Category Archives: Settlement

Analysis over the Patented Design Dispute between FIAT and GWM in China

Posted on by
u=1885643774,3302847458&fm=23&gp=0_副本

You may click here for the simplified version of this post, if you feel the current one is too long to read.

Case summary:

On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff FIAT AUTO S.P.A (“FIAT”) applied for a design patent named “automobile” with the State Intellectual Property Organization (the “SIPO”). That application was approved on May 19, 2004 with patent number ZL03353217.6 (the “Patent”).

In November 2006 and April 2007, Great Wall Motor Company Limited (GWM) exhibited its vehicle, the “GreatWall Jingling” in the Beijing Auto Show and Shanghai Auto Show. FIAT alleged that the vehicle exhibited by GWM infringed upon its patented design, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court, demanding an apology and compensation.

READ MORE

Introduction and Legal Analysis on the Patent Design Dispute between the Honda CRV And Shuanghuan Auto

Posted on by
02010732171_副本

(By Luo Yanjie) The patented design dispute between Shuanghuan Auto and Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (the “Honda”) has been a subject of strong focus within the industry. With the review of the case in the Supreme People’s Court, it determined the patented design right enjoyed by Honda and overthrew the annulled sentences in the first and second instance, The case has been battled through the courts for eight years, and now returns to its starting point. This post will discuss the arguments adopted in a review of the sentence, and why it shall be different from those in the first and second instance.

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, II

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IPR Infringement Cases

In today’s post we will continue to discuss the standards to be considered in determining the liability of e-merchant platforms.

III. Standards in Determining the Indirect Infringement Liability of E-Merchant Platforms

As discussed above, an e-merchant platform may only assume indirect infringement liability under the law, and therefore it would not be necessarily always be liable for infringement occurring on its platform. The pressing question then, is what standards shall be utilized when determining their liability? In response to this question, we would like to share our analysis based on a comparison of similar statutes:

READ MORE

Analysis of the Assumption of Liability for E-Merchants in IPR Disputes in China, I

Posted on by

—Interpretations on Solutions to Several Issues in Hearing E-Commerce IP Infringement Cases

(By Luo Yanjie) In recent years, E-Commerce in China has thrived along with the development of online shopping. According to some news reports, the volume of the transactions from 360buy.com totaled more than RMB sixty billion Yuan, and Suning’s online sales achieved a comparatively paltry RMB 18.336 billion Yuan. With respect to Taobao.com and its affiliated websites, their business gains have vastly superseded all other rivals. By November 2012, Taobao.com and Tmall had sales of over RMB 1000 billion Yuan, which is almost three times that of Bailian Group, Suning and Gome’ s annual income in 2011 combined. The aforesaid three companies are currently the top three retail chains in China.

READ MORE

How Do Chinese Courts Distinguish “Manufacture” and “Sale” When Hearing Design Patent Infringement Cases?

Posted on by
360截图-27970776

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, the manufacture and sale of patented products are easily distinguished. Sale normally refers to infringing sale and purchase of patented products with no engagement in assembly or manufacture. In the case introduced in this essay, however, whether the behavior of the defendant was “manufacture” or “sale” is the key point argued. Now we would like to use the case and relevant law to introduce the difference between design patent “manufacture” and “sale.”

READ MORE

Who Has the Burden of Proving “Profit After Tax” When Calculating Remuneration for a Patented Invention?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In the previous post, the author introduced how to determine the unit granted the patent right by looking at a case decided by a Shanghai court. Today, the author will use a case from a Guangdong court to introduce how the court there held on who must prove “the profit after tax” when a dispute breaks out on invention remuneration payable by the unit granted the patent right.

Summary of the case:

The employee inventor, Mr. Zhu, worked for Dongguan Wei Ba Cleaning Equipment Co., Ltd (the “Wei Ba Company”) from 1998 to 2006. During his employment, Mr. Zhu participated in the development of sixteen patents and was also registered as a joint inventor in the company’s patent applications. Afterwards, the Wei Ba Company exercised some of the patents but did not pay Mr. Zhu any remuneration. For this reason, Mr. Zhu filed a lawsuit against the Wei Ba Company, claiming that remuneration payable for his invention should be calculated based on the 2004 Annual Joint Inspection Report that the Wei Ba Company submitted to the Ministry of Commerce, which indicated the company’s total profit after tax. Moreover, Mr. Zhu claimed that the remuneration shall be calculated for the past two years.

READ MORE

Shall Parent Company Make the Payment for Subsidiary Employees’ Invention for Hire?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In past essays, the author has introduced the legal issues related to the establishment of remuneration for inventions developed under work for hire schemes, and payment of said remuneration. Through a study of two recent cases, the author has found that the comments made by the judge in them is of reference value when deciding the “unit granted the patent right” and the “one liable to prove after tax profits”. In the meantime, the author would like to share his interpretation and analysis in these two posts.

