(1) Paragraph 2 of Article 64 of the Patent Law stipulates: "The protection scope of the design patent right shall be subject to the design of the product shown in the picture or photograph, and the design of the product shown in the picture or photograph may be explained by a brief description." Article 8 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes stipulates: "Where an identical or similar design is used on a product identical or similar to a patented design product, the people's court shall determine that the accused infringing design belongs to the scope of protection of the design patent right as stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Patent Law (paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Patent Law)." Accordingly, in option A, although the car model made by B is the same as the design part of A's design patent, it is neither the same nor similar to the products to which A's design applies, so B's behavior does not infringe A's design patent. So option a is not selected.
② Paragraph 2 of Article 1 1 of the Patent Law stipulates: "After the design patent is granted, no unit or individual may exploit its patent without the permission of the patentee, that is, it may not manufacture, promise to sell, sell or import its patented products for production and business purposes." It can be seen that the patentee of design cannot control the use of patented products of design for the purpose of production and operation. Therefore, in option B, B's behavior does not constitute an infringement of A's design patent right. So option b is not selected.
(3) Article 75 of the Patent Law stipulates: "Any of the following circumstances shall not be regarded as infringement of the patent right: (4) Using the relevant patent exclusively for scientific research and experiment." In option C, the patented products manufactured by Factory B without authorization are used for scientific research, but not exclusively for scientific research. Therefore, B's behavior violated A's Galileo electron microscope patent. Option c is elected.
Article 67 of the Patent Law stipulates: "In a patent infringement dispute, if the accused infringer has evidence to prove that the technology or design he implemented belongs to the existing technology or design, it does not constitute patent infringement." The first paragraph of Article 14 of the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes stipulates: "If all the technical features within the scope of protection of the accused patent are the same as or not substantially different from those in the existing technical scheme, the people's court shall determine that the technology implemented by the accused infringer belongs to the existing technology specified in Article 62 (now Article 67) of the Patent Law." In option D, the technical scheme implemented by B is essentially the same as that implemented by C (there is no substantial difference), and the technical scheme of C belongs to the existing technology (it was made public before the patent application date of A), so B meets the standard of "defense of known technology" and B's behavior has the excuse of infringement. So don't choose the d option.
To sum up, the correct answer to this question is C.