Plaintiff: Zhejiang Lingyang Medical Equipment Co., Ltd.
Legal representative Hu Junfei, a native of Baishuiyang Village, Linhai City, Zhejiang Province
Author Jiang Wei, Chen Zihao.
Defendant: Agent Su Weiqian, Zhejiang Kangkang Medical Equipment Co., Ltd.
Agent Wu Yu,
Third person: Third person: Wang Shiying.
Judges: examine the identity of the plaintiff and defendant, the identity of the agent, and the identity of the third party.
Judge: Whether to apply for recusal when forming a collegial panel
Plaintiff: No
Defendant: No
Judge: Do you know your rights and obligations< /p>
Plaintiff: I know
Defendant: I know
Judge: The trial is officially open
Plaintiff: Read the indictment. Request: Stop the infringement, stop selling unsold products, compensate for losses of 100,000 yuan, make a public apology, and the defendant shall bear investigation and attorney fees, and bear the litigation costs of this case.
Defendant: 1. Duplicate patent authorization is invalid. Utility model patents are the same as invention patents. If the date of the utility model patent is earlier, the invention patent should be invalid. 2. In the case where the plaintiff has no obligation to understand the utility model patent, the defendant has no obligation to understand the invention patent.
Presiding Judge: Does the third party have any opinions on the statements of the plaintiff and defendant?
Third party: None: Defendant: The plaintiff and the plaintiff’s utility model patent and invention patent are invalid.
Presiding Judge: Based on the statements of both parties, this court summarizes the key points of dispute in this case as follows: 1. Duplicate authorization of utility model patents and invention patents; 2. Utility model patents and invention patents conflict with each other, resulting in one of them The patent is invalid.
Presiding Judge: Do the plaintiff, defendant and third party have any objections
Plaintiff: No
Defendant: No
Presiding Judge: Now entering the court investigation stage, the plaintiff will first adduce evidence
Plaintiff’s evidence: Evidence No. is used to prove the legal identity of the plaintiff: Plaintiff, Defendant:
Plaintiff: The plaintiff’s evidence is used to prove the patent Invalid, the plaintiff’s evidence is used to prove that the patent is invalid, and the plaintiff’s evidence is used to prove that the patent is invalid. Page 3, Intellectual Property Certificate No. 60219, proves that the third party in this case, Wang Shiying, has obtained legal authorization from the State Intellectual Property Office. On page 4, a copy of the patent registration proves that Wang Shiying transferred all the rights to the above patent to the plaintiff and asserts the legality of our rights. Therefore, the products we produce are authorized by the third party Wang Shiying.
Judge: Does the defendant have any objection?
Defendant: 1. No objection to identity. 2. There is no objection to the form of the certificate of rights, but it is believed that the certificate of rights is defective.
Plaintiff: The technical performance of the defendant’s product completely covers the plaintiff’s. The invoice proves that the product alone is profitable, and the tax certificate proves the profit. Lawyer fee invoice, transportation fee invoice.
Defendant: Item 4. Evidence 5: The tax documents cannot prove that we make profits from the production of needles. Evidence 6: We have no objection to the invoice for attorney fees, but since the transportation expenses and accommodation expenses were not paid in the name of the defendant, we believe that they have no legal effect.
Presiding Judge: Does the plaintiff have any evidence?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Presiding Judge: Whether to submit it to the court within the defense period.
Plaintiff: Yes: Yes
Presiding Judge: Please state.
Plaintiff: 1. Patent transfer contract. 2. Wang Shiying’s invoice. 3. Notarized notice of acceptance of the transfer contract issued by the notary office. 4. The contract between Kangkang Company and Wang Shiying expired on December 28, 2004.
Judge: Yes
Defendant: Evidence 1-4 has nothing to do with this case and cannot change the fact of defective rights. Made by our company before December 28, 2004, we do not express any doubt.
Presiding Judge: Ask the defendant to provide evidence
Defendant: Evidence 1 and 2 are to prove the identity of our company’s principal and legal representative.
Presiding Judge: Should we submit it to the court?
Defendant: Submit it to the court.
Defendant: The fourth copy is from the State Patent Office, proving that Wang Shiyin’s patent has expired.
Presiding Judge: Any objection
Plaintiff: No objection to the identification, but objection to the fourth item. There is a conflict between a utility model and an invention patent, and the former should be revoked.
Defendant: The current factual status is that the utility model patent has not been revoked. The fifth proves that the invention patent is repeated authorization. It proves that the invention patent should be invalid.
Review: Whether to object.
Original: Yes.
