Overall patent equivalence

The two patentees each enjoy a patent right for utility model, which is the same or equivalent, and the new patent applied for later belongs to repeated authorization. A new patent applied for after the implementation by means of production or sales constitutes an infringement of the new patent applied for first. In 2006, Su Xiang applied for a patent for ceramic tile design and was authorized. Su sued Yang 1 for producing and selling products consistent with its design patent 1 without permission and infringing its design patent. In 2007, an outsider, Yang Mou 2, applied for a design patent and was authorized. Yang 1 entered into an exclusive license contract with Yang 2 in 2008 and obtained the exclusive license granted by Yang 2. The focus of this case: In patent infringement litigation, both the plaintiff and the defendant have patent rights, which are the same or equivalent. What should I do? The court found that for the same or similar products, the plaintiff Su applied for the design 1 patent right first, and Yang applied for the design 2 patent right later. Because the design patent has not been substantially examined, Yang No.2 design patent belongs to repeated authorization under the condition that the design patent 1 applied earlier is the same as or equivalent to the design patent No.2 applied later. Through comparison, overall observation and comprehensive judgment, the product of design patent 2 produced and sold by defendant Yang 1 has the same or similar design features as that of plaintiff Su, which has constituted the infringement of plaintiff's design patent 1. The defendant's implementation of the design patent 2 granted by the latter for many times has constituted an infringement of the design patent 1 of the plaintiff Su. The court ruled that the defendant Yang 1 immediately stopped infringing the plaintiff Su's design patent 1.