Case 1: Administrative case of invalid invention patent right of communication control system
The facts of a legal case
Interactive Digital Technology Company is the patentee of the invention named "Automatic Power Control System for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication System". ZTE Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ZTE) filed a request for invalidation of the patent right with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Board). The Patent Reexamination Board maintains the validity of the patent right. ZTE refused to accept it and filed an administrative lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court made a judgment: revoke the invalid decision and order the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new invalid decision.
comment
The method of judging patent infringement can be used to judge whether the technical scheme of litigation is novel. The basic idea of this method is that if the existing technology belongs to the protection scope of the litigation technical scheme, the litigation technical scheme does not have novelty. On this basis, in order to judge the novelty, when comparing the technical scheme of litigation with the technical scheme as the existing technology, we can entrust professional institutions such as patent Baba to make a positive comparison instead of a reverse comparison. The so-called positive comparison is to analyze whether the technical scheme as the existing technology has all the technical characteristics of the litigation technical scheme. The so-called reverse comparison is to analyze whether the technical scheme of litigation has all the technical characteristics of the existing technical scheme. If the litigation technical scheme does not have all the technical features of the existing technical scheme, or the existing technical scheme has more technical features than the patent litigation technical scheme, it is considered that the additional technical features constitute the technical features that distinguish the two, so the patent litigation technical scheme is considered to be novel. Reverse comparison is a wrong way to judge novelty and should be denied. In recent years, there have been frequent patent disputes in the communication field, and the conclusion of this case has important demonstration significance for patent protection and patent effectiveness determination in the communication field. In particular, this case explores and clarifies the judgment method of patent novelty, which is conducive to the unification of the judgment standards of patent authorization and confirmation cases.
Case 2 "fixed frame" patent infringement case
The facts of a legal case
Yadea Electronics Co., Ltd. and Yadea Company (hereinafter referred to as Yadea Company) are the invention patentees named "framing". Harting Company purchased the electrical connector products produced and sold by Zhejiang Yonggui Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yonggui Company) through Beijing Signum Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Signum Company). Harting Company believes that the product infringes its invention patent right, and should undertake to stop the infringement according to law and compensate the economic loss of about150,000 yuan.
After hearing the case, the court made a judgment: Signum Company and Yonggui Company immediately stopped the infringement, and Yonggui Company compensated Harting Company for its economic loss of 700,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of159,700 yuan.
comment
How to divide technical features is an important link in interpreting patent claims. However, how to divide the technical features scientifically and reasonably, and whether the subject name belongs to the technical features or not has a restrictive effect on the claims have been controversial in theory and practice. In this case, first of all, a useful attempt is made on the standard of dividing technical characteristics. From the perspective of patent Baba and other agents, the division of patent technical characteristics is linked with each technical link to realize the overall technical effect of the invention. In addition, the case also accurately defines the limiting role of the subject name, and draws the conclusion that the subject name itself is not a necessary technical feature to solve technical problems. When determining the scope of protection of the claim, the subject name recorded in the claim should be considered, but the actual limiting effect should depend on what influence the subject name has on the technical scheme required to be protected in the claim itself. The ruling of this case has high academic research value. It has made active exploration in the interpretation rules of claims, the determination of protection scope and the calculation of compensation amount. It not only scientifically and reasonably defines the scope of protection and punishes the alleged infringer's infringement, but also pays attention to balancing the interests of the obligee and the public, supports the obligee's reasonable demands, and realizes the unity of legal effect and social effect.
Case 3 "QQ" trademark dispute administrative case
The facts of a legal case
The trademark "QQ" (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) was applied by Tencent on May 19, 2005, and the registration date was March 7, 2008, and it was approved for use on motorcycles, automobiles and other commodities. On June 26th, 2009, Chery filed an application for cancellation with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) within the statutory time limit. On February 2013 17, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled to revoke the disputed trademark. Tencent refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court decided to uphold the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.
comment
According to Article 31 of China's Trademark Law, which came into effect on 200 1, an application for trademark registration shall not preempt the registration of a trademark that has been used by others and has certain influence. Trademark owners have invested human and material resources through publicity and use, gained the recognition of consumers, and gradually accumulated a good impression on trademarks. These are the intangible property of the trademark owner. Although it is not exclusive like a registered trademark, it is also protected by law to some extent. If the applicant knows or should know that others have used unregistered trademarks with certain influence and registered different or similar goods or services in advance, it may be considered that they have taken improper means. If the user of the prior trademark can provide evidence to prove that its prior trademark has a certain continuous use time, area, sales volume or advertising, it can be considered as having a certain influence.
Case 4 "Daoxiang Village" trademark objection review administrative case
The facts of a legal case
1997 on may 2 1, Beijing daoxiangcun food group was approved to register the trademark of "daoxiangcun" (category 30), and the registrant was changed to Beijing daoxiangcun company.
On July 18, 2006, Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company filed a registration application for the trademark "Daoxiang Village and Tu Tu" (hereinafter referred to as the objected trademark) and designated the commodity for use in the 30th category.