Respondent: 6. The technology transfer contract signed between Wang Shiyin and Kangkang Company. Through this contract, we can only know that the other party has a utility model patent, but not that there are conflicting invention patents. Therefore, there is no subjective intention on our part.
Trial: Is there any objection
Plaintiff: Yes. This is not a contract of transfer of rights. This is just a technology licensing contract.
Defendant: Yes: We are correct that this is a technology licensing contract. But this does not affect our legal claims.
Trial: Whether both parties have new evidence to provide to the court.
Plaintiff: No: No, the court found that there was no evidence to support the claim.
Respondent: No.
Trial: The court investigation phase ends. Whether there is any objection to the focus issue
Original trial: No.
Respondent: No.
Third person: No.
Presiding Judge: Now enter the debate stage. Let’s look at the original statement first.
Original trial statement: We can see that there is no problem in Wang Shiyin’s invention being repeatedly patented. According to Article 13 of the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law, only one patent right can be granted for the same invention and creation, and according to the provisions of the Intellectual Property Office, the choice should be made by the parties involved. Therefore, we can draw the following conclusion: Since the right holder has repeatedly granted authorization, but utility model patents and invention patents are different due to different procedures, there is no situation where the patent is invalid due to later authorization. Nor will the patent enter the public domain. In particular, the defendant's production without any authorization after December 28, 2004, constitutes infringement.
Defendant: We do not agree with the internal regulations of the Intellectual Property Office, and the plaintiff should not have a choice. The utility model patent expired in August 2004, and the rights have expired. Transfer of rights makes no sense. When the plaintiff obtained two rights, he had sufficient time to choose the opportunity to waive the rights, but he did not make a request. Our company should not bear the consequences.
Third party: I don’t understand patent law. I have no reason to think that if the application is made in accordance with the national regulations and the form and procedure are correct and passed, there will be problems with the authorization from the Intellectual Property Office. I don't know much about this issue. But duplication of authority should not be the focus of this case.
Defendant: We believe that the third party’s personal ignorance of the law should not be an excuse.
Third person: I just follow customs.
Plaintiff: We believe that the Intellectual Property Office’s regulations are because the Patent Law does not provide detailed provisions on this issue, and the Intellectual Property Office, as an administrative department, can issue such issues. We believe that for patents that have been suspended or abandoned, it is still possible to apply for revocation of new type patents. We believe that it makes sense for third parties to waive their patent rights as they have indicated in their contracts with us.
Respondent: We believe that there is a conflict with Article 13 of the Patent Law, which stipulates that the third party has stated in the contract signed with us that the third party has intentionally given up the patent rights. , we can revoke its patent rights. Revocation is an administrative procedure and cannot be achieved through civil action.
Original text: I don’t think there is a conflict of law here. After invalidation, the invention still exists and should be protected.
Respondent: We suspect that the patent itself is defective.
Plaintiff: We believe that the third party’s statements are meaningful.
Third person:
I have just said that the legality of this law is mainly a problem of the review department. This issue should be a problem of the administrative department. What I need to emphasize is that whether there is duplicate authorization should be the reason. As a third party, I don’t think the case should be opened directly.
We are not maliciously infringing.
Original: Wang Shiyin signed a five-year contract with the defendant. To continue production after the contract expires, problems need to arise.
Defendant: Our production during this period was carried out in accordance with the contract.
Answer: We believe that the plaintiff did not have subjective intention for the production between December 28, 2004 and the lawsuit, and the plaintiff did not have the intention to consent
Original: We waived this period Claims for liability for loss of production products.
Review: Is there any change in the request?
Original: Yes: Yes.
Trial: Yes: Ask the third party if there is a notice of the right to choose between the two options
Third party: No.
Review: Whether the invention patent right of Kangkang Company is transferred during production
Third party: No.
Trial: Whether the third party knew about the patent conflict at the time of the original transfer
Original: I don’t know.
Trial: Did the Defendant Permit Your Improvements
Respondent: No.
Trial: Are there any questions
Plaintiff: No.
Respondent: No.
Trial: Plaintiff’s final statement.
Plaintiff’s final statement:
Plaintiff claims: The plaintiff’s claim is legal and valid. Request the defendant to stop the infringement and bear the litigation costs.
Trial: The defendant’s final statement.
Respondent: The repeated authorization behavior has no legal basis. We request that the judgment be invalid. We have no subjective fault and have no reason to bear the litigation costs.
Review: third party statement.
Third person: The fax is for utility models. I have no reason to doubt that the rights conferred by the executive cannot coexist.
Trial: Willing to mediate.
Original trial: unwilling.
Respondent: Unwilling.
Signed by both parties: