Where the scope of protection of the patent right claimed by the obligee is determined by the dependent claim, the people's court shall determine the scope of protection of the patent right according to the additional technical features recorded in the dependent claim and the technical features recorded in the cited claim. Article 2 The people's court shall determine the contents of the claim as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the Patent Law according to the records of the claim and the understanding of the claim by ordinary technicians in this field after reading the specification and drawings. Article 3 The people's court may interpret the claims by using the specification and drawings, the related claims in the claims and the patent examination documents. Where the specification has a special definition of the terms in the claims, the special definition shall prevail.
If the above method can't clearly define the meaning of the claim, it can be interpreted in combination with well-known documents such as reference books and textbooks and the common understanding of ordinary technicians in the field. Article 4 The people's court shall determine the contents of the technical features expressed by the functions or effects in the claims in combination with the specific realization methods of the functions or effects described in the specification and the appended drawings and their equivalent realization methods. Article 5 The people's court shall not support a technical scheme that is only described in the specification or attached drawings but not recorded in the claims, if the right holder brings it into the scope of patent protection in a patent infringement dispute case. Article 6 The people's court shall not support the technical scheme abandoned by the patent applicant or patentee by modifying the patent claim or specification or statement of opinions during the patent authorization or invalidation procedure, and if the right holder brings it into the scope of patent protection in a patent infringement dispute case. Article 7 The people's court shall examine all the technical features recorded in the patent claim when judging whether the alleged infringing technical scheme belongs to the scope of patent protection.
If the technical scheme accused of infringement contains the same or equivalent technical features as all the technical features recorded in the right claim, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the protection scope of the patent right; If the technical features of the technical scheme accused of infringement lack more than one technical feature recorded in the claim compared with all the technical features recorded in the claim, or more than one technical feature is different or the same, the people's court shall determine that it does not belong to the protection scope of the patent right. Article 8 Where a design identical with or similar to an authorized design is used on a product identical with or similar to a patented design product, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design belongs to the protection scope of the design patent right stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 59 of the Patent Law. Article 9 The people's court shall determine whether the product types are the same or similar according to the uses of the design products. To determine the use of a 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 judge whether the designs are identical or similar according to the knowledge level and cognitive ability of ordinary consumers of patented products. Article 11 When determining whether the designs are identical or similar, the people's court shall make a comprehensive judgment according to the design features of the authorized design and the accused infringing design and the overall visual effect of the design; Design features mainly determined by technical functions, and features such as materials and internal structures that have no influence on the overall visual effect of products should not be considered.
The following conditions usually have a great influence on the overall visual effect of the design:
(1) The parts that are easily observed directly during normal use of the product are relative to other parts;
(2) The design features of the authorized design that are different from the existing design are 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 consider it the same; If there is no substantial difference in the overall visual effect, it should be considered that the two are similar. Article 12 Where a product that infringes the patent right of an invention or utility model is used as a component to manufacture another product, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the use behavior stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law; If a person sells another person's product, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the sales behavior stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law.
Where a product infringing the patent right of a design is used as a component to manufacture another product and sell it, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the sales behavior stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law, except that the product infringing the patent right of a design only has technical functions in another product.
If there is a division of labor and cooperation between the accused infringers under the circumstances specified in the preceding two paragraphs, the people's court shall consider it as * * * joint infringement. Article 13 The people's court shall determine that the original product obtained by the patented process is the product directly obtained by the patented process as stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law.
The people's court shall determine that the act of further processing the above-mentioned original products to obtain subsequent products belongs to the products directly obtained by using patented methods as stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law.