中文/English

Supreme Law issued 2016 ten largest 10 cases of intellectual property rights of the US container "design patent infringement case

2017-4-26 23:08| Announcer: admin

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and Zhuhai Jinmao Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., Beijing Li Kang Fuya Trading Co., Ltd. infringement design patent dispute dispute appeal case[Beijing Higher People's Court (2016) Beijing people final 245 civil judgment]

 

Case Summary:Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Matsushita Co., Ltd.) on September 5, 2012 to obtain the name of the "beauty device" design patent, license number CN302065954S. Matsushita Co., Ltd. believes that the production, sale and sale of Zhuhai Jinmao Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jinmao Company") and the sales of JinDao ion steam container KD-2331, which is sold by Beijing Li Kang Fuya Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as Li Kang Company) "Infringement of its design patent, request the decree: two defendants to stop infringement; destruction of the infringing products related to all the promotional materials and delete the contents of the alleged infringement products; Jinmao company to destroy the mold and special production equipment and Infringement of all products, and from the sales store to recover the sale of unauthorized infringement products for sale; Golden Rice compensation for economic losses of 3 million yuan, the two defendants jointly compensate a reasonable expenditure of 200,000 yuan. Beijing Intellectual Property Court of First Instance that the alleged infringement products and patent applications involved in the design of the difference between the two of the overall visual effects do not have a substantial impact, both belong to similar designs. The company has carried out the manufacture, sale and sale of the allegedly infringing products without the permission of Panasonic Corporation. The company has implemented sales and promised sales in the absence of permission from Matsushita Co., Ltd. V. Infringement of product behavior. Existing evidence can prove that the sale of gold rice company, promised to sell the profits of the allegedly infringing products, Matsushita Co., Ltd. based on online sales and the average price of three million yuan claim amount has reasonable grounds. In addition, Matsushita Co., Ltd. to stop the infringement to pay the reasonable expenses, Li Kang company as a sales side, after informed of the case litigation, still did not stop, the expenditure part of the litigation should be shared. According to this, the first instance verdict: two defendants to stop infringement; Golden Rice Company compensation for economic losses of three million yuan; Golden Rice Company, Li Kang company with reasonable compensation for RMB 200,000 yuan. Gold rice company, Li Kang company refused to accept the verdict, filed an appeal. Beijing Higher People 's Court held that the alleged infringement products fall within the scope of the patent protection. With respect to the amount of compensation, Matsushita Co., Ltd. obtained the sum of the sales volume of the same type of product with the number of sales of the same type of product was 18 411 347 units, with an average price of 260 yuan, and as the basis for the claim. In accordance with the above-mentioned total number of products sold and the average selling price of the product, even from the low to consider the reasonable profit of each infringing product, the calculated results are still far higher than 300 million. With the support of the above evidence, Matsushita Co., Ltd. claims that the amount of compensation of 3 million yuan has a high degree of rationality. The court of first instance fully supports the request of Matsushita Co., Ltd. for economic losses, with facts and legal basis. Judgment dismissed the appeal to maintain the first instance verdict.

 

Typical meaning:The patent is a "beauty container" design patent, with a high market value, the case of high compensation fully reflects the infringement damages fully reflect the realization of the intellectual property market value of the judicial protection concept. The second instance verdict further clarifies the rules for the examination and approval of the evidence of infringement in the patent infringement case, which has certain demonstration significance for similar cases. The second instance verdicts that, in view of the difficulty of proof of patent infringement, it is difficult for the infringer to master the account book related to the patent infringement. If the obligee has fully evidenced the profit of the infringer within the scope of its ability to prove Where the infringer can not provide contrary evidence to overthrow the claims of the right holder, the people 's court may, on the basis of the claim and the evidence provided by the right holder, determine that the infringer has obtained the infringement of the infringer in the case where the reasonable nature of the amount of the economic loss requested has been fully stated Interests.

Address: 5/F, Tower A, GT International Center, Jia 3 Yongandongli, Jianguomenwai Ave, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022, China
Tel:+86-10-5879 3300Fax:+86-10-5879 3311Email: mail@boss-young.cn
返回顶部