Introduction to the case
The plaintiff, Beijing Y Special Textile Co., Ltd. (referred to as Beijing Y Company), claimed:
Our company is a company named "Fully Fire-Resistant Fiber Composite Fireproofing" The right holder of the utility model patent "Thermal Insulating Roller Blind" (Patent No. ZL00234256.1, referred to as this patent). The original applicant and designer of this patent was Liu. The application date was April 28, 2000, the certificate issuance date was March 1, 2001, and the authorization announcement date was March 14, 2001. On the basis of fully absorbing existing technology, Liu independently researched and designed a new type of "fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter".
This patent discloses a new type of fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter, which has the advantages of high fire resistance temperature, long fire resistance limit time, safe use, simple structure, and low cost. In order to industrialize the patented technology as soon as possible, the original patentee first transferred the patent to Beijing L Technology Company, and then transferred the patent to the plaintiff after obtaining Liu's permission, and agreed that from the date of authorization of the patent All relevant rights belong to the plaintiff, and no third party is authorized to use this patented technology.
This patent has been searched by the State Intellectual Property Office for novelty and creativity. It is now a valid patent and is protected by law in accordance with Article 11 of my country’s Patent Law.
The independent claim of this patent discloses the following technical solution: "A fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter, which is characterized by including refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, and aluminum foil , connecting screws and thin steel strips, in which the refractory fiber blanket is sandwiched between two layers of refractory fiber cloth, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil are placed in the refractory fiber blanket, the thin steel strip is outside the refractory fiber cloth, and the thin steel strip is connected through the connecting screws Steel strips, refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blankets, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires and aluminum foil are connected together." At the same time, the dependent claims of this patent further supplement the solution of the independent claims.
The dependent claim 2 discloses a "full refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter, which is characterized by including refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high temperature resistant stainless steel wire, refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil, Connect the screws and the thin steel strip. The high-temperature stainless steel wire is in the middle of the refractory fiber blanket. The two sides of the refractory fiber blanket are refractory fiber cloth and refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil. The thin steel strip and the refractory fiber cloth are connected through the connecting screws. , refractory fiber blanket, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil are connected together";
The dependent claim 4 is further supplemented by "the fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat insulation as claimed in claim 1 Roller blinds are characterized in that a layer of thin fire-resistant fiber cloth or flame-retardant cloth with decorative effect can be added to the surface of the roller blind."
The description part of this patent fully explains the above claims and gives preferred embodiments. Any person skilled in the art can submit this patent after reading this patent document. Various implementations. Compared with the existing technology, the new fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter disclosed in this patent has the characteristics of high fire resistance temperature, long fire resistance limit time, good thermal radiation resistance, good high temperature strength, stable chemical properties, safe use, simple structure, and easy installation. , with the advantage of lower cost, it is widely used in fire protection partitions of various industrial and civil buildings such as shopping malls, hotels, museums, exhibition halls, theaters, etc.
Since the implementation of this patent by the plaintiff, the patented products have been very popular among consumers and have a good market space. At the same time, they have also become the target of counterfeiting and infringement by lawless persons. The plaintiff discovered that shortly after the launch of the patented product, a large number of infringing products infringing the patent rights appeared on the market or semi-finished products specifically used to manufacture the infringing products were provided.
For this reason, the plaintiff published a "Lawyer's Statement" on the fourth page of the "People's Public Security News" on July 14, 2001, stating that the patent right is valid and advising all infringers to stop infringement. The defendant is a company specializing in the production of ceramic fiber products and has the conditions to produce this patented product. After the announcement of this patent, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, in order to escape infringement liability, specialized in producing and selling semi-finished products for the patented products.
The defendant sold semi-finished products that lacked "thin steel strips and connecting screws" to many users. The semi-finished products it produces and sells include colored fiberglass cloth, fireproof cloth, fireproof blanket and radiation-proof aluminum foil fireproof cloth. The fireproof blanket has high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire in the middle, and then the user can use thin steel strips and screws or equivalent methods as needed. used together.
It can be seen that the defendant ignored the declaration of the patentee and produced and sold semi-finished products in pursuit of illegal profits. It had the necessary technical features as claimed in the above-mentioned claims of the patent and covered the scope of protection of the patent. Moreover, the semi-finished products it produced and sold were specifically for the manufacture of patented products. use.
