Recently, our firm won the first instance of an administrative litigation case for invalidation of an invention patent, in which it is ruled that the invention patent should be comp...
Introduction In the chemical field, it is difficult to seek invalidation of a patent claiming to have achieved unexpected technical effect. This case provides a strategy for success...
We win the first instance of two patent infringement cases - The method of adducing evidence for products in the B2B field and a forceful rebuttal to the defense of prior use rights
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (the GZ IP Court) recently made the first-instance judgement (not effective yet) for the two zipper patent infringement cases in which we represented YKK Corporation against a Guangdong-based company, ordering the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable costs to enforce its rights for a total of more than RMB 750,000 (total of the two cases).
In the case, our firm represented the plaintiff, claiming that the defendant's manufacture, sale and offering for sale of zipper products infringed the plaintiff's two invention patents. Due to the B2B nature of the allegedly infringing products in both cases, the plaintiff could not make the notarized purchase and preservation of them through regular means. Therefore, our firm investigated and analyzed the current products and the target company, and proved that the defendant manufactured, sold and offered to sell the allegedly infringing products by forming a complete chain of evidence through preserving the end products with the allegedly infringing products, the manufacturer's logo on the allegedly infringing products, the defendant's promotional information on the official website, and a series of other evidence. The GZ IP Court approved our proof.
In addition, in this case, the defendant made the defense of prior use right and submitted a large amount of evidence, including the purchase vouchers of production equipment, samples for exhibition, email correspondence of customers' orders, etc., and made multi notarized preservation.
Our attorneys carefully checked each of the defendant's evidence to confirm whether the evidence could support each other, and concluded that, while the defendant's evidence included some production equipment and product information, the corresponding relations between the specific technical features in the claims and the equipment and products were not reflected in the defendant's evidence. Therefore, the defendant's evidence did not prove that it manufactured the allegedly infringing products or had made the necessary preparations for the production of the allegedly infringing products prior to the filing date of the patent at issue. The GZ IP Court also recognized our claim, ruling that the defendant's defense of prior use right is not established and infringement is constituted.
