Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes
Article 1 The people's court shall determine the scope of protection of the patent right based on the claims asserted by the right holder and the provisions of Article 59, paragraph 1, of the Patent Law. If the right holder changes his or her claimed rights before the conclusion of the debate in the first-instance court, the people's court shall allow it.
If the right holder claims to determine the scope of patent protection based on dependent claims, the people's court shall use the additional technical features recorded in the dependent claims and the claims cited therein The recorded technical characteristics determine the scope of protection of the patent right.
Article 2 The people's court shall determine the patent law based on the record of the claims and the understanding of the claims by ordinary skilled persons in the field after reading the description and drawings. The content of the claims specified in Article 59, paragraph 1.
Article 3 The People's Court may use the description and drawings, relevant claims in the claims, and patent examination files to interpret claims. If the description has special definitions for claim terms, those special definitions shall prevail.
If the meaning of the claim still cannot be clarified by the above method, it can be interpreted in conjunction with reference books, textbooks and other well-known documents as well as the common understanding of those of ordinary skill in the art.
Article 4 For technical features expressed as functions or effects in claims, the people's court shall combine the specific implementation of the functions or effects described in the description and drawings. methods and their equivalent implementation methods to determine the content of the technical features.
Article 5: For technical solutions that are only described in the description or drawings but not recorded in the claims, the rights holder shall If it is included in the scope of patent protection, the People's Court will not support it.
Article 6 If a patent applicant or patentee abandons a technical solution by modifying the claims or description or making a statement of opinions during the patent authorization or invalidation procedure, the patentee shall include it in the patent in a patent infringement dispute case. If the scope of rights protection is exceeded, the people's court will not support it.
Article 7 The people's court determines whether the alleged infringing technical solution falls within the scope of patent rights To determine the scope of protection, all technical features recorded in the claims claimed by the right holder shall be examined.
If the alleged infringing technical solution contains technical features that are the same or equivalent to all the technical features recorded in the claims, the people's court shall determine that it falls within the protection of patent rights. Scope; if the technical features of the alleged infringing technical solution lack more than one technical feature recorded in the claim compared with all the technical features recorded in the claim, or if more than one technical feature is different or equivalent, the people's court shall determine that the technical feature is not the same or equivalent. does not fall within the scope of patent protection.
Article 8 If a design that is the same or similar to the authorized design is used for the same or similar type of product as the patented design, the people's court shall determine The alleged infringing design falls within the scope of protection of design patent rights stipulated in Article 59, Paragraph 2, of the Patent Law.
Article 9 The People's Court shall determine whether the product types are the same or similar based on the purpose of the design product. To determine the purpose of the product, you can refer to the brief description of the design, the international design classification table, the function of the product, the sales and actual use of the product, and other factors.
Article 10 The People's Court shall determine whether the designs are identical or similar based on the knowledge level and cognitive ability of the average consumer of the design patented product.
Article 11 When the people's court determines whether the designs are identical or similar, it shall based on the design features of the authorized design and the accused infringing design, and The overall visual effect shall be comprehensively judged; design features mainly determined by technical functions as well as product materials, internal structure and other features that have no impact on the overall visual effect shall not be considered.
The following situations usually have a greater impact on the overall visual effect of the exterior design:
( 1) The parts of the product that are easily directly observed during normal use are relatively different from other parts.Part;
(2) The design features of the authorized design that are different from the existing design relative to other design features of the authorized design.
If there is no difference in the overall visual effect between the accused infringing design and the authorized design, the people's court shall determine that the two are the same; there is no substantial difference in the overall visual effect If there is any difference, the two should be deemed to be similar.
Article 12 If a product that infringes an invention or utility model patent is used as a component to manufacture another product, the people's court shall determine that it falls within Article 10 of the Patent Law. The use behavior stipulated in Article 1; if the other product is sold, the People's Court shall determine that it is a sales behavior stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law.