The defendant had the intention to induce, encourage, and instigate others to directly infringe the patent rights. It knew that others would directly infringe the plaintiff's patent rights by using the semi-products it provided, and still produced, sold, and provided semi-finished products, and from them Make huge profits. In addition, the defendants used various means to promote their infringing products on various occasions. According to the provisions of the Patent Law, the defendant's above-mentioned intentional production, sale, and promise to sell semi-finished products necessary for the manufacture of patented products and the user's use of the specialized semi-finished products provided by the defendant to make patented finished products have constituted patent infringement. , which infringes upon this patent right, shall bear corresponding legal liability. Therefore, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against the defendant in accordance with relevant regulations, requiring it to bear corresponding infringement liability. This patent has been evaluated by a professional evaluation agency as having huge commercial value, and the defendant's infringement has caused huge damage to the plaintiff. On the one hand, it has squeezed out the market for the plaintiff's patented products and caused direct economic losses to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant has produced and sold infringing products while also publicizing them, causing a bad social impact and causing immeasurable and irreparable damage to the plaintiff. Intangible damage, the defendant shall be liable for damages for its infringement.
Based on Articles 56 and 57 of the Patent Law, Article 118 of the General Principles of Civil Law and Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law, Request an order for the defendant to: 1. Immediately stop the production and sale of semi-finished products and finished products specifically used to make patented products, and stop publicity, distribution of samples and other sales promises; 2. Destroy the molds, tools, and products used in the production of infringing products. The infringing semi-finished products and finished products; 3. Make a public apology to the plaintiff in "People's Public Security News (Firefighting Weekly)" and "Economic Daily" to eliminate the impact; 4. Compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 1.5 million yuan; 5. Bear all litigation in this case cost.
The defendant Beijing D Thermal Ceramics Co., Ltd. (referred to as Beijing D Company) argued:
1. The plaintiff cannot prove that our company is patent infringement. None of the plaintiff's 9 to 12 infringement evidence materials can prove that the technical features of our company's products cover the necessary technical features of the plaintiff's patent. In the complaint, the plaintiff has admitted that our company "sold semi-finished products that lacked thin steel strips and connecting screws." In fact, these two missing technical features were not the only ones missing. The plaintiff sued the defendant for indirect infringement, which had no factual or legal basis.
2. Compared with this patent, the product samples produced and sold by our company sealed by the court found that in addition to "lack of thin steel strips and connecting screws", the samples also did not have "refractory fibers placed in the fire-resistant fiber blanket." High-temperature stainless steel wire and aluminum foil, the thin steel strip is on the outside of the refractory fiber cloth, and the thin steel strip, refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil are connected together through connecting screws, and there are no four necessary technical characteristics The characteristic of "fire-resistant fiber blanket sandwiched between two layers of fire-resistant fiber cloth" is because our company's product is a layer of fire-resistant fiber cloth and a layer of glass fiber cloth sandwiched between the fire-resistant fiber blanket. This difference involves not only the use and building structure, but also the similarities and differences in the purpose of the invention. In short, the technical features of the products produced and sold by our company are not the same as the necessary technical features of this patent, and do not constitute infringement.
3. Our company’s product technology is free and publicly known technology. Our company was established in 1993. It is a professional factory engaged in the production and operation of refractory ceramic fiber and glass fiber textiles and their products. The kiln curtain technology was introduced in the Chinese-English product description printed in 1993, which was the first domestic product. The schematic diagram shows the important technical feature of the stainless steel buckle, which is equivalent to the connecting screw. In 1995, trial production of ceramic fiber cloth with aluminum foil began. Since 1995, it has been supplying fire-resistant fiber composite materials for the production of fire-proof roller shutters to Jiangsu Province M Fire Equipment Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu M Company for short) and Jilin Province Changchun City J Fire Equipment Factory. In August 1996, the "Ceramic Fiber Fireproof Roller Shutter Installation Diagram" drawn and provided to users by Jiangsu M Company basically included all the necessary technical features of the patent involved. Fireproof rolling shutters made by Jiangsu M Company using ceramic fiber materials supplied by our company had been publicly used in buildings in Guangzhou, Wuhan, Nanjing and other places before the patent application date involved.
Therefore, the product technology and product structure used by our company are well-known and public existing technologies, and there is no possibility of infringement issues. For this reason, our company has formally requested the State Intellectual Property Office to declare this patent invalid.
4. Our company raises objections to whether the plaintiff is a qualified party. This case is a patent infringement case, and the plaintiff should be the patentee. According to the complaint, the original patentee of this patent is Liu. Liu first transferred the patent rights to Beijing L Technology Company. The company then transferred the patent to the plaintiff after obtaining Liu’s permission. However, , the copy of the patent registration book No. 00234256.1 provided by the plaintiff does not have a registration record of Liu transferring the patent rights to Beijing L Technology Company, but only a record of Beijing L Technology Company transferring the patent to the plaintiff. Since the patent registration book is an official document produced by a state agency, its probative power is greater than other general documentary evidence. According to the contents of the patent registration book: on November 26, 2001, the non-patentee Beijing L Technology Company transferred the patent rights of another person, namely Liu, to the plaintiff; on May 28, 2001, the registration matter recorded that the original patentee Liu A certain person becomes the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had obtained the patent right on May 28, 2001, why did it have to repeatedly transfer the patent right from a non-patentee six months later? Such contradictory registration matters make it difficult to judge whether the registered intention is true, thus denying the patent right. The plaintiff may be a bona fide third party.
Our company believes that whether the plaintiff’s patentee qualifications are legal or not should be resolved by the State Intellectual Property Office. Before this legal procedure is completed, the plaintiff is not a qualified party. Since the patent registration book is a public document produced by a state agency, only the legal department of the State Intellectual Property Office can decide which registration items are invalid or changed, and register the ruling in this patent registration book to straighten out the existing confusing laws. fact. To sum up, not only is the plaintiff not a qualified party in this case, but the evidence materials it provided to the court cannot prove that our company produced and sold the accused infringing products, and that the products produced and sold by our company have the necessary technical features of this patent. It is different. It is a free and publicly known technology, and it is impossible to infringe on anyone's patent rights. Therefore, we request the People’s Court to reject the plaintiff’s claim.
Case Analysis
After trial, it was found that: This case involves the utility model patent of "fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter" authorized by the State Intellectual Property Office on March 1, 2001. , the patent number is 00234256.1, the application date is April 28, 2000, and the original patentee is Liu. On May 28, 2001, with the approval of the State Intellectual Property Office, the patentee of the patent was changed to the plaintiff, Beijing Y Company. On December 10, 2001, Liu, the relevant right holder of this patent, Beijing L Technology Company, and the plaintiff *** agreed that the plaintiff would inherit all rights and obligations related to this patent from the date of authorization of this patent.
The content of this patent claim is:
“1. A fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter, which is characterized by including refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, High-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, aluminum foil, connecting screws and thin steel strips. The refractory fiber blanket is sandwiched between two layers of refractory fiber cloth. High-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil are placed in the refractory fiber blanket. The thin steel strip is placed outside the refractory fiber cloth. , connect the thin steel strip, refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil together through connecting screws.
2. The fully refractory fiber composite fire insulation as claimed in claim 1. The rolling shutter is characterized by comprising refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high temperature resistant stainless steel wire, refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil, connecting screws and thin steel strip, wherein the high temperature resistant stainless steel wire is in the middle of the refractory fiber blanket, and the refractory fiber blanket The two sides are refractory fiber cloth and refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil. The thin steel strip, refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber blanket, high temperature resistant stainless steel wire and refractory fiber cloth with aluminum foil are connected together through connecting screws.
3. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller shutter according to claim 2, which is characterized in that two or more layers of roller shutters can be combined, and the inner side is a fire-resistant fiber cloth covered with aluminum foil.
4. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that a layer of thin fire-resistant fiber cloth or flame-retardant cloth with decorative effect can be added to the surface of the roller blind.
5. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the roller blind can be assembled by overlapping sections.
6. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the aluminum foil can be attached to the refractory fiber cloth, the refractory fiber blanket, or can be sandwiched separately in the curtain core .
7. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that there can also be a layer of fireproof coating on the refractory fiber cloth and the refractory fiber blanket.
8. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the refractory fiber cloth and the refractory fiber blanket are sewn together with high-temperature-resistant sewing threads or high-temperature-resistant stainless steel wires. Stitched with fire-resistant fiber yarn.
9. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating rolling shutter as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that high-temperature-resistant stainless steel wires, high-temperature-resistant stainless steel wire ropes or high-temperature-resistant stainless steel are implanted at regular intervals in the roller shutter. Thin strips, the roller shutter surface is equidistant or non-equidistant in the vertical direction from high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire ropes or high-temperature resistant stainless steel thin strips plus several small thin steel strips.
10. The fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that the refractory fiber cloth and refractory fiber blanket are made of carbon fiber, aluminum silicate fiber, expanded or ordinary glass fiber , high silica fiber, mullite fiber, alumina fiber, zirconia fiber, calcium silicate fiber, mineral wool pure spinning or blended spinning, can be used alone or mixed. ”
Figures 3 and 4 of this patent specification indicate that the high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil can be arranged on one side or the center of the refractory fiber blanket respectively.