READ MORE

New Rules on the Protection on the Patent Made for Hire in China

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) In previous posts, we introduced our readers to ways to pay remuneration for the invention made for hire, and the standard adopted by Chinese courts in related disputes. On 26th November 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office (the “SIPO”), accompanied by 12 other authorities, jointly released the “Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Protection of Service Inventor’s Legal Interests and Promoting IPR Implementation (the “Opinions”), which demand a strengthened protection on the rights of service inventors in several aspects. In today’s post, you will be able to become more familiar with the main points contained within the Opinions.

READ MORE

How Chinese Courts Determine Remuneration for Employee Inventions?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Yesterday’s post introduced regulations concerning calculation and payment of remuneration for the invention made for hire. The post also pointed out problems in the existing law, both at the by the central government and local level, namely that they lack binding authority, have low enforcement, or provide inadequate regulation on the liability of the unit.

The author has conducted research on these points in the established cases in China and found a case decided last year by the Guangdong High People’s Court (“Guangdong Court”), which is of referential value to settling the above problems.

READ MORE

How Should Chinese Businesses Pay Remuneration for Inventions Created by Their Employees?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Statistics have shown that since 2007, the invention made for hire have comprised over half of China’s patent applications, and the number is still increasing. According to Article 16 of the Patent Law: “The unit that is granted the patent right shall reward the inventor or designer of an employee invention. After such patent is utilized, the inventor or designer shall be given a reasonable amount of remuneration according to the scope of application and the economic results.”

READ MORE

The Judicial Jurisdiction of Network Infringement in China

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

In the post Could Apple Use Objection to Jurisdiction to Prolong the Litigation Period?, we introduced the objection to jurisdiction Apple submitted to the Beijing Second Intermediate Court after it was sued by the China Writers Alliance over downloads in Apple’s App Store. In China, the infringement or tort cases shall be brought to the court of infringement place or the domicile of the defendant, and the infringement place may include the place where the infringement takes place or the place where the consequences of the infringement are felt. With regard to network infringement, could the place where the consequence of infringement is felt include any computer terminal? Today, we will introduce the relevant system.

READ MORE

Key Points to Foreign Company’s IPR Litigation Preparation in China

Posted on by

By Luo Yanjie

With the development of economy, China pays more and more attention to the protection of intellectual property. But whether the patent, trademark or copyright, a lot of high value intellectual property rights belong to foreign companies. Facing the still serious infringing situation, the civil lawsuit is still the most common and reliable means to strike infringement. As for foreign investors, what deserves the attention when preparing lawsuit materials? Today we would like to share the topic with readers as follows:

READ MORE

MOC: Data of IP Infringement Law Enforcement of this 1st Quarter in China

Posted on by

By You Yunting

The Ministry of Commerce (MOC) reported on 12th the latest progress of the combat against the IPR infringement and knockoff production in 2012 in China. And today’s post is mainly about part of the data released on the conference.

By the preliminary statistics, during this January to April, the commerce law enforcement departments nationwide have investigated and punished those involved in 78,773 cases of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement and counterfeits, with the money involved of 1, 810 million yuan, 44,371 settled , 1, 016 transferred to the judicial organ and 4,065 dens for counterfeit manufacture are smashed. Also during the period, the public security department investigated 7, 140 cases of infringement and counterfeits, with 9, 305 suspects were arrested and 161. 1 million yuan is involved. During January to April, the procuratorate approved the arrestment in 1, 743 infringement or counterfeits cases and on 3, 289 individuals, and prosecuted 2, 516 cases and 4, 870 individuals. And also in the same period, 2, 586 criminal cases relating to the IPR infringement and counterfeits are filed in the courts throughout the nation, 2, 021 were settled and 3, 170 individuals are covered by the effective sentences.

READ MORE

Data on IPR Development in China, 2011

Posted on by

In recent, the News Office of the State Council held a news conference (note: the link is in Chinese), releasing the data on China IPR development in 2011, and the details are as follows:

Under the unified deployment of special acts by the State Council in combating the IPR infringement and the production and selling of the fake and substandard products, the filed cases in the administration of each level are 155, 900 with the involved amount of CNY 3.43 billion, 1, 702 cases were transferred to judicial organs and 9, 135 shelters were shut down.

READ MORE

Reconciliation in Patent Dispute between Ericsson and ZTE: While No Release of the Actual Compensation

According to the report (in Chinese) of Donews, a tech website in China, Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and ZTE (SEHK: 0763, SZSE: 000063) have signed a global cross license agreement and agree to withdraw all the lawsuits against each other, while, on the other hand, no disclosure on the patent fee paid by ZTE to Ericsson.

In April of 2011, Ericsson filed a lawsuit against ZTE in Germany, UK and Italy, claiming the infringement against its patent of GSM and 3G/UMTS wireless technology. After that, there saw a heavy fall of the stock price both in A and H market of ZTE, which was the new lowest price then. And until closing on Wednesday then (19th, January), the price of it in the A stock market was encountered a decline limit and a plunge of 7% in H stock market. According to the stock agent, that mainly resulted from the possible influence of the lawsuit initiated by Ericsson on the achievement in 2011 of ZTE.

READ MORE