August 28, 2006
Dear presiding judge and judge:
Hunan ** Law Firm accepted the entrustment of the plaintiff ** and assigned our lawyer to attend today's court hearing. After accepting the entrustment, our agent has carefully studied the basic facts, relevant evidence and relevant laws of the entire case. Through today's court hearing, the facts of this case have been basically clear. We now issue the following agency opinions on relevant issues:
1 , the basic facts about this case.
On July 4, 1991, the plaintiff Hu **, as the applicant, filed an invention patent application titled "A Conductor for Welding Pliers" with the China Patent Office. On September 28, 1996, China The Patent Office granted the patent right to "a conductor for electric welding pliers" invented by the plaintiff Hu **. The patent number is: ZL91104618.6. The claims of the invention patent are: "1. An electric welding pliers conductor, including a conductor, characterized in that a long slot is opened from the rear end of the conductor to the front end. 2. According to claim 1 The conductor of the welding pliers is characterized in that the opening of the long groove is located on the opposite side of the electrode contact surface (9). 3. The conductor of the welding pliers according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that the cross-sectional area in the groove Greater than 50 mm2. 4. The electric welding clamp conductor according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that a wiring device (6) is installed on the conductor (1). 5. The electric welding clamp according to claim 3 Plier conductor, characterized in that a wiring device (6) is installed on the conductor (1). 6. The electric welding plier conductor according to claim 4, characterized in that the wiring device (6) uses rivets or screws Fastened to the conductor (1), the cross-sectional area of the wiring hole (7) between the conductor (1) and the wiring device (6) is greater than 50 mm2. 7. The conductive welding clamp according to claim 5 The body is characterized in that the wiring device (6) is fastened to the conductor (1) with rivets or screws, and the cross-sectional area of the wiring hole (7) between the conductor (1) and the wiring device (6) is greater than 50 mm2."
The patentee of this patent is the plaintiff Hu **. Starting from December 2003, the plaintiff signed a contract with Changsha Welding Pliers Factory Co., Ltd. to license the invention patent to Changsha City Implemented by Welding Pliers Factory Co., Ltd. On June 22, 2005, the contract was filed with the State Intellectual Property Office, with the filing number being 044300030004. It was stipulated that the nature of the contract was "Pure Patent Implementation License", the license type was "General License", and the total royalties were 800,000. Yuan et al.
Since 2004, the plaintiff Hu ** discovered that the defendant Cixi Jinyuan Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinyuan Company) manufactured a product called "Sain" brand 500A, 600A, 500-800A Welding pliers are made ofThe lawsuit was filed against Changsha Tianhong Welding Materials Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianhong Company) and other companies for sale in the Changsha market. After comparing with the patented product "non-hot welding pliers" of the plaintiff Hu **, this series of welding pliers has the technology patented by the plaintiff. Characteristics, this series of products are imitations of the plaintiff's patented products, which has constituted an infringement of the patent rights of the plaintiff Hu **.
The actions of the second and two defendants have constituted infringement.
1. The plaintiff has legal patent ownership of the patent "a conductor for electric welding pliers". First, the plaintiff’s patent is a valid patent authorized by the state. On September 28, 1996, the China Patent Office granted the patent right to "a conductor for electric welding pliers" invented by the plaintiff Hu **. The patent number is: ZL91104618.6. Second, the plaintiff’s patent is within the validity period of the patent. The validity period of invention patents in my country is 20 years, and the plaintiff’s patent protection period is from 1991 to 2011. Since the patent right was granted, the plaintiff has been paying annual fees in accordance with legal requirements. Third, there are no facts or reasons for the plaintiff’s patent to be revoked or declared invalid. Therefore, the plaintiff has always had legal patent rights to the patent it owns.
2. Defendants Jinyuan Company and Tianhong Company have committed illegal acts of patent infringement. First, the "Sain" brand 500A, 600A, 500-800A welding clamps manufactured by the defendant Jinyuan Company have fallen into the scope of the plaintiff's patent protection. To determine whether the infringement is established, it mainly depends on whether the infringer's product falls within the scope of patent protection. According to legal provisions, the scope of protection of invention patent rights shall be based on the claims, and the description and drawings may explain the claims. The scope of protection of a patent right shall be determined by the necessary technical features clearly stated in the claims, and shall also include the scope determined by features equivalent to the necessary technical features. Equivalent features refer to features that use basically the same means to achieve basically the same functions and achieve basically the same effects as the recorded technical features, and that a person of ordinary skill in the field can associate with them without having to go through creative work. Analyzing the independent claims of the patent in this case, there are seven necessary technical features (already stated in the above facts). The 500A, 600A, 500-800A welding clamps produced by the defendant Jinyuan Company and the plaintiff’s patent Comparing the independent claims, the infringing products produced by the defendant Jinyuan Company have completely fallen into the scope of the plaintiff’s patent protection. The products produced by the defendant Jinyuan Company are the same products as those directly obtained according to the plaintiff's patented method. Therefore, the products produced by the defendant Jinyuan Company have constituted infringement. Second, the defendant Jinyuan Company illegally implemented the patent for the purpose of production, operation and profit without the permission of the plaintiff. According to Article 11 of the Patent Law, “After the patent right for an invention or utility model is granted, except as otherwise provided in this Law, no unit or individual may exploit the patent without the permission of the patentee, that is, it shall not be used for production purposes. Manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import its patented products for business purposes, orThe person uses its patented method and uses, offers for sale, sells, or imports products directly obtained according to the patented method. "According to this provision, first of all, the products produced by the defendant Jinyuan Company based on the plaintiff's patent did not obtain the permission of the plaintiff's patentee. Secondly, it can be seen from the basic situation of the defendant Jinyuan Company that the defendant Jinyuan Company From August 20, 1999, it applied to the industrial and commercial department for company change, and its business scope was added to "manufacturing and processing of hardware, tools, and electrical accessories." From this time on, the defendant Jinyuan Company aimed at production, operation and profit-making. began to produce infringing products. Third, the defendant Tianhong Company sold products directly obtained according to the plaintiff's patented method without the permission of the plaintiff Hu **, and its behavior constituted infringement. The defendant Tianhong Company sold products that infringed the patent rights. If it could not To prove the legal origin of its products, it should bear corresponding liability for compensation.