September 6, 2001 , the preliminary conclusion of the "Utility Model Search Report" issued by the State Intellectual Property Office is that all claims 1 to 10 comply with the provisions of Article 22 of the Patent Law on novelty and inventiveness
2001. On July 5, 2018, the plaintiff obtained notarization from the notary office and obtained from the general manager’s office of the defendant’s residence a set (two pieces) of special-grade fire-proof roller shutter surface samples produced and sold by the defendant from the defendant’s general manager, as well as the defendant’s cooperation with Beijing G Decoration Sample contract for the purchase and sale of special-grade fire-resistant roller shutters by a material factory.
In this lawsuit, upon the plaintiff’s application, the court issued (2002) No. 3255 Civil Ruling, and On June 5 of the same year, the defendant carried out evidence preservation, extracted samples of fireproof roller shutters and other products manufactured by the defendant, and entrusted Beijing T Accounting Firm to conduct a financial audit on the defendant's operating profits from the production and sale of the allegedly infringing products.
In the court investigation of this case, both parties agreed that the fire-proof roller shutter sample of the accused infringing product extracted by the court was the same as the special-grade fire-proof roller shutter surface sample obtained by notarization of the plaintiff, and had the following technical structure, that is, the first layer was The second layer is high-temperature fiber cloth, the third layer is refractory fiber blanket, and the fourth layer is fiberglass cloth with aluminum foil. The refractory fiber blanket is between the refractory fiber cloth, and the stainless steel wire and aluminum foil are respectively placed. On one side or in the middle of the fire-resistant fiber blanket. The defendant admitted that it placed steel wires on one side or in the middle of the fire-resistant fiber blanket of the fire-resistant roller shutter, and configured screws and steel strips on the outside of the fire-resistant roller shutter. The material is glass fiber cloth, which has low fire resistance and is different from the fire-resistant fiber cloth material of this patent. Therefore, it does not cover all the necessary technical features of the plaintiff’s patent. Based on the evidence 3 cited by the defendant, the defendant claims that its product uses existing technology. . The plaintiff believed that the picture number on the picture page of the defendant’s evidence 3 was missing, and the picture page was missing, so the evidence was not of sufficient probative power.
According to the decision of Beijing T Accounting Firm (2002). Zhenghuahui Zi No. 278 "Audit Verification Report" and the defendant's relevant financial bill materials prove that from March 2001 to April 2002, the defendant successively submitted documents to Shenzhen L Industrial Co., Ltd., Baoding J Door Industry Co., Ltd., Beijing City Y Ceramic Fiber Products Factory, Shenzhen F Security Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen P Electric Security Co., Ltd., Shenzhen B Fire Protection Equipment Factory, Hangzhou Roller shutters, fireproof inorganic roller shutters (also known as fireproof curtains or fireproof roller shutters) and other products may sign sales contracts for the above products.
The main conclusions of the above-mentioned "Audit Verification Report" are: from March 2001 to In April 2002, the defendant sold fire-proof curtains, fire-proof roller blinds, and fire-proof furnace curtains totaling 13,307.549 square meters (including 283.722 square meters of fire-proof furnace curtains). The total sales revenue was 1,439,896.61 yuan, and the total profit was 221,465.33 yuan. .
Although the defendant claimed that the profits from the sales of the allegedly infringing products should be deducted from the profits from the sales of fire-proof furnace curtains and fire-proof rolling shutters that were not related to the accused infringing products in the audit report, it did not submit relevant evidence to prove it within the time limit for producing evidence. Since the plaintiff agreed in the lawsuit that the fire-proof furnace curtain is not the accused infringing product, the profit amount of the fire-proof furnace curtain should be deducted from the profit amount of the accused infringing product. Therefore, the total area of ??the accused infringing product should be deducted from the area of ??the fire-proof furnace curtain. That is 13,023.827 square meters, and the defendant’s profit here was 216,716.48 yuan.
The above facts are supported by copies or originals of documentary evidence confirmed by the parties, namely the Utility Model Patent Certificate No. 425939 for fully refractory fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller shutters; fully refractory fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulated roller shutters. "Utility Model Patent Specification"; a copy of the Patent Registration Book No. 425939 of the State Intellectual Property Office and the "Search Report"; the "Patent Rights Transfer Memorandum" dated December 10, 2001, (2001) Changzheng Neiminzi No. 0816 "Notarized "Book"; (2002) Zhenghuahui Zi No. 278 "Audit Verification Report"; No. 05514319, No. 03418293, No. 03418288 Beijing VAT Special Invoice; December 10, 2001, January 7, 2002, March 13, 2002 Japan's "Industrial and Mining Products Purchase and Sales Contract"; there are physical evidence, fireproof roller shutter samples and the parties' statements and other evidence on record to support the case.