If a product that infringes the design patent right is used as a component to manufacture another product and sell it, the people's court shall determine that it falls within the scope of Article 11 of the Patent Law. Sales behavior, except where the product that infringes the design patent rights only has technical functions in another product.
For the situations specified in the first two paragraphs, if there is division of labor and cooperation between the accused infringers, the people's court shall determine it as joint infringement.
Article 13: For original products obtained using patented methods, the People's Court shall determine them as products directly obtained according to patented methods as stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law. .
For the further processing and processing of the above-mentioned original products to obtain subsequent products, the People's Court shall determine that the use of the patent is subject to Article 11 of the Patent Law. Products obtained directly from the method.
Article 14 All the technical features alleged to fall within the scope of patent protection are the same as the corresponding technical features in an existing technical solution or have no substance If there are sexual differences, the people's court shall determine that the technology implemented by the accused infringer belongs to the prior art specified in Article 62 of the Patent Law.
If the accused infringing design is the same as or has no substantial difference from an existing design, the people's court shall determine that the design implemented by the accused infringer falls within the scope of Article 6 of the Patent Law. Existing designs specified in Article 12.
Article 15 If the accused infringer claims prior right to use illegally obtained technology or design, the people's court will not support it.
YesIn any of the following circumstances, the People's Court shall determine that the necessary preparations for manufacture and use have been made as specified in Article 69 (2) of the Patent Law:
(1) The main technical drawings or process documents necessary for the implementation of the invention and creation have been completed;
(2) The equipment necessary for the implementation of the invention and creation have been manufactured or purchased Main equipment or raw materials.
The original scope stipulated in Article 69 (2) of the Patent Law includes the existing production scale before the patent application date and the use of existing production Equipment or the production scale that can be achieved based on existing production preparations.
The accused infringer claimed that the prior user transferred or licensed the technology or design that he had implemented or made necessary preparations for implementation to others after the patent application date. If the implementation behavior is continued within the original scope, the people's court will not support it, except where the technology or design is transferred or inherited together with the original enterprise.
Benefits derived from infringement of patent rights and benefits derived from other rights shall be reasonably deducted.
If the product that infringes the patent right for an invention or utility model is a component of another product, the people's court shall consider the value of the component itself and its role in realizing the finished product. Factors such as the role of profit in determining the amount of compensation should be reasonably determined.
If the product that infringes the design patent right is a package, the people's court shall consider the value of the package itself and its role in realizing the profits of the packaged product, etc. factors to reasonably determine the amount of compensation.
Article 17 If the product or the technical solution for manufacturing the product is known to the public at home and abroad before the date of patent application, the people's court shall determine that the product does not belong to the patent New products specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law.
Article 18 If the right holder issues a warning to others for patent infringement, and the warned person or interested party urges the right holder in writing to exercise the right to sue, the right holder shall Within one month from the date of receipt of the written reminder or within two months from the date of issuance of the written reminder, if the right holder does not withdraw the warning or file a lawsuit, the person warned or the interested party shall file a request with the People's Court to confirm that his or her behavior is illegal. The People's Court shall accept litigation for infringement of patent rights.
Article 19: If the alleged infringement of patent rights occurred before October 1, 2009, the people's court shall apply the patent law before the amendment; if the alleged infringement occurred on October 1, 2009 After that date, the People's Court will apply the revised Patent Law.
The alleged infringement of patent rights occurred before October 1, 2009 and continued after October 1, 2009. According to the pre-amendment and post-amendment If the Patent Law stipulates that all infringers shall be liable for compensation, the People's Court shall apply the revised Patent Law to determine the amount of compensation.
Article 20 If the relevant judicial interpretations previously issued by this court are inconsistent with this interpretation, this interpretation shall prevail.
The above are the answers of the editor of Legal Savior Network to related questions. I hope it will be helpful to you. If you still have questions, you can consult the professional lawyers of Legal Savior Network online.
No comments yet. Say something...