In this lawsuit, Tencent claimed that the WeChat payment system only provides payment channels for users, and the QR code does not contain business entity information, which belongs to the "single word QR code".
The patent owned by the plaintiff is a "multi-word QR code", and its QR code will contain specific business information, which is different from the operation mode of WeChat payment.
As can be seen from the above, the QR code of the plaintiff and the defendant is different. The plaintiff's QR code belongs to "multi-field QR code", while the QR code paid by WeChat belongs to "single-field QR code".
Moreover, the collection, decoding and identification of two-dimensional code are all existing technologies, so this field cannot be artificially divided in the patent, which becomes the unique protection scope of the other party.
In addition, QR code technology originated in Japan in 1994, but it quickly became popular because Japan gave up its patent right.
According to these points, we can know that WeChat payment is completely different from the plaintiff's QR code, and the QR code of WeChat payment has been innovated and changed on the original QR code. Change the original QR code used to scan goods into a QR code only used for user payment.
Most importantly, Japan, the founder of QR code technology, has given up the patent right of QR code, so the plaintiff's QR code can't be the original founder. Then it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to sue WeChat payment. The plaintiff's QR code and WeChat payment are not the same function QR code, but another function QR code, which does not constitute infringement.