Category: Case

 Parties involved:

 Plaintiff: Mitsubishi Jindosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and/or Mitsubishi Jidosha Engineering Kabushiki Kaisha (hereinafter, “Mitsubishi”)

The first defendant: China Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “JAC”)

The second defendant: Beijing Tiantongrui Automobile Trading Co., Ltd.  (hereinafter referred to as “Tiantongrui”)

 Court who hears the case:

 Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court(first instance)

 Industry concerned:

Machinery and automobile field

Background:

 Mitsubishi found JAC was producing the cars including “同悦” which were suspected to infringe Mitsubishi’s invention patents, and then entrusted us to handle this infringement.  After entrusted, we made on-site investigation on the distributor of JAC in Beijing, Tiantongrui, and successfully collected solid infringement evidence, then filed five civil litigations against JAC and its distributor on behalf of Mitsubishi, by the court examination, JAC finally reached the settlement with Mitsubishi including stopping the infringement and paying a certain amount of compensation.

 Outcome:

Settlement was finally reached, and JAC stopped the infringement and pay an amount of compensation to Mitsubishi.

 Parties involved:

 The appellant: Mr. Erqiang Bai

The appellee: Fujian ETIM Information & Technology Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “ETIM”)

Court who hears the case:

Beijing High Court (second instance)

Industry concerned:

Computer network & communication filed

Background:

Mr. Erqiang Bai appealed to Beijing High Court, claiming that the judgment of first instance, which decided the “ETIM system” made by ETIM did not fall into the scope of protection of his patent ZL200410009322.9 and accordingly ETIM did not constitute patent infringement, was wrong, we, upon entrusting, represented ETIM to involve the case, by cross-examination on the evidences and court debate, we finally persuade the appeal court to reject all the claims of Mr. Erqiang Bai and maintain the judgment of first instance.

Outcome:

The claims of Mr. Erqiang Bai were rejected and the judgment of first instance was maintained.