[Case No.] (2020) Supreme People’s Court Zhi Xing Zhong No. 282, (2019) Supreme People’s Court Zhi Min Zhong No. 725
[Case basics] Dunjun Company is the patentee of the invention patent titled "A Simple Method for Accessing Network Operators' Portal Sites". Dunjun Company believes that Weimeng Company manufactures and sells without permission, and Guanfeng Company sells products that fall within the scope of its patent protection without permission, so it filed a lawsuit with Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court. The Quanzhou Intermediate People’s Court found that the alleged infringing product fell within the scope of the patent protection in the case; Guanfeng’s legal source defense was established, and the first-instance judgment was made: Weimeng Company and Guanfeng Company immediately cease infringement; Weimeng Company compensates Dunjun’s economy loss 10 million yuan. Weimeng refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. Before Dunjun Company filed this case with the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court, the China National Intellectual Property Administration made an examination decision on the invalidation request made by Weimeng Company on the patent right involved in the case, and maintained the patent right involved in the case valid. After the court of first instance made a first-instance judgment on the civil infringement case filed by Dunjun Company, Weimeng Company filed an administrative lawsuit against the above-mentioned invalidity review decision, and later appealed to the Supreme People's Court because of dissatisfaction with the first-instance judgment of the administrative lawsuit. The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court coordinated the trial of the aforementioned administrative and civil appeal cases involving the same patent. It issued an administrative second-instance judgment on December 23, 2020 to maintain the validity of the patents involved, and a second-instance civil judgment was issued on December 30 to determine the accused. The sued infringing behavior constitutes an infringement, and the first-instance judgment on stop the infringement and compensate 10 million yuan is upheld.
[Typical significance] The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court gave full play to the advantages of the unified trial of civil and administrative appeals of technical intellectual property in the two cases, and effectively solved the "patent administrative confirmation procedure" and the civil infringement procedure. The problem of “one case wait for another” and the usual “Ruling and appeal first, and prosecute separately” processing may cause the problem of idle procedure delays, as well as the problem of inconsistent interpretation of claims, and realize the trial of patent administrative confirmation cases and patent civil infringement cases. The seamless connection and coordination of results promoted the substantive and package settlement of patent disputes.
