Reply to patent infringement dispute 1
?
?
Defense of patent infringement dispute II
Respondent: XXXXX Co., Ltd.
Address: XXXXXX, Guangdong Province
Legal representative: XXXXX.
Respondents: XXX, X, XX, XXXXX were born on XX, XX, and their ID card addresses are: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Disputes between the Respondent and the Respondent on the Patent Right for Invention In order to distinguish right from wrong and clarify rights and responsibilities, we hereby reply to the Respondent's claim as follows:
1. The products involved by the respondent are essentially different from the technical scheme required to be protected by the respondent's invention patent, and there is no infringement of the respondent's patent right.
According to Article 59 of the Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the scope of protection of the patent right for invention or utility model shall be subject to the contents of the patent claim, and the contents of the patent claim may be illustrated by the description and drawings.
The product involved by the respondent not only lacks many necessary technical features recorded in the patent claim involved, but also has essential differences in many features, so the product involved does not cover all the technical features of the patent claim involved, and the manufacturing and sales behavior of the respondent does not constitute an infringement of the patent right of the respondent.
According to the principle of comprehensive comparison of technical features in patent infringement judgment, the products involved are significantly different from the technical features recorded in the patent claim of the respondent.
According to the comparison, it is not only impossible to draw the conclusion that the products involved infringe the patent, but also reflects that the products involved and the products limited by the patent claims involved belong to products with fundamentally different technical characteristics.
Therefore, according to the principle of patent infringement judgment? The principle of universal coverage.
The product involved by the respondent is essentially different from the technical scheme of the respondent's patent claim, which does not completely cover all the technical features of the respondent's patent claim and does not infringe the respondent's patent right.
Two, the respondent has evidence to prove that the products involved belong to the existing technology.
According to Article 62 of the Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), in a patent infringement dispute, if the accused infringer has evidence to prove that the technology or design implemented by him belongs to the existing technology or design, it does not constitute patent infringement.
After investigation and evidence collection by the respondent, the evidence submitted by the respondent has disclosed the technical characteristics of the products involved, which belongs to the technology that ordinary technicians can manufacture without creative labor.
Moreover, the evidence is a public publication, and its public date is earlier than the application date of the respondent's patent, which belongs to the prior art.
At the same time, the technical features of the defendant's alleged infringement are essentially different from the technical scheme disclosed in the defendant's patent claim.
Therefore, the technical features of the products involved belong to the existing technology, and the respondent did not infringe the patent right of the respondent.
Third, even if we take 10,000 steps back, the products involved constitute infringement.
The amount of damages claimed by the respondent has no legal basis.
According to Article 65 of the Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the amount of compensation for patent infringement shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the obligee due to infringement; If the actual loss is difficult to determine, it can be determined according to the interests obtained by the infringer due to infringement.
If it is difficult to determine the loss of the obligee or the interests of the infringer, it shall be reasonably determined by reference to the multiple of the patent license fee.
The amount of compensation shall also include the reasonable expenses paid by the obligee to stop the infringement.
If it is difficult to determine the loss of the obligee, the benefits obtained by the infringer and the patent license fee, the people's court may determine the compensation of more than 1 10,000 yuan and less than1100,000 yuan according to the type of patent right, the nature and circumstances of the infringement.
The respondent believed that even if the products involved constituted patent infringement, the respondent did not mass-produce the products involved.
Because the total profit of the products involved is extremely low, the products involved in the case produced by the respondent did not actually make a profit.
At the same time, the patent right of the respondent is only a part of the products involved. Even if it constitutes infringement, there is no legal and factual basis for the respondent to claim XXX million yuan.
The respondent believes that the infringement allegations and damages put forward by the respondent lack sufficient evidence and legal basis, and the court should not support them, so it requests the court to make a clear judgment according to law to protect the legitimate rights of the respondent.
To sum up, there is no factual basis or legal basis for the respondent to sue the respondent for infringing its patent right. I urge the court to reject all the claims of the respondent according to law.
I am here to convey
XXXX Intermediate People's Court
Respondents:
date month year