China Piracy Reports
http://www.ChinaPiracyReports.com
Special Report
Intellectual Property Strategies in AsiaClick on report for more information
Syndicate
Created With Quick Blogcast
China Piracy Report
Junyuan Science and Technology Charges Galanz Microwave Oven for Patent Infringement
File No. N090112
Title: Junyuan Science and Technology Charges Galanz Microwave Oven for Patent Infringement
Source: Beijing Youth Daily
Date: December 31, 2008
In order to protect its company’s patent right and interests, Junyuan Science and Technology Co., Ltd. expressed its will to seek justification against Galanz Group.
Due to a different culinary habit, the microwave ovens on the market do not have the steaming function. Junyuan Co. invented a steaming pot for use in microwave ovens to make steamed dumplings and buns. In March of 2005, Junyuan Co. was granted a utility model patent for the said device. Junyuan Co. subsequently manufactured the patented products for a domestic microwave oven producer as accessory gift products. However, in July of this year, Junyuan Co. found that Galanz was selling microwave ovens with a steaming accessory gift product in major cities, such as Hangzhou, Nanjing, Haikou, Fujian, and Chengdu. Galanz’s steaming accessory was almost identical to Junyuan Co.’s patented utility model. Junyuan Co. believes that Galanz has infringed on its patent right and the interests of the company that is licensed to exploit the patent.
Sichuan Branch of Galanz Group explained to the media that its steaming device was also patented, with the patent certificate dated May 9, 2005. It is learned that Galanz submitted a defense to Sichuan Province Intellectual Property Office. Galanz also filed a patent invalidation request with Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, claiming that Junyuan Co’s patent did not possess inventiveness as it used the microwave humidifier technology from 6 patented documents and therefore, should be declared invalid. Junyuan Co. accused Galanz of buying time, and claimed that its patent used a different technology from that of the 6 reference documents Galanz submitted.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Title: Junyuan Science and Technology Charges Galanz Microwave Oven for Patent Infringement
Source: Beijing Youth Daily
Date: December 31, 2008
In order to protect its company’s patent right and interests, Junyuan Science and Technology Co., Ltd. expressed its will to seek justification against Galanz Group.
Due to a different culinary habit, the microwave ovens on the market do not have the steaming function. Junyuan Co. invented a steaming pot for use in microwave ovens to make steamed dumplings and buns. In March of 2005, Junyuan Co. was granted a utility model patent for the said device. Junyuan Co. subsequently manufactured the patented products for a domestic microwave oven producer as accessory gift products. However, in July of this year, Junyuan Co. found that Galanz was selling microwave ovens with a steaming accessory gift product in major cities, such as Hangzhou, Nanjing, Haikou, Fujian, and Chengdu. Galanz’s steaming accessory was almost identical to Junyuan Co.’s patented utility model. Junyuan Co. believes that Galanz has infringed on its patent right and the interests of the company that is licensed to exploit the patent.
Sichuan Branch of Galanz Group explained to the media that its steaming device was also patented, with the patent certificate dated May 9, 2005. It is learned that Galanz submitted a defense to Sichuan Province Intellectual Property Office. Galanz also filed a patent invalidation request with Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, claiming that Junyuan Co’s patent did not possess inventiveness as it used the microwave humidifier technology from 6 patented documents and therefore, should be declared invalid. Junyuan Co. accused Galanz of buying time, and claimed that its patent used a different technology from that of the 6 reference documents Galanz submitted.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Two US Multi-National Tycoons’ Disputes Over Bath Tub Patents
File No. N090111
Title: Two US Multi-National Tycoons’ Disputes Over Bath Tub Patents
Source: chinacourt.org
Date: November 19, 2008
It is learned that Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court opened trial sessions on two infringement cases in which US Kohler Co. charged Bravat (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Bravat (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. for patent infringement on an invention patent and a design patent it held on an overflow draining massage bathtub. The plaintiff is a world famous US company whose design, manufacture and sales in kitchen and bath products have been extremely influential in the industry. The two defendants are both US companies registered in China.
The plaintiff’s patent rights in China were acquired through PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty). Through PCT, a right holder can apply patents in multi countries with relatively low cost. PCT also enables the plaintiff to be granted patent rights in multi countries.
During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff and the defendants were relentless on each other in arguments concerning the essential technical features of the invention patent, such as the tub, the overflow drainage, the plumbing, and the pump. The two parties also disputed over the design. Kohler Co. listed all the identical or similar places between the allegedly infringing bathtub and the patented invention and design, in an effort to prove that an infringement was committed by the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, listed all the differences between the two products, in an effort to prove that their products did not infringed on the plaintiff’s patent rights. The court is still to make its decision.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Title: Two US Multi-National Tycoons’ Disputes Over Bath Tub Patents
Source: chinacourt.org
Date: November 19, 2008
It is learned that Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court opened trial sessions on two infringement cases in which US Kohler Co. charged Bravat (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Bravat (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. for patent infringement on an invention patent and a design patent it held on an overflow draining massage bathtub. The plaintiff is a world famous US company whose design, manufacture and sales in kitchen and bath products have been extremely influential in the industry. The two defendants are both US companies registered in China.
The plaintiff’s patent rights in China were acquired through PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty). Through PCT, a right holder can apply patents in multi countries with relatively low cost. PCT also enables the plaintiff to be granted patent rights in multi countries.
During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff and the defendants were relentless on each other in arguments concerning the essential technical features of the invention patent, such as the tub, the overflow drainage, the plumbing, and the pump. The two parties also disputed over the design. Kohler Co. listed all the identical or similar places between the allegedly infringing bathtub and the patented invention and design, in an effort to prove that an infringement was committed by the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, listed all the differences between the two products, in an effort to prove that their products did not infringed on the plaintiff’s patent rights. The court is still to make its decision.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Samsung Infringed on Holley Cellular Phone Patent and Was Ordered to Pay Damages in the Amount of RMB 50 Million
File No. N090110
Title: Samsung Infringed on Holley Cellular Phone Patent and Was Ordered to Pay Damages in the Amount of RMB 50 Million
Source: xinhuanet.com
Date: December 22, 2008
Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled recently that Samsung infringed on the patent right on Method and Devices of GSM/CDMA Dual Mode Mobile Communication held by Holley Communications. Samsung was ordered to stop making and selling infringing products and pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 50 million. This has been the biggest damages amount awarded in a patent infringement case in the cellular phone industry.
According to GE Chen, executive director of Holley Communications, the 50 million is not even the total loss suffered by Holley Communications. He says that the sales amount of Samsung’s infringing mobile phones is over 700,000 sets and these infringing phones are still on the market for sale. As Holley Communications brought the charge against Samsung in the beginning of 2007, the damages awarded concerned only part of Samsung’s infringing sales. GE Chen expressed Holley Communications’ will to request further damages from Samsung.
Holley Communications applied for the said invention patent on January 15, 2002. The patent has basically covered the design ideas and realization methods of main hardware of GSM/CDMA dual mode communication products. On April 09, 2007, Holley Communications sued to Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, charging Samsung with infringing on its said invention patent right, requesting injunction and damages. Samsung in turn filed with Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office, requesting the Board to invalid Holley Communications’ said patent. After half a year’s examination, the Board decided to uphold the validity of the said patent right on December 14, 2007. On May 14 of 2008, Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court opened trial session on the dispute and gave ruling on December 19 of the same year. The dispute lasted for about 20 months.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Title: Samsung Infringed on Holley Cellular Phone Patent and Was Ordered to Pay Damages in the Amount of RMB 50 Million
Source: xinhuanet.com
Date: December 22, 2008
Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled recently that Samsung infringed on the patent right on Method and Devices of GSM/CDMA Dual Mode Mobile Communication held by Holley Communications. Samsung was ordered to stop making and selling infringing products and pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 50 million. This has been the biggest damages amount awarded in a patent infringement case in the cellular phone industry.
According to GE Chen, executive director of Holley Communications, the 50 million is not even the total loss suffered by Holley Communications. He says that the sales amount of Samsung’s infringing mobile phones is over 700,000 sets and these infringing phones are still on the market for sale. As Holley Communications brought the charge against Samsung in the beginning of 2007, the damages awarded concerned only part of Samsung’s infringing sales. GE Chen expressed Holley Communications’ will to request further damages from Samsung.
Holley Communications applied for the said invention patent on January 15, 2002. The patent has basically covered the design ideas and realization methods of main hardware of GSM/CDMA dual mode communication products. On April 09, 2007, Holley Communications sued to Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, charging Samsung with infringing on its said invention patent right, requesting injunction and damages. Samsung in turn filed with Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office, requesting the Board to invalid Holley Communications’ said patent. After half a year’s examination, the Board decided to uphold the validity of the said patent right on December 14, 2007. On May 14 of 2008, Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court opened trial session on the dispute and gave ruling on December 19 of the same year. The dispute lasted for about 20 months.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office
File No. C090151
Case Name: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office
Filing Date: August 18, 2008 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tengyu Co.)
Defendant: Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office (the Board)
Third Party: Zhengzhou Changli Machine Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Changli Co.)
Appellant: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tengyu Co.)
Appellee: Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office (the Board)
Cause(s) of Action: Administrative litigation over the Board’s decision to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent right
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s ruling.
Trial Court: Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, supporting its decision to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent right. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: October 17, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Tengyu Co.) charged the defendant (the Board) with falsely invalidating its patent right for the utility model of a specialized stacking machine for porous concrete blocks. The trial court ruled in favor of the Board. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Board decided to invalidate Tengyu Co.’s said patent right after examining the invalidation request filed by the third party (Changli Co.), who claimed that the said patent was not in conformity with PRC Patent Law Article 22 iii that defines inventiveness.
The trial court judged that the different driving device the patented utility model used, a hydraulic driving device as compared to a motorized driving device used in the reference document, did not possess inventiveness, being a common work mode in the relevant field. The trial court also judged that the convey mechanism the patented utility model employed was also common technical scheme used in the relevant field, and did not bring unexpected technical effect. The trial court further decided that the distinguishing features in Claim 2-5 as compared to the reference document were all common technical schemes used in the relevant field. The trial court held that the said patent did not possess inventiveness and ruled to support the Board’s invalidation decision.
The appeal court judged that the different driving devices used in the patent and the reference document required different convey mechanisms, and both driving devices and their required convey mechanisms were common work modes in the field and a person skilled in the art could easily substitute one with the other without creative efforts and bring about the same effect, rejecting the appellant’s (Tengyu Co.) claim that its patent not only used a different driving device, but employed a completely different technical scheme. The appeal court also rejected the utility model search results Tengyu Co. submitted as anti-evidence, to the effect that the patented utility model possessed inventiveness, stating that the search report was only preliminary evidence that did not possess judicial power. Based on PRC Administrative Procedure Law Article 61 (1), the appeal court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and rejected the appellant’s appeal.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office
Filing Date: August 18, 2008 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tengyu Co.)
Defendant: Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office (the Board)
Third Party: Zhengzhou Changli Machine Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Changli Co.)
Appellant: Jiangsu Tengyu Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Tengyu Co.)
Appellee: Patent Reexamination Board of PRC State Intellectual Property Office (the Board)
Cause(s) of Action: Administrative litigation over the Board’s decision to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent right
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s ruling.
Trial Court: Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, supporting its decision to invalidate the plaintiff’s patent right. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: October 17, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Tengyu Co.) charged the defendant (the Board) with falsely invalidating its patent right for the utility model of a specialized stacking machine for porous concrete blocks. The trial court ruled in favor of the Board. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The Board decided to invalidate Tengyu Co.’s said patent right after examining the invalidation request filed by the third party (Changli Co.), who claimed that the said patent was not in conformity with PRC Patent Law Article 22 iii that defines inventiveness.
The trial court judged that the different driving device the patented utility model used, a hydraulic driving device as compared to a motorized driving device used in the reference document, did not possess inventiveness, being a common work mode in the relevant field. The trial court also judged that the convey mechanism the patented utility model employed was also common technical scheme used in the relevant field, and did not bring unexpected technical effect. The trial court further decided that the distinguishing features in Claim 2-5 as compared to the reference document were all common technical schemes used in the relevant field. The trial court held that the said patent did not possess inventiveness and ruled to support the Board’s invalidation decision.
The appeal court judged that the different driving devices used in the patent and the reference document required different convey mechanisms, and both driving devices and their required convey mechanisms were common work modes in the field and a person skilled in the art could easily substitute one with the other without creative efforts and bring about the same effect, rejecting the appellant’s (Tengyu Co.) claim that its patent not only used a different driving device, but employed a completely different technical scheme. The appeal court also rejected the utility model search results Tengyu Co. submitted as anti-evidence, to the effect that the patented utility model possessed inventiveness, stating that the search report was only preliminary evidence that did not possess judicial power. Based on PRC Administrative Procedure Law Article 61 (1), the appeal court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and rejected the appellant’s appeal.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
BASF, Germany v. Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sunshine Clover Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd.
File No. C090154
Case Name: BASF, Germany v. Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sunshine Clover Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: February 21, 2008 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: BASF, Germany (BASF)
Defendant: Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shizhuang Co.); Beijing Sunshine Clover Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd. (Bio Clover Co.)
Appellant: BASF, Germany (BASF); Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shizhuang Co.)
Appellee: N/A
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: By appellant BASF: (i) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000; (ii) destroy the infringing product; (iii) recognize the patent related product as a new product. By appellant Shizhuang Co.: revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject BASF’s original litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The trial court ordered that: (i) Shizhuang Co. immediately stop making soil sterilant using the patented method and stop selling soil sterilant made using the patented method; (ii) Bio Clover Co. immediately stop selling the infringing soil sterilant; (iii) Shizhuang Co. pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 200,000 and compensate for appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act in the amount of RMB 13,000. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: October 09, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (BASF) charged the 1st defendant (Shizhuang Co.) with infringing on its patent right for the invention of a preparation method of near dust-free 4H-3, 5-Dimethyl-1, 3, 5-thiadiazole-2-thione granules by using the patented method to make a soil sterilant. The 2nd defendant (Bio Clover Co.) was likewise charged for acting as the sales representative of the 1st defendant for the said soil sterilant. The trial court ruled largely in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court held that BASF’s patent related product was not a new product as before the patent filing date PRC Ministry of Agriculture Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals (ICAMA) published BASF’s patent related product in its Pesticide Registration Public Announcement, in addition to the fact that the patent description itself also described the purpose of the invention as aiming at a simpler and more convenient method of making dazomet products. The notarized testing report BASF submitted showed that the allegedly infringing soil sterilant contained three characteristic impurities, which BASF claimed to be the result of using the patented method. As Shizhuang Co. did not submit evidence proving that using other preparation method would also result in the same characteristic impurities, the trial court held that Shizhuang Co. infringed on BASF’s patent right and was to take liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The trial court ordered Bio Clover Co. to stop selling the infringing product without having to pay damages in view of its legitimate acquisition of the infringing product. The trial court did not support the full amount of damages BASF requested, deeming it unreasonably high. The trial court also rejected BASF’s request to destroy the infringing product, deeming that injunction would suffice.
The appeal court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the patent related product was not a new product, as, compared with similar products manufactured before the patent filing date, the patent related product did not show significant differences in composition, structure, quality, performance, and function. Even though the testing report given by Shanghai Pesticide Research Institute was ordered by BASF unilaterally, there was no evidence that the Institute was an interested party; and as Shizhuang Co. did not submit anti-evidence negating the result of the testing report or evidence supporting its own claim that it used a different preparation method, the appeal court held that Shizhuang Co. committed patent infringement. The appeal court also affirmed that injunction alone would stop the infringing act and there was no need to enforce the destruction of the infringing product. The appeal court further affirmed the amount of damages awarded by the trial court by taking into consideration the nature and the duration of the infringing act, and the degree of subjective fault of the infringer. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court rejected both appellants’ appeal.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: BASF, Germany v. Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd.; Beijing Sunshine Clover Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: February 21, 2008 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: BASF, Germany (BASF)
Defendant: Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shizhuang Co.); Beijing Sunshine Clover Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd. (Bio Clover Co.)
Appellant: BASF, Germany (BASF); Nantong Shizhuang Chemical Co., Ltd. (Shizhuang Co.)
Appellee: N/A
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: By appellant BASF: (i) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000; (ii) destroy the infringing product; (iii) recognize the patent related product as a new product. By appellant Shizhuang Co.: revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject BASF’s original litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The trial court ordered that: (i) Shizhuang Co. immediately stop making soil sterilant using the patented method and stop selling soil sterilant made using the patented method; (ii) Bio Clover Co. immediately stop selling the infringing soil sterilant; (iii) Shizhuang Co. pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 200,000 and compensate for appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act in the amount of RMB 13,000. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: October 09, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (BASF) charged the 1st defendant (Shizhuang Co.) with infringing on its patent right for the invention of a preparation method of near dust-free 4H-3, 5-Dimethyl-1, 3, 5-thiadiazole-2-thione granules by using the patented method to make a soil sterilant. The 2nd defendant (Bio Clover Co.) was likewise charged for acting as the sales representative of the 1st defendant for the said soil sterilant. The trial court ruled largely in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court held that BASF’s patent related product was not a new product as before the patent filing date PRC Ministry of Agriculture Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals (ICAMA) published BASF’s patent related product in its Pesticide Registration Public Announcement, in addition to the fact that the patent description itself also described the purpose of the invention as aiming at a simpler and more convenient method of making dazomet products. The notarized testing report BASF submitted showed that the allegedly infringing soil sterilant contained three characteristic impurities, which BASF claimed to be the result of using the patented method. As Shizhuang Co. did not submit evidence proving that using other preparation method would also result in the same characteristic impurities, the trial court held that Shizhuang Co. infringed on BASF’s patent right and was to take liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The trial court ordered Bio Clover Co. to stop selling the infringing product without having to pay damages in view of its legitimate acquisition of the infringing product. The trial court did not support the full amount of damages BASF requested, deeming it unreasonably high. The trial court also rejected BASF’s request to destroy the infringing product, deeming that injunction would suffice.
The appeal court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the patent related product was not a new product, as, compared with similar products manufactured before the patent filing date, the patent related product did not show significant differences in composition, structure, quality, performance, and function. Even though the testing report given by Shanghai Pesticide Research Institute was ordered by BASF unilaterally, there was no evidence that the Institute was an interested party; and as Shizhuang Co. did not submit anti-evidence negating the result of the testing report or evidence supporting its own claim that it used a different preparation method, the appeal court held that Shizhuang Co. committed patent infringement. The appeal court also affirmed that injunction alone would stop the infringing act and there was no need to enforce the destruction of the infringing product. The appeal court further affirmed the amount of damages awarded by the trial court by taking into consideration the nature and the duration of the infringing act, and the degree of subjective fault of the infringer. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court rejected both appellants’ appeal.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
QIU Zeyou v. Jiangxi Province Fuzhou City Jinqiu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Changye Construction Group Co., Ltd.; Xinyu College
File No. C090140
Case Name: QIU Zeyou v. Jiangxi Province Fuzhou City Jinqiu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Changye Construction Group Co., Ltd.; Xinyu College
Filing Date: October 24, 2007
Plaintiff: QIU Zeyou
Defendant: Jiangxi Province Fuzhou City Jinqiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Jinqiu Industrial); Changye Construction Group Co., Ltd. (Changye Construction); Xinyu College
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Injunction; (ii) jointly pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000; (ii) jointly undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Jiangxi Province Nanchang City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered Jinqiu Industrial and Changye Construction to: (i) stop the infringing act immediately; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 200,000.
Decision Date: October 15, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (QIU Zeyou) charged the 1st defendant (Jinqiu Industrial) with infringing on his patent right for the invention of a three dimensional load bearing shuttering structure for reinforced concrete by making shuttering structures that incorporated the patented technical features and selling them to the 2nd defendant (Changye Construction) to be used in the 3rd defendant’s (Xinyu College) new campus project. Changye Construction and Xinyu College were likewise charged for purchasing and using the said shuttering structures in full awareness that Jinqiu Industrial did not acquire the patent right holder’s permission. QIU Zeyou also charged Changye Construction and Xinyu College with infringing on his patent right for another invention called “reinforced concrete load bearing floor slab structure” by making floor slabs that incorporated the patented technical features. Jinqiu Industrial was likewise charged for providing assistance in the making of the floor slabs. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The court compared the allegedly infringing shuttering structure with the patented invention and confirmed that it incorporated all the patented essential technical features. The court held that Jinqiu Industrial infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. As Changye Construction was absent from the trial, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence proving that Changye Construction used the infringing product; and as Changye Construction did not submit evidence proving that it acquired the infringing product legitimately, the court held that Changye Construction also infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. The court proceeded to compare the concrete floor slab Changye Construction poured with the plaintiff’s other invention and confirmed that it incorporated all the patented technical features. The court held that Changye Construction infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. The court held that even though Jinqiu Industrial did not infringe on the plaintiff’s second patent right directly, as its infringing shuttering structure certainly led to the pouring of the infringing floor slab, Jinqiu Industrial was also liable for the infringing act. The court ordered Jinqiu Industrial and Changye Construction to stop the infringing act and pay damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patents involved, the nature and seriousness of the infringing act, the fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act, and the patent licensing fee. The court judged that Xinyu College did not have the intention or the act of infringement and decided that it did not have to pay damages.
The court based its ruling on PRC Patent Law Article 56, 57, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21; and PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 130.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: QIU Zeyou v. Jiangxi Province Fuzhou City Jinqiu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Changye Construction Group Co., Ltd.; Xinyu College
Filing Date: October 24, 2007
Plaintiff: QIU Zeyou
Defendant: Jiangxi Province Fuzhou City Jinqiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Jinqiu Industrial); Changye Construction Group Co., Ltd. (Changye Construction); Xinyu College
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Injunction; (ii) jointly pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000; (ii) jointly undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Jiangxi Province Nanchang City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered Jinqiu Industrial and Changye Construction to: (i) stop the infringing act immediately; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 200,000.
Decision Date: October 15, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (QIU Zeyou) charged the 1st defendant (Jinqiu Industrial) with infringing on his patent right for the invention of a three dimensional load bearing shuttering structure for reinforced concrete by making shuttering structures that incorporated the patented technical features and selling them to the 2nd defendant (Changye Construction) to be used in the 3rd defendant’s (Xinyu College) new campus project. Changye Construction and Xinyu College were likewise charged for purchasing and using the said shuttering structures in full awareness that Jinqiu Industrial did not acquire the patent right holder’s permission. QIU Zeyou also charged Changye Construction and Xinyu College with infringing on his patent right for another invention called “reinforced concrete load bearing floor slab structure” by making floor slabs that incorporated the patented technical features. Jinqiu Industrial was likewise charged for providing assistance in the making of the floor slabs. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The court compared the allegedly infringing shuttering structure with the patented invention and confirmed that it incorporated all the patented essential technical features. The court held that Jinqiu Industrial infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. As Changye Construction was absent from the trial, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence proving that Changye Construction used the infringing product; and as Changye Construction did not submit evidence proving that it acquired the infringing product legitimately, the court held that Changye Construction also infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. The court proceeded to compare the concrete floor slab Changye Construction poured with the plaintiff’s other invention and confirmed that it incorporated all the patented technical features. The court held that Changye Construction infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right. The court held that even though Jinqiu Industrial did not infringe on the plaintiff’s second patent right directly, as its infringing shuttering structure certainly led to the pouring of the infringing floor slab, Jinqiu Industrial was also liable for the infringing act. The court ordered Jinqiu Industrial and Changye Construction to stop the infringing act and pay damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patents involved, the nature and seriousness of the infringing act, the fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act, and the patent licensing fee. The court judged that Xinyu College did not have the intention or the act of infringement and decided that it did not have to pay damages.
The court based its ruling on PRC Patent Law Article 56, 57, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21; and PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 130.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
CHANG Juan v. Hengyang City Intellectual Property Office
File No. C090138
Case Name: CHANG Juan v. Hengyang City Intellectual Property Office
Filing Date: N/A
Plaintiff: CHANG Juan
Defendant: Hengyang City Intellectual Property Office (Hengyang IP Office)
Third Party: Hengyang City Power Cable Factory (Power Cable Factory)
Cause(s) of Action: Administrative litigation over Hengyang IP Office’s decision that the third party did not infringed on CHANG Juan’s patent right
Remedy Requested: (i) Revoke Hengyang IP Office’s decision and order Hengyang IP Office to re-decide on the dispute between CHANG Juan and the third party; (ii) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Hunan Province Changsha City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and revoked Hengyang IP Office’s decision, ordering Hengyang IP Office to re-decide on the patent infringement dispute between the plaintiff and the third party.
Decision Date: October 17, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (CHANG Juan) charged the defendant (Hengyang IP Office) with wrongfully judging the dispute between the plaintiff and the third party (Power Cable Factory), concerning the third party’s wire and cable packages in multiple bundles that allegedly infringed on the plaintiff’s design patent. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Hengyang IP Office judged that the third party’s allegedly infringing packages were different from the plaintiff’s patented design in the proportion between length and width, the aesthetic impression, the opening detail, and the state in use; and decided that Power Cable Factory’s wire and cable packages did not infringing on CHANG Juan’s patent right.. Based on PRC Patent Law Article 11, 56, and 57, Hengyang IP Office dismissed CHANG Juan’s patent infringement charge against Power Cable Factory.
The court held that a design patent does not protect the size and the materials of a product incorporating the patented design and therefore, Hengyang IP Office’s judgment that the allegedly infringing packages were different from the patented design in view of the different proportions between length and width was without legal basis. The court compared the shape of the allegedly infringing packages with that of the patented product and judged that the front views and the bottom views of the two products were identical, while the top views were similar. Even though the court acknowledged that the allegedly infringing package had string only on one side of the opening rather than on both sides, it looked similar to the patented design in an overall way. The court also overruled Hengyang IP Office’s judgment that as the allegedly infringing packages had colors, while the patented design did not, they were different, stating that since color was not part of the claimed design, any identical or similar shape would be deemed as an infringement, with color or without. Based on PRC Administrative Procedure Law Article 54, the court held that Hengyang IP Office’s judgment was erroneous. The court revoked Hengyang IP Office’s decision and ordered it to re-decide on the dispute between the plaintiff and the third party.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: CHANG Juan v. Hengyang City Intellectual Property Office
Filing Date: N/A
Plaintiff: CHANG Juan
Defendant: Hengyang City Intellectual Property Office (Hengyang IP Office)
Third Party: Hengyang City Power Cable Factory (Power Cable Factory)
Cause(s) of Action: Administrative litigation over Hengyang IP Office’s decision that the third party did not infringed on CHANG Juan’s patent right
Remedy Requested: (i) Revoke Hengyang IP Office’s decision and order Hengyang IP Office to re-decide on the dispute between CHANG Juan and the third party; (ii) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Hunan Province Changsha City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and revoked Hengyang IP Office’s decision, ordering Hengyang IP Office to re-decide on the patent infringement dispute between the plaintiff and the third party.
Decision Date: October 17, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (CHANG Juan) charged the defendant (Hengyang IP Office) with wrongfully judging the dispute between the plaintiff and the third party (Power Cable Factory), concerning the third party’s wire and cable packages in multiple bundles that allegedly infringed on the plaintiff’s design patent. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Hengyang IP Office judged that the third party’s allegedly infringing packages were different from the plaintiff’s patented design in the proportion between length and width, the aesthetic impression, the opening detail, and the state in use; and decided that Power Cable Factory’s wire and cable packages did not infringing on CHANG Juan’s patent right.. Based on PRC Patent Law Article 11, 56, and 57, Hengyang IP Office dismissed CHANG Juan’s patent infringement charge against Power Cable Factory.
The court held that a design patent does not protect the size and the materials of a product incorporating the patented design and therefore, Hengyang IP Office’s judgment that the allegedly infringing packages were different from the patented design in view of the different proportions between length and width was without legal basis. The court compared the shape of the allegedly infringing packages with that of the patented product and judged that the front views and the bottom views of the two products were identical, while the top views were similar. Even though the court acknowledged that the allegedly infringing package had string only on one side of the opening rather than on both sides, it looked similar to the patented design in an overall way. The court also overruled Hengyang IP Office’s judgment that as the allegedly infringing packages had colors, while the patented design did not, they were different, stating that since color was not part of the claimed design, any identical or similar shape would be deemed as an infringement, with color or without. Based on PRC Administrative Procedure Law Article 54, the court held that Hengyang IP Office’s judgment was erroneous. The court revoked Hengyang IP Office’s decision and ordered it to re-decide on the dispute between the plaintiff and the third party.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Shanghai Hongchen Household Wares Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yinchu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Songjiang Hymart Mall Co., Ltd.
File No. C090137
Case Name: Shanghai Hongchen Household Wares Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yinchu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Songjiang Hymart Mall Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: May 26, 2008
Plaintiff: Shanghai Hongchen Household Wares Co., Ltd. (Hongchen Co.)
Defendant: Shanghai Yinchu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Yinchu Co.); Shanghai Songjiang Hymart Mall Co., Ltd. (Hymart Mall)
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Injunction; (ii) jointly pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 300,000.
Trial Court: Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered that: (i) the two defendants immediately stop the infringing act; (ii) Yinchu Co. pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 40,000.
Decision Date: October 19, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Hongchen Co.) charged the 1st defendant (Yinchu Co.) with infringing on its patent right for the design of a cup by making and selling cups that incorporated the patented design. The 2nd defendant (Hymart Mall) was likewise charged for selling the said cups. The court ruled in favor the plaintiff.
After comparison, the court decided that the cups the 1st defendant made infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right and 1st defendant was to bear civil liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patent involved, the degree of fault of the infringer, the duration of the infringing act, the quantity of the infringing products manufactured and sold, and the fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act. As Hymart Mall proved that it acquired the infringing cups legitimately, the court decided that it did not have to pay damages.
The court based its ruling on General Principles of PRC Civil Law Article 118; PRC Patent Law 11, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21, and 22.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: Shanghai Hongchen Household Wares Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yinchu Industrial Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Songjiang Hymart Mall Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: May 26, 2008
Plaintiff: Shanghai Hongchen Household Wares Co., Ltd. (Hongchen Co.)
Defendant: Shanghai Yinchu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Yinchu Co.); Shanghai Songjiang Hymart Mall Co., Ltd. (Hymart Mall)
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Injunction; (ii) jointly pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 300,000.
Trial Court: Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered that: (i) the two defendants immediately stop the infringing act; (ii) Yinchu Co. pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 40,000.
Decision Date: October 19, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Hongchen Co.) charged the 1st defendant (Yinchu Co.) with infringing on its patent right for the design of a cup by making and selling cups that incorporated the patented design. The 2nd defendant (Hymart Mall) was likewise charged for selling the said cups. The court ruled in favor the plaintiff.
After comparison, the court decided that the cups the 1st defendant made infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right and 1st defendant was to bear civil liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patent involved, the degree of fault of the infringer, the duration of the infringing act, the quantity of the infringing products manufactured and sold, and the fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act. As Hymart Mall proved that it acquired the infringing cups legitimately, the court decided that it did not have to pay damages.
The court based its ruling on General Principles of PRC Civil Law Article 118; PRC Patent Law 11, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21, and 22.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Guangzhou Jinpeng Industrial Co., Ltd. v. LIANG Guangbing
File No. C090124
Case Name: Guangzhou Jinpeng Industrial Co., Ltd. v. LIANG Guangbing
Filing Date: September 01, 2008
Plaintiff: Guangzhou Jinpeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (Jinpeng Co.)
Defendant: LIANG Guangbing
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 50,000; (ii) injunction and destruction of infringing products; (iii) compensate appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act in the amount of RMB 476; (iv) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Hubei Province Wuhan City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered the defendant to: (i) immediately stop the infringing act; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 10,000.
Decision Date: November 20, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Jinpeng Co.) charged the defendant (LIANG Guangbing) with infringing on its patent right for the invention of a self-fit light steel keel by selling and using infringing products. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant admitted that he sold the allegedly infringing products and, to minimize his loss, continued to sell the infringing products after being informed by the plaintiff of the allegedly infringing act.
After comparison, the court confirmed that the allegedly infringing products incorporated all the essential technical features of the patented invention. As the defendant continued to sell the infringing products after being informed of the allegedly infringing act, and as he did not have evidence proving that he acquired the infringing products legitimately, the court held that he infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right and was to bear civil liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patent involved; the seriousness, the two months’ duration, the backwardness of the geographical location of the infringing act; and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act.
The court based its ruling on PRC Patent Law Article 56, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21; and PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 130.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: Guangzhou Jinpeng Industrial Co., Ltd. v. LIANG Guangbing
Filing Date: September 01, 2008
Plaintiff: Guangzhou Jinpeng Industrial Co., Ltd. (Jinpeng Co.)
Defendant: LIANG Guangbing
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 50,000; (ii) injunction and destruction of infringing products; (iii) compensate appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act in the amount of RMB 476; (iv) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Hubei Province Wuhan City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered the defendant to: (i) immediately stop the infringing act; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 10,000.
Decision Date: November 20, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Jinpeng Co.) charged the defendant (LIANG Guangbing) with infringing on its patent right for the invention of a self-fit light steel keel by selling and using infringing products. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant admitted that he sold the allegedly infringing products and, to minimize his loss, continued to sell the infringing products after being informed by the plaintiff of the allegedly infringing act.
After comparison, the court confirmed that the allegedly infringing products incorporated all the essential technical features of the patented invention. As the defendant continued to sell the infringing products after being informed of the allegedly infringing act, and as he did not have evidence proving that he acquired the infringing products legitimately, the court held that he infringed on the plaintiff’s patent right and was to bear civil liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringing act and paying damages. The court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the type of the patent involved; the seriousness, the two months’ duration, the backwardness of the geographical location of the infringing act; and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act.
The court based its ruling on PRC Patent Law Article 56, 63; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21; and PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 130.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Jinan Deca Machine Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Jinan Huiyin Huafeng Machine Factory
File No. C090122
Case Name: Jinan Deca Machine Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Jinan Huiyin Huafeng Machine Factory
Filing Date: June 02, 2008
Plaintiff: Jinan Deca Machine Holdings Co., Ltd. (Deca Co.)
Defendant: Jinan Huiyin Huafeng Machine Factory (Huafeng Factory)
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 300,000; (ii) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Shandong Province Jinan City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered the defendant to pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 60,000.
Decision Date: November 21. 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Deca Co.) charged the defendant (Huafeng Factory) with infringing on its patent right for the utility model of a seam cleaning device of welding machines by participating in an exhibition fair at Shenyang International Exhibition Center and exhibiting infringing products, and continuing to infringe on the plaintiff’s said patent right after the plaintiff complained to Jinan City Intellectual Property Office and the IP Office confirmed of the defendant’s infringing act and ordered injunction. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Jinan City Intellectual Property Office held that the Top Grade Colorful PVC Window/Door Seamless Welding Machine Huafeng Factory exhibited at the Exhibition Fair incorporated all the essential technical features of the patented device and ordered Huafeng Factory to stop the infringing act, destroy the production tools for the infringing products, and to dismantle the infringing parts from the whole products. Huafeng Factory’s subsequent administrative litigation against Jinan City Intellectual Property Office over the said administrative decision was rejected by Jinan City Intermediate People’s Court.
The present court further compared the seam cleaning device on the allegedly infringing welding machines with the plaintiff’s patented utility model and held that the device fell within the scope of protection of the said patent. The court held that Huafeng Factory exploited the said patent for business purposes without the right holder’s permission and its act constituted patent infringement. The court rejected Huafeng Factory’s claim that it only sold welding machines and the seam cleaning device must have been installed by the consumer, due to a lack of evidence and the fact that the welding machine exhibited at the Exhibition Fair had the seam cleaning device installed. The court based the amount of damages awarded on the production scale of Huafeng Factory, the value of the seam cleaning device in comparison to the whole welding machine, and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act.
The court based its ruling on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 64; PRC Patent Law Article 11, 56; and Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing
Case Name: Jinan Deca Machine Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Jinan Huiyin Huafeng Machine Factory
Filing Date: June 02, 2008
Plaintiff: Jinan Deca Machine Holdings Co., Ltd. (Deca Co.)
Defendant: Jinan Huiyin Huafeng Machine Factory (Huafeng Factory)
Cause(s) of Action: Patent infringement
Remedy Requested: (i) Pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 300,000; (ii) undertake payment for entire cost of proceedings.
Trial Court: Shandong Province Jinan City Intermediate People’s Court
Disposition: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of patent infringement. The court ordered the defendant to pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 60,000.
Decision Date: November 21. 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Deca Co.) charged the defendant (Huafeng Factory) with infringing on its patent right for the utility model of a seam cleaning device of welding machines by participating in an exhibition fair at Shenyang International Exhibition Center and exhibiting infringing products, and continuing to infringe on the plaintiff’s said patent right after the plaintiff complained to Jinan City Intellectual Property Office and the IP Office confirmed of the defendant’s infringing act and ordered injunction. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Jinan City Intellectual Property Office held that the Top Grade Colorful PVC Window/Door Seamless Welding Machine Huafeng Factory exhibited at the Exhibition Fair incorporated all the essential technical features of the patented device and ordered Huafeng Factory to stop the infringing act, destroy the production tools for the infringing products, and to dismantle the infringing parts from the whole products. Huafeng Factory’s subsequent administrative litigation against Jinan City Intellectual Property Office over the said administrative decision was rejected by Jinan City Intermediate People’s Court.
The present court further compared the seam cleaning device on the allegedly infringing welding machines with the plaintiff’s patented utility model and held that the device fell within the scope of protection of the said patent. The court held that Huafeng Factory exploited the said patent for business purposes without the right holder’s permission and its act constituted patent infringement. The court rejected Huafeng Factory’s claim that it only sold welding machines and the seam cleaning device must have been installed by the consumer, due to a lack of evidence and the fact that the welding machine exhibited at the Exhibition Fair had the seam cleaning device installed. The court based the amount of damages awarded on the production scale of Huafeng Factory, the value of the seam cleaning device in comparison to the whole welding machine, and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act.
The court based its ruling on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 64; PRC Patent Law Article 11, 56; and Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerning Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Controversies Article 21.
Copyright 2009, InterLingua Publishing