The Supreme People's Court's interpretation of some issues concerning the application of law in the trial of patent infringement disputes.
In order to correctly hear cases of patent infringement disputes, this interpretation is formulated in accordance with the Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and other relevant laws and regulations, combined with the actual trial.
Article 1 The people's court shall determine the scope of protection of the patent right according to the claims claimed by the obligee and the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 59 of the Patent Law. Before the end of the debate in the court of first instance, if the creditor changes the claim, the people's court shall allow it.
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 based on 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.
If the original product is further processed to obtain subsequent products, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the product directly obtained by using the patented method as stipulated in Article 11 of the Patent Law.
Article 14 If all the technical features of the accused infringer that fall within the scope of patent protection are the same as or not substantially different from the corresponding technical features in the existing technical scheme, the people's court shall determine that the technology implemented by the accused infringer belongs to the existing technology as stipulated in Article 62 of the Patent Law.
Where the design accused of infringement is the same as or not substantially different from the existing design, the people's court shall determine that the design implemented by the accused infringer belongs to the existing design as stipulated in Article 62 of the Patent Law.
Article 15 The people's court shall not support the claim of the accused infringer for the preemptive right based on the illegally acquired technology or design.
In any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall determine that it has made the necessary preparations for manufacture and use as stipulated in Item (2) of Article 69 of the Patent Law:
(a) the main technical drawings or process documents necessary for the implementation of the invention and creation have been completed;
(2) manufacturing or purchasing major equipment or raw materials necessary for the implementation of inventions and creations.
The original scope stipulated in Item (2) of Article 69 of the Patent Law includes the existing production scale before the patent application date and the production scale that can be achieved by using the existing production equipment or according to the existing production preparation.
After the date of patent application, the prior obligee transfers or permits others to implement the technology or design that has been implemented or made necessary preparations for implementation. If the accused infringer claims that the implementation falls within the original scope, the people's court will not support it, except that the technology or design is transferred or inherited with the original enterprise.
Article 16 The people's court shall, in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 65 of the Patent Law, determine that the benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement are limited to the benefits obtained by the infringer due to infringement of the patent right; The benefits arising from other rights shall be deducted reasonably.
Where the product infringing the patent right of invention or utility model is an integral part of another product, the people's court shall reasonably determine the amount of compensation according to the value of the part itself and its role in realizing the profit of the finished product.
If the product infringing the patent right of design is packaged, the people's court shall reasonably determine the amount of compensation according to the value of the packaging itself and its role in realizing the profit of the packaged product.
Article 17 If the product or the technical scheme for manufacturing the product is known to the public at home and abroad before the patent application date, the people's court shall determine that the product is not a new product as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Patent Law.
Article 18 If the obligee issues a warning of patent infringement to others, and the warned person or interested party urges the obligee to exercise the right of action in writing, and the obligee does not withdraw the warning or bring a lawsuit within one month from the date of receiving the written reminder or within two months from the date of issuing the written reminder, and the warned person or interested party brings a lawsuit to the people's court to request confirmation that his behavior does not infringe the patent right, the people's court shall accept it.
Article 19 If the alleged patent infringement occurred before June 65438+1 October1day, 2009, the people's court shall apply the patent law before the amendment; After June 10, 2009, the people's court shall apply the revised patent law.
If the alleged patent infringement occurred before 10 in 2009 and continued after 10 in 2009, the infringer shall be liable for compensation according to the provisions of the patent law before and after the revision, and 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 our court are inconsistent with this interpretation, this interpretation shall prevail.