After the announcement of the preliminary examination and approval of the objected trademark, Beijing Daoxiang Village Company filed an objection application. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ruled that the objected trademark should be registered. Beijing Daoxiang Village Company applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for reexamination. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the objected trademark should not be registered. Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company refused to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit.
After hearing the case, the court made a judgment: uphold the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.
comment
This case is a typical case of how two time-honored brands with historical origins distinguish their respective markets through the judgment of trademark similarity. The trademark of "Daoxiang Village" that Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company applied for registration in this case is different from its previous trademark, but it is very close to the well-known trademark of Beijing Daoxiang Village Company, which will lead to confusion and misunderstanding of consumers, break the market reality that can be distinguished from the established stable market order, and lead to confusion and misunderstanding of the source of goods by consumers, so registration should not be granted. Through the trial of this case, the court established that the time-honored brand should maintain a stable market order and must not infringe upon the basic rules in the field of trademark protection of the other party.
Case 5 Embedded Software Copyright Infringement Case
The facts of a legal case
Microsoft found that Windows CE 6.0 computer software was used in the car navigation system sold by Beijing He Zhong Si Zhuang Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as He Zhong Si Zhuang), and thought that He Zhong Si Zhuang's above-mentioned behavior infringed his copyright on the above software, so he Zhong Si Zhuang sued the court and demanded the defendant to bear corresponding civil liability.
After trial, the court ruled that He Zhong stronghold company stopped the infringement and compensated Microsoft for its economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 6,543,800+0.93 million.
comment
Embedded software is an operating system and development tool software embedded in hardware. With the strengthening of social informatization and the rapid development of computer technology, embedded systems have begun to penetrate into many fields of daily life. However, because the hardware with embedded software usually enters the circulation field as a part of the product, rather than as a software commodity alone, the process of obtaining evidence in rights protection is more difficult than ordinary computer software cases. As "the first case of software infringement of embedded operating system in car navigation", this case proves the important role of genuine labels in the process of proving the legitimate source of embedded software, and has important reference significance for studying the copyright infringement of embedded computer software.
Case 6 "Apple App" copyright infringement case
The facts of a legal case
Li's Anti-Demolition Story was published by Gansu People's Fine Arts Publishing House, and Li was the author of the book. Li accused Apple of uploading its copyrighted works to the Apple App Store without its permission, or through division of labor and cooperation with developers, and providing downloading and reading to the public through the store to obtain economic benefits, infringing on the right of information network communication of the works involved.
After trial, the court ruled that Apple compensated Li for economic losses of 654.38+0000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 654.38+0000 yuan due to litigation.
comment
The case is one of a series of rights protection lawsuits filed by Writers' Rights Protection Alliance against Apple's provision of applications suspected of infringing its copyright on its App store. In the end, the court found that Apple is the operator of the App store, which is a network service platform based on paid downloading, and a fixed proportion of direct income is stipulated in the agreement with the developer, so Apple should pay more attention to the infringement of the developer. When Apple can clearly perceive that the application involved was provided without permission, it failed to take reasonable measures and fulfill its duty of care, which subjectively constituted infringement. At present, with the rapid development of the Internet industry and the emergence of various new business models of online platforms, the trial of this case has certain reference and guiding significance for how to define the behavior nature and responsibility of platform service providers.
Case 7: Qian Zhongshu's letter infringes on copyright and privacy.
The facts of a legal case
On may 20 13, zhongmao shengjia international auction co., ltd (hereinafter referred to as zhongmao shengjia company) announced the auction announcement of the letter manuscript of the late famous scholar Qian Zhongshu. Yang Jikang (pen name Jiang Yang), the widow of Qian Zhongshu, filed a lawsuit on copyright and privacy in court, arguing that Li Guoqiang and Zhongmao Shengjia Company constituted an infringement on her copyright and privacy.
After trial, the court made a judgment: Zhongmao Shengjia Company and Li Guoqiang stopped the infringement, compensated Yang Jikang for economic losses and spiritual damages of 65,438+10,000 yuan and apologized.
comment
This case is not only representative and widely concerned because it involves many rights such as copyright, privacy and property rights, but also defines and regulates the responsibility of the auction company for infringing others' copyright in auction activities, especially in auction activities, in addition to reviewing the ownership of the auction target and the identity of the client according to the auction law and signing the entrusted auction contract. For auction objects with other civil rights, such as copyright, privacy and portrait rights, we should also examine the ownership of relevant copyright, privacy and the right protection of portrait rights. , in order to fulfill the statutory obligations entrusted to the auctioneer by the auction law. The conclusion of this case has clarified the legal obligations of the auctioneer, standardized the order of the auction market, and is of positive significance to safeguarding the copyright, privacy and other civil rights of relevant rights holders.
Case 8 "Massage" copyright infringement and unfair competition case
The facts of a legal case
Bi Feiyu is the author of Tuina, an award-winning novel of the 8th Mao Dun Literature Award, which was published by People's Literature Publishing House in September 2008. In July, 2009, Bi Feiyu provided exclusive TV adaptation rights to Zhongrong Company. 20 10 12, Zhongrong Company transferred its authorization to Valley Chuan Company. 201111October, Heguchuan Company entrusted Chen Ping to adapt and write the TV series of the literary work Tuina. In April of 20 13, Chen Ping signed a publishing contract with Xiyuan Publishing House for the book Tuina (Volume I and Volume II), which was published in June of the same year. Bi Feiyu and People's Literature Publishing House sued the court for infringing the publishing right of Chen's version of Tuina.
