in the car navigation system sold by Beijing Hezhong Stronghold Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hezhong Stronghold), and thought that the above-mentioned behavior of Hezhong Stronghold infringed its copyright on the above-mentioned software, so it sued Hezhong Stronghold to the court and demanded the defendant to bear corresponding civil liabilities.
After trial, the court ruled that Hezhong Stronghold Company stopped the infringement and compensated Microsoft Company for its economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 1.93 million yuan.
Comments
Embedded software is an operating system and development tool software embedded in hardware. With the strengthening of social informatization and the rapid development of computer technology, embedded systems have begun to penetrate into many fields of daily life. However, because the hardware equipped with embedded software usually enters the circulation field as a part of the product, rather than as a software commodity alone, the process of obtaining evidence in rights protection is more difficult than that in general computer software cases. As "the first case involving the software infringement of embedded operating system in car navigation", this case confirms the important role of genuine label in the process of proving the legitimate source of embedded software, which is of great reference significance for studying the copyright infringement of embedded computer software.
Case 6 "APPle App" copyright infringement case
Case
Li Kele's Anti-Dismantling Story was published by Gansu People's Fine Arts Publishing House, and Li Chengpeng was the author of the book. Li Chengpeng accused Apple of uploading its copyrighted works to the Apple App Store without its permission, or through division of labor and cooperation with developers, and providing downloading and reading to the public through the store to obtain economic benefits, which infringed on the right of information network dissemination of the works involved.
After trial, the court ruled that Apple compensated Li Chengpeng for its economic loss of 1, yuan and reasonable expenses incurred due to litigation, 1 yuan.
Comments
This case is one of a series of rights protection lawsuits filed by Writers' Rights Protection Alliance against Apple for providing an application suspected of infringing its copyright on its App store. In the end, the court found that Apple is the operator of App store, which is a network service platform mainly based on fee downloading, and in the agreement with the developer, a fixed proportion of direct income was agreed, so Apple should pay higher attention to the infringement of the developer. Apple has not taken reasonable measures and failed to fulfill its duty of care when it can clearly perceive that the application involved is provided without permission, which is subjective and constitutes infringement. At present, with the rapid development of Internet industry and the emergence of various new network platform business models, the trial of this case has certain reference and guiding significance for how to define the behavior nature and responsibility of platform service providers.
Case 7 Qian Zhongshu's letter copyright and privacy infringement case
Case
In May p>213, China Trade Shengjia International Auction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Trade Shengjia Company) announced the auction announcement of the late famous scholar Qian Zhongshu's letter manuscript. Qian Zhongshu's widow, Yang Jikang (pen name Yang Jiang), filed a lawsuit against copyright and privacy in court, arguing that Li Guoqiang and Zhongmao Shengjia Company constituted an infringement of their copyright and privacy.
The court made a judgment after trial: Zhongmao Shengjia Company and Li Guoqiang stopped the infringement, compensated Yang Jikang for economic losses and mental damages of 1, yuan and apologized.
Comments
This case is not only representative and widely concerned because it involves many rights such as copyright, privacy and property rights, but also defines and regulates the responsibility of auction companies for infringing others' copyrights due to auction activities. In particular, in auction activities, auction companies should not only review the ownership of auction targets and the identity of clients according to the auction law, but also sign an auction contract. For the auction objects bearing other civil rights such as copyright, privacy and portrait rights, we should also review the ownership of relevant copyright rights, the right protection of privacy and portrait rights, etc., in order to fulfill the legal obligations entrusted to the auctioneer by the auction law. The conclusion of this case has clarified the legal obligations of the auctioneer, standardized the order of the auction market, and has positive significance for safeguarding the copyright, privacy and other civil rights of relevant rights holders.
Case 8 "Tuina" copyright infringement and unfair competition case
Case
Bi Feiyu is the author of Tuina, an award-winning novel of the 8th Mao Dun Literature Award, which was published by People's Literature Publishing House in September 28. In July, 29, Bi Feiyu exclusively provided the TV adaptation rights to Zhongrong Company. On December 2, 21, Zhongrong Company transferred its authorization to Kawaguchi Company. In January, 211, Kawaguchuan Company entrusted Chen Ping to adapt and write the TV series of the literary work Tuina. In April 213, Chen Ping and Xiyuan Publishing House signed a Book Publishing Contract on Chen Ping's version of Massage (Volume I and II), and the book was published in June of the same year. Bi Feiyu and People's Literature Publishing House sued the court on the grounds of infringement of the publication and distribution of Chen's version of Tuina.
The court made a judgment after trial: Xiyuan Publishing House stopped publishing Tuina; Beijing Xinhua Bookstore Wangfujing Bookstore stopped selling the book Massage; Chen Biao and Xiyuan Publishing House jointly compensated Bi Feiyu for the economic loss of 14, yuan; Chen Ping and Xiyuan Publishing House jointly compensated People's Literature Publishing House Co., Ltd. for economic losses of 8, yuan and reasonable expenses of 5, yuan for litigation expenses.
Comments
The legislative purpose of the anti-unfair competition law is to regulate the business behavior of market operators and maintain the social and economic order of fair competition. Therefore, the anti-unfair competition law mainly regulates the authorization in the process of commodity market circulation, not the authorization in the process of commodity creation. In this case, Chen Tuan and Xiyuan Publishing House only have the authorization to adapt the works, but not to publish the adapted works, that is to say, they do not have the authorization to promote the relevant adapted works to the cultural market and circulate them as books and commodities. Therefore, the defendant's act of publishing the works of the same name constitutes unfair competition. This case, to some extent, reflects the confusion of authorization, weak awareness of rights and lack of integrity in the current book publishing market. Through the trial of this case, it is helpful for the parties to standardize their behavior, and also provides guidance for the legal and standardized operation and development of the whole book publishing industry.
Case 9: Ma Ainong Imitating Unfair Competition
Case
Ma Ainong has certain influence and popularity in the translation field. From June 18th, 212 to January 4th, 213, New World Publishing House and Beijing Xingshengle Company signed publishing contracts for the publication of 13 books, including The Education of Love. The contract stipulated that the author's signature was compiled by Ma Ainong. From October 212 to June 213, New World Publishing House published the above 13 books. The cover, spine, title page and copyright page of these books are all marked "Compilation by Ma Ainong", and the copyright page is also signed "Author Ma Ainong". Ma Ainong believed that New World Publishing House had forged its name, which constituted unfair competition, and demanded that New World Publishing House stop the infringement and compensate economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 5, yuan.
The court made a judgment after trial: New World Publishing House compensated Ma Ainong for economic losses of 1, yuan and reasonable expenses of 15, yuan, and ordered New World Publishing House to stop publishing the books involved.
Comments
This case is a typical unfair competition dispute case of counterfeiting other people's names. China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that the act of using other people's names without authorization and causing people to mistakenly think that they are other people's goods belongs to unfair competition. Literally, this article does not seem to include the unauthorized use of names similar to others' names. But for the purpose of anti-counterfeiting and stopping unfair competition,