In recent years, the domestic electricity sector has grown rapidly and microwave stoves have become one of the essential appliances of modern households. The magnetic tube in the microwave is also described as its "heart" component. However, the production of magnetic tubes is not easy and the tight process involved is particularly critical. And in this area, the patent dispute between grant and meg electronics has been prominent. It is understood that the patent involved is an invention patent by grants for the purpose of tightening the caps on the magnetic tube. At the heart of the patent lies the need to address the insatiableness that has arisen in tight programmes, thereby reducing the underperformance rate. In turn, the encapsulation mould is an indispensable core in the magnetic tube production process and plays a vital role in the quality of the microwave. In the face of the violation of megatron, grant has been actively defending her rights and has finally won in the supreme court. As required by the judgement, the electronics must immediately cease the manufacture, use and destruction of the encapsulation moulds that infringe on the patent of grants. In addition, mercer is required to compensate for the loss of 10 million yuan in grantes and to pay 200,000 yuan in reasonable defence expenses. In fact, this is not the first patent dispute between grant and meg。
As early as january 2017, the employee of the department of magnetic control manufacturing, liu xiaoqi, accepted an enterprise's offer of employment, established the mega electronics, and produced large quantities of magnetic regulation products using the glenshi patent technology. This act was strongly condemned by grant, who also set the stage for subsequent patent disputes. After many years of entanglement, the final victory was undoubtedly a victory for grandsy. However, patent disputes are inevitable in competition in the home electricity sector. It is only by continuously upgrading its technological and innovative capacities that it will be able to stay on the market. In this article, we will talk about the supreme people's court's case of patent infringement of the grant and meg electronics. The court of first instance held that the technical programme for the use of mega electronics did not infringe on the patent rights of grandsy and rejected all of her claims. However, grant was dissatisfied with this result and appealed. In april this year, the supreme court of judicial intellectual property held a public hearing on the case. First of all, let us recall the context of the case. Grands brought patent infringement suits against companies such as mega electronics, suzhou mega electronics and shanghai mega electronics, claiming that they had violated their patent rights. Grants believes that its patented technology is used in the products of the meg electronics。
The court of first instance, however, rejected all of grant's claims, holding that the technology used in megatron was outside the patent's protection. This decision caused grant's dissatisfaction and they decided to appeal to the supreme people's court. In april this year, the supreme court of judicial intellectual property held a public hearing on the case. In so doing, the court considered a number of factors, including whether the technology in question was within the protection of patent rights, the technical options used in the products against which the infringement was brought, etc. Finally, the court found that the meg electronics did not infringe on grant's patent rights and upheld the decision of the court of first instance. This case tells us that patent infringement cases are often very complex and require in-depth understanding and analysis of technical programmes. In this case, the court took into account a number of factors and ultimately delivered a fair judgment. Protection of intellectual property rights is important for enterprises, and for courts to hear patent infringement cases fairly。