The court made a judgment after trial: Xiyuan Publishing House stopped publishing the book Tuina; Beijing Xinhua Bookstore Wangfujing Bookstore stopped selling the book Massage; Chen Biao and Xiyuan Publishing House jointly compensated Bi Feiyu for economic losses of 6,543,800 yuan+0.4 million yuan; Chen Ping and Xiyuan Publishing House jointly compensated People's Literature Publishing House Co., Ltd. for economic losses of 80,000 yuan and reasonable expenses such as litigation costs of 5,000 yuan.
comment
The legislative purpose of anti-unfair competition law is to standardize the business behavior of market operators and maintain the social and economic order of fair competition. Therefore, the anti-unfair competition law mainly regulates the authorization in the process of commodity market circulation, not the authorization in the process of commodity creation. In this case, Chen Tuan and Xiyuan Publishing House only have the authorization to adapt the works, but not to publish the adapted works, that is to say, they have no authorization to promote the relevant adapted works to the cultural market and circulate them as books and commodities. Therefore, the defendant's act of publishing a work of the same name constitutes unfair competition. This case, to a certain extent, reflects the confusion of authorization, weak awareness of rights and lack of integrity in the current book publishing market. Through the trial of this case, it is helpful for the parties to regulate their own behavior, and also provides guidance for the legal and standardized operation and development of the whole book publishing industry.
Case 9 Ma Ainong Counterfeiting Unfair Competition Case
The facts of a legal case
Ma Ainong has a certain influence and popularity in the field of translation. From June 20 12, 20 14 to June 20 13, 20 18, New World Press signed a publishing contract with Beijing Xingshengle Company to publish 13 books. The contract stipulates that the author's signature shall be arranged by Ma Ainong. From June 20 12 to June 20 13, New World Publishing House published the above-mentioned book 13. The cover, spine, title page and copyright page of these books are all marked "Edited by Ma Ainong", and the copyright page is also signed "Author Ma Ainong". Ma Ainong believed that New World Publishing House forged its name, which constituted unfair competition, and demanded that New World Publishing House stop the infringement and compensate economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 500,000 yuan.
After trial, the court made a judgment: New World Publishing House compensated Ma Ainong for economic losses of 654.38+million yuan and reasonable expenses of 1.5 million yuan, and ordered New World Publishing House to stop publishing the books involved.
comment
This case is a typical unfair competition dispute case of impersonating others. China's "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" stipulates that it is unfair competition to use the name of others without authorization, which makes people mistakenly think that it is another person's goods. Literally, this article does not seem to include unauthorized use of names similar to others' names. However, in this case, for the purpose of counterfeiting and stopping unfair competition, the above provisions were extended and interpreted, and the unauthorized use of names similar to other people's well-known names was also considered as unfair competition adjusted by the above provisions. In addition, this case also discusses the duty of care when publishing fake books, and puts forward that the publishing house should pay reasonable attention to the author's signature in the process of book publishing and distribution, and the duty of care for the author's pseudonym should be higher than that for the author's real name, which is the basis for whether the publishing house constitutes infringement, and is of positive significance to standardizing the publishing behavior of the publishing house and preventing the publication and distribution of fake books.
Case 10 cheetah browser unfair competition
The facts of a legal case
He Yi Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as He Yi Company) operates Youku. There are mainly two ways to provide users with video playback services, one is "advertising+free video" service, and the other is to provide registered users with video services without advertisements. A company found that Cheetah browser filtered Youku video advertisements by modifying and inducing users to modify Youku parameters, so it sued Jinshan Network Company, demanding that it immediately stop unfair competition, eliminate the impact, and compensate its economic losses and reasonable expenses of 5 million yuan.
After trial, the court made a judgment: Jinshan Network Company and Jinshan Security Company compensated economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 300,000 yuan.
comment
At present, the service mode of "advertising+free video" is a common business model adopted by video websites at home and abroad. Video websites, including Youku.com, do have too many and too long patch advertisements, which cannot be skipped. Some consumers in the market are quite critical of this. However, the quality of business model should be determined by market choice, not judged by other operators by destructive means and the competition mode of "jungle law". This case is the first case of unfair competition dispute of browser filtering video advertisements in China, which represents the struggle for the survival boundary between content service providers and technical service providers in the Internet industry. There are similar disputes abroad, but no effective judgment has been made. The judgment of this case is not only of great legal significance, but also has been widely concerned by the Internet industry and has a huge social impact. The court verdict emphasizes that the unfairness of browser filtering video advertisements lies in the fact that the interests of business models should be protected by law. Unless there is a better alternative model, others should not use the name of neutral technology to destroy the business model and harm the available interests of business model operators.
Hope to adopt, thank you!