There's a patent tort dispute over the little microwave parts? On the afternoon of 26 april, the intellectual property court of the supreme people's court held a public session to hear an appeal against patent rights to inventions between the appellant, grandsingle microwave electrical manufacturing ltd. (hereinafter " grands " ) and the respondent, meg electronics and technology ltd. (hereinafter " meg " ), nakayama city. The trial was conducted by a panel composed of the chief justice of the intellectual property court of the supreme people's court, liu xiaomei, the judge liu peng, and joo xinhui。
Who touched my magnet
Grantes is a corporation specializing in the development, production and sale of microwave products and is a patent holder for inventions (hereinafter referred to as patents) under the title no. Magnetic controls in microwave furnaces are the core components that generate microwave energy, and they are produced in a compact process involving shell and top covers, which directly affects the quality of microwave furnaces. In the case of patent solutions, the insufficiencies that occur in the tight programme are reduced by the underperformance rate, and the emeralds are essential core devices in the magnetic control production process。
Grant purchased “magnetic” microwaves from various web-based buying platforms, using magnetic tubes produced by meg. In the view of grands, m. A. Did not produce magnetic tubes in violation of the patent rights in question in large quantities and without permission, and sued the guangzhou court of intellectual property rights for ordering m. G. To cease immediately the manufacture and use of the alleged tort covers, to destroy the equipment and moulds that were being used and stored tort products and to destroy the products that were used to infringe them, and to compensate for the economic loss of 10 million yuan and the reasonable expenditure on rights. The court of first instance found that the technical programmes against which tort products had been used did not fall within the protection of the patent in question, that meg had not violated the patent rights in grant, that it had rejected all of grant's claims, and that grant had appealed the first instance judgement to the supreme people's court。
(attachment of patent description attached)
It's not enough
Whether or not meg's manufacture and use of the capping moulds are of the same or equivalent technical characteristics as those recorded in the patent claim in question is central to the dispute in this case. During the hearing, the parties gave their full and full views on the question of whether the technical programmes used by the products complained of fell under the protection of the patent in question and how the amount of compensation was calculated。
(phone ext.)
"does the four corners push simultaneously with multiple poles?" the technical investigator, who is a “technical translator” close to the judge, plays a key role in the identification of the facts of this highly skilled case。
“call the full court to see the motion map show the emerald operation.” the representative of grandsy was prepared to visualize the technical features of the patent in question in a hard-worded version of the patent statement. The full court was well informed, the trial proceedings were fluid and the two hours of the hearing both enriched the examination of the case and fully guaranteed the right of both parties to the proceedings。
Small parts take over
The case of the intellectual property tribunal, which this year focused on public hearings, was not a chip technology, nor a biomedicine, but rather a patent-infringement dispute that led viewers into the kitchens of thousands of homes to see small parts of the microwave。
“protecting intellectual property is protecting innovation, and the intellectual property tribunal of the supreme people's court will rule in accordance with the law to guarantee the development of innovation through fair judicial services.” at the end of the trial, the presiding judge showed a strong attitude and drew a perfect end to the week of public sittings in a centralized court。
The press bureau of the supreme people's court, in conjunction with the central radio and television online rule of law (crt), guange video and quick-hand media platforms, broadcast live throughout the media. The trial was broadcast live on the chinese trial public website almost 30,000 times, with some 20 public representatives who made appointments to attend。
Source: intellectual property court of the supreme people's court
