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 thinks that the technical features of mobike's car lock control system are the same as the invention patent enjoyed by the plaintiff, and requests the court to find that mobike Company has infringed its own patent right and compensate 500,000 yuan.
Defendant mobike Company argued that the alleged infringing product mobike Lock Control System did not infringe the patent right involved and did not constitute infringement.
According to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, around the arguments of both parties, the two controversial points in this case are whether the alleged infringing products belong to the scope of patent protection; If the defendant's behavior constitutes infringement, he shall bear civil liability.
After trial, the court held that although the preface of the patent claim involved was named as "an electric vehicle control system", it could be thought of by ordinary technicians in the field of bicycle technology without creative labor. Secondly, comparing the technical features of the patents involved with the corresponding structure of the lock control system of the accused infringing product mobike does not constitute equivalence. In addition, although both mobike and the patents involved have the function of "alarming", the technical paths to realize this function are different.
Accordingly, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the lock control system of defendant mobike did not belong to the protection scope of the patent involved by the plaintiff and did not constitute infringement of the patent involved.