Mitsubishi Jindosha Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha and/or Mitsubishi Jidosha Engineering Kabushiki Kaisha vs. China Anhui Jianghuai Automobile Co., Ltd. and Beijing Tiantongrui Automobile Trading Co., Ltd.

 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.

Hunan Chinasun Pharmaceutical Machinery Co., Ltd. vs. Shandong Xinhua Medical Instrument Co., Ltd. and Beijing Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Parties involved:

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)

Industry concerned:

Pharmaceutical machinery filed

 Background:

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.

Outcome:

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.

Erqiang Bai vs. Fujian ETIM Information & Technology Co., Ltd.

 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.

 

RENA GMBH vs. Yiquan Electric Heater Hangings Co., Ltd. and Maoyan Ran

 Parties involved:

Plaintiff: RENA GMBH (hereinafter, RENA)

The first defendant: Yiquan Electric Heater Hangings Co., Ltd.(hearinafter, Yiquan)

The second defendant: Maoyan Ran, operator of Gangshen Machinery Factory

Court who hears the case:

Dongguan Intermediate Court (first instance)

 Industry concerned:

Machinery and photovoltaic field

 Background:

 RENA enjoys an invention patent ZL03813930.8, in January of 2013, RENA found Yiquan was selling PVC rollers who were suspected to infringe RENA’s said invention patent, so, RENA entrusted us to handle the case on behalf of it.

After entrusted, we, under efforts, successfully made notarized purchase for the suspected infringing PVC rollers from Yiquan and notarized its website, on such basis, RENA brought lawsuit before Dongguan Intermediate Court, claiming stop of infringement and payment of compensation of RMB 500,000.

To escape the infringement, Yiquan provided evidence to try to prove the suspected infringing PVC rollers are from Gangshen Machinery Factory whose operator is Maoyan Ran, therefore, we added Maoyan Ran as codefendant, during the hearing, Maoyan Ran submitted further evidence, arguing it is entrusted by Yiquan to produce said suspected infringing PVC rollers.

Outcome:

By examination, the court finally made the judgment, judging Yiquan’s act constitutes infringement and should stop the infringement immediately, and meanwhile pay compensation of RMB300,000 to RENA.