Procuratorial Daily News (Reporter Zhang Correspondent)
A patent infringement dispute case lasted nearly three years after the administrative decisions and judgments of two courts. Until mid-June, 5438+10 this year, the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate started the administrative procuratorial supervision procedure, and the final judgment was executed more than one month later, and it was determined that the accused infringing products constituted infringement. A few days ago, when Lin Shanping, the claimant of rights, learned of this result, he said with joy that "procuratorial supervision can realize justice". Please click on the following link for details:
/2020/2020 04 26/2020 04 26 _ 00 1/2020 04 26 _ 00 1 . html
(Reporter Zhang correspondent) A patent infringement dispute case lasted nearly three years after the administrative decisions and judgments of two courts, until the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate started the administrative procuratorial supervision procedure in the middle of 5438+ 10 this year. After more than a month, the final judgment was executed, and it was found that the alleged infringing products constituted infringement. A few days ago, when Lin Shanping, the claimant of rights, learned of this result, he said with joy that "procuratorial supervision can realize justice".
20 17 In April, Fujian Shunchang Hongrun Precision Instrument Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongrun Company) complained to Xiamen Intellectual Property Office (now Xiamen Market Supervision Bureau) that Xiamen Xike Automation Technology Co., Ltd. produced and sold a large number of products suspected of infringing Hongrun Company's patent rights without its consent, and requested to deal with patent infringement. In August of that year, the bureau made a decision: "The design of the accused infringing product is neither the same nor similar to the patent involved, and it does not belong to the scope of patent protection involved. The respondent does not infringe the patent right involved. " "Reject the requester's processing request".
Hongrun Company refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit with Xiamen Intermediate People's Court on September 20 17, but the lawsuit request was rejected. After the judgment of the first instance, Hongrun Company appealed to the Fujian Provincial High Court. From July 2065438 to July 2009, the Provincial Higher People's Court made a final judgment, holding that there was a significant difference in the overall visual effect between the defendant's infringing products identified by Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Bureau and the appearance patent design involved in the case identified by the court of first instance, and they were neither the same nor similar, and the factual and legal basis was insufficient, which should be corrected. The judgment of first instance and the decision of Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Bureau should be revoked, and Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Bureau should make a new decision. However, the bureau failed to implement the effective judgment of the court.
On June 65438+1October 65438+June this year, Lin Shanping, the legal representative of Hongrun Company, applied to the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate for supervision. The court accepted the case on the same day, conducted a comprehensive review of the written materials, and entrusted the Xiamen Municipal Procuratorate to investigate and verify with the Municipal Market Supervision Bureau. The provincial procuratorate believes that the administrative judgment of the second instance of the Provincial High Court has actually identified the infringement involved, requiring the administrative organ to make a new decision; The Bureau did not make a new administrative decision within more than seven months after the effective judgment was made, and there was improper performance of the effective judgment of the court, which made the rights of the infringed subject unable to be guaranteed and should be corrected according to law. The bureau failed to perform the effective judgment of the court on the grounds that it had applied to the Supreme Court for retrial, and the reason could not be established.
On February 17, Fujian Provincial Procuratorate issued a procuratorial proposal to Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Bureau, suggesting that the bureau immediately correct the sued administrative act and make a new decision according to the final judgment of the court.
A few days ago, the Xiamen Municipal Market Supervision Bureau reported in writing to the Fujian Provincial Procuratorate that the patent infringement dispute involved had been re-filed, and an administrative ruling was made according to the defense of both parties and the provision of follow-up evidence: "The alleged infringing products fall into the scope of patent protection involved, which constitutes infringement." At this point, the patent infringement dispute involved was closed.