Case hearing
The court held that: Based on the facts ascertained, the plaintiff obtained the patent right based on the patent rights transfer agreement and the patent change registration certificate approved by the State Intellectual Property Office. The transferee enjoys all the rights and obligations of this patent since the date of grant, and has the right to file a lawsuit against others for unauthorized exploitation of this patent according to law. He is a qualified plaintiff in this case. According to the parties’ prosecution and defense reasons, this case involves the following focuses:
First, the determination of the scope of protection of this patent. my country’s Patent Law stipulates that the scope of protection of utility model patent rights shall be based on the content of the claims, and the description and drawings may be used to explain the claims. The Implementing Rules of the Patent Law stipulate that the independent claims of a patent should reflect the technical solution of the invention or utility model as a whole and record the necessary technical features to solve the technical problem. It can be seen that the determination of the maximum scope of rights protection of this patent should be based on the content of the necessary technical features of independent claim 1. The defendant does not dispute the authenticity of the content of independent claim 1 of this patent, and admits that high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires are placed in the middle or one side of the refractory fiber blanket according to customer requirements. It only believes that the glass fiber cloth of its product is different from the refractory fiber cloth of this patent. In this regard, the court held that claim 10 of this patent clearly defines the raw materials for making the refractory fiber cloth. The limited materials that can be used alone include ordinary glass fiber and other manufacturing materials. The same description is also given in the specification. Therefore, glass fiber cloth is also a technical feature of the technical solution protected by this patent. The use of glass fiber cloth in the defendant's products is indistinguishable from the corresponding technical features of the plaintiff's patent.
Second, regarding the nature of the defendant’s behavior. Based on the above identified and ascertained facts, the fire curtain manufactured by the defendant was a semi-finished product exclusively used in this patent before the connecting screws and thin steel strips were installed. The semi-finished product, together with the connecting screws and thin steel strips, constitute the entirety of this patent. The necessary technical features completely fall within the scope of protection of this patent. The defendant clearly admitted that it configured screws and steel strips on the outside of the fire curtain according to the customer's requirements. Therefore, the customer used the patented semi-product manufactured by the defendant with the thin steel strip and connecting screws for installation and use. The defendant knew that it had subjective rights and Others intentionally infringe the plaintiff's patent. At the same time, the defendant has actually sold semi-finished products specifically used to implement this patent to customers for a long time, that is, the accused infringing product, to gain commercial benefits from it, and the fact that it has jointly infringed with others has actually occurred. At the same time, the defendant's defense regarding publicly known technology was untenable due to lack of factual basis and was not accepted by the court.
To sum up, the defendant manufactures and sells semi-finished products specifically used to implement the plaintiff’s patented technology, and the technical features of the assembled final product fully cover all the necessary technical features of the patent, falling within the scope of the plaintiff’s patent. The defendant's behavior infringed upon the plaintiff's utility model patent rights, and it should bear infringement liability, stop the infringement, and compensate the plaintiff for its economic losses. The defendant's defenses that its actions did not constitute infringement of this patent were untenable and were not accepted by the court.
The amount of infringement compensation that the defendant should bear should be determined based on the amount of profits earned by the defendant from manufacturing and selling infringing products. That is, based on the relevant values ??obtained in the "Audit Verification Report", multiplying the total area of ??130,238.27 square meters of infringing products by the profit of 16.64 yuan per square meter of the infringing products, the defendant's profit from the infringing products is 216,716.48 yuan. The plaintiff claimed that the molds and tools used by the defendant to produce infringing semi-finished products, as well as the infringing semi-finished products and finished products that had been produced, should be destroyed. Since the plaintiff did not submit relevant evidence, the court did not support this claim. The plaintiff's request that the defendant publicly apologize to it has no legal basis, and the court did not support this. The audit fees and evidence preservation fees paid by the plaintiff in advance for the litigation in this case are necessary expenses for the litigation and should be borne by the losing party, the defendant. In accordance with the provisions of Article 56, Paragraph 1, Article 57, Paragraph 1, and Article 60 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1. Defendant Beijing D Company will immediately stop manufacturing and selling the special-grade fireproof roller shutters, fireproof roller shutters, and fireproof inorganic roller shutters (commonly known as fireproof curtains or fireproof roller shutters) that infringe the plaintiff’s utility model patent No. ZL00234256. Curtain) products;
2. The defendant, Beijing Company D, shall compensate the plaintiff, Beijing Company Y, for a total economic loss of 216,716 yuan within 10 days from the date of this judgment taking effect;
3. Rejection Plaintiff Beijing Y Company’s other litigation claims.