Copyright dispute of T9 input method

In 2003, there was a dispute between Professor He Ergong's "free writing" patent and T9 input method. According to Professor He's lawyer Lin Hanlong, the mobile phone products using T9 stroke input method infringed Professor He Ergong's "free writing" patent (authorization announcementNo. CN 1 1 1778c), and in the following period, Professor He provided the patent on "free writing" to Tejie Communication, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AOL, which owns T9 input method copyright.

Shenzhen Sangfei, who has been OEM for Philips mobile phones, became the defendant. Lawyer Lin's explanation is that any link in the whole industrial chain can be identified as infringement except the end consumers. The reporter also got confirmation from lawyer Zhao of the law firm. So they can tell the mobile phone manufacturers who use T9 input method that they chose Sanfei because they just have invoices to prove their sales behavior in Guangzhou. "We hope that through judicial procedures, Sang Fei will stop infringing on Professor He's patent right."

If convicted, Mr. Lin will also sue other "infringing" mobile phone manufacturers, and of course it is also possible to sue Tejie Communication. "It depends on which scheme is the most favorable and the most cost-saving." At present, there are no fewer than 20 mobile phone manufacturers using T9 input method. Lawyer Lin has always stressed to reporters that "the original code of the input method belongs to the protection scope of copyright law and is not protected by patent law. Pure original code cannot be patented. This effective combination of computer keyboard and coding program can be patented. "

On March 29, the two sides will exchange evidence and formally open the court on March 30. Because Shenzhen Sangfei was acquired by other businesses at the end of last year and is currently being reorganized, Mr. Lin is worried about whether the court session on the 30 th can be held as scheduled.

The reporter dialed the telephone number of the general manager's office of Shenzhen Sangfei, and the other party said that he knew about it, but did not express his position. Mr. Zhang of Tejie Communication also said that it is not convenient for lawyers to speak in the United States.

Of course, as a defense, the defendant also has the right to question the validity of the plaintiff's patent right. China National Intellectual Property Administration professionals said that in the existing cases, the number of patent rights denied, the total number of invalid declarations and partial invalid declarations reached about 50%.

In this regard, lawyer Lin also said that "whether the patent is valid has nothing to do with whether this case constitutes infringement. Moreover, infringement cases in Guangdong can be concluded in two years, and patent revocation cases generally take four years. "