I'm afraid if I post the full text, I won't see it, but I'll try.
Brief introduction of the case
The plaintiff Beijing Y Special Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Y Company) claