Plaintiff: Hunan Chinasun Pharmaceutical Machinery Co., Ltd.(hereinafter, Chinasun)
The first defendant: Shandong Xinhua Medical Instrument Co., Ltd.(hereinafter, Xinhua)
The second defendant: Beijing Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.(hereinafter, Double-crane)
Court who hears the case:
Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court (first instance)
Beijing High Court (second instance)
Pharmaceutical machinery filed
Chinasun, as a big domestic company who is specialized in manufacture and sale of the pharmaceutical machinery, enjoyed an invention patent ZL200810183159.6. In 2013, Chinasun found Double-crane was using a soft bag infusion production line, which was suspected to infringe Chinasun’s said invention patent. Under such circumstance, Chinasun entrusted us to represent it to handle the case.
Upon entrusting, we first collected preliminary infringement evidence on the suspected infringing production line from Double-crane, and learned that the production line was manufactured and sold to Double-crane by Xinhua. Under such circumstance, upon the evidence collected, we sued Xinhua and Double-crane as codefendant before Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court, claiming both defendants should stop the infringement immediately and the defendant Xinhua should pay compensation of RMB2,000, 000 to for its infringement.
To delay the time, Xinhua filed objection on jurisdiction, by court examination of first and second instance, the objection was rejected and the infringement case resumed the hearing. Considering the production line is very complex, no sufficient evidence could be got during the evidence collection to show the infringement, so an application for scene-investigation was submitted to the court, the court finally accepted the application and made a detailed investigation on the suspected production line of Double-crane.
Upon evidence collected in the scene-investigation and court argument, the distinctive feature between the suspected infringing production line and the claim of the patent is that, the suspected infringing production line uses “rotable cylinder” to achieve the overturn of the soft bag, while the patent uses “linear motion cylinder+ articulated element” to realize said overturn, the dispute of the case is whether both means are equivalent replacement.
By examination, the court finally decided that the suspected infringing production line is not equivalent to the invention patent of Chinasun, no infringement is established by the defendants Xinhua and Double-crane.
Chinasun was not satisfied with the judgment of first instance and filed appeal before Beijing High Court, the court examination is still focused on whether the equivalent infringement is established. By court examination, the appeal court judged the equivalent infringement was established, the judgment of first instance was withdrawn and Xinhua should stop the infringement immediately and paid the compensation of RMB2,000,000 to Chinasun.
The court of first instance decided equivalent infringement was not established. The court of second instance affirmed the equivalent infringement and withdraw the judgment of first instance, and meanwhile Xinhua was judged to pay RMB2,000,000 to Chinasun as compensation for the loss Chinasun suffered from the infringement.