Plaintiff Hu claimed that he applied for the invention patent of "an electric vehicle control system and its operation method" in June 20 13, and was authorized in May 20 16, and the patent is still valid. The plaintiff believed that the defendant manufactured and used mobike by renting, and the technical features of the defendant's mobike lock control system were exactly the same as all the technical features recorded in the invention patent claim 1 and claim 3 enjoyed by the plaintiff, which infringed the plaintiff's patent right, so he appealed to the court and requested to order the defendant to infringe and compensate the plaintiff for RMB 500,000.
Defendant mobike Company argued that the mobike lock control system of the product accused of infringement did not have the same or equivalent technical features as Claim 1 and Claim 3, and the defendant did not constitute infringement.
Around the arguments of both sides, this case has formed two controversial focuses: whether the accused infringing product belongs to the scope of patent protection; If the defendant's behavior constitutes infringement, he shall bear civil liability.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the four components "micro-camera, graphic decoder, memory and two-dimensional code comparator" that constitute the "two-dimensional code recognizer" need to be integrated together, and because the specific technical characteristics of "electrical connection" are not clear in the specification, and because the invention belongs to the technical field of electric vehicles, according to the understanding of "electrical connection" by ordinary technicians in this field, electrical connection refers to the circuit connection of physical contact, excluding the wireless communication signal connection. Comparing the technical features of the patent involved with the corresponding structure of the control system of mobike Lock, the accused infringing product, it is found that the control system of mobike Lock lacks the technical features of "two-dimensional code recognizer" and "graphic decoder … electrically connected with two-dimensional code comparator" as mentioned in the patent claim 1, which does not constitute equivalence.
In addition, although both mobike and the patents involved have the "alarm" function, the technical paths to realize this function are different. The mobike lock control system accused of infringement does not have the technical feature of "the controller controls the alarm when the comparison signals are inconsistent", which is neither the same nor the same as the corresponding technical feature recorded in this patent claim 1.
To sum up, the mobike lock control system of the accused infringing product does not belong to the protection scope of this patent claim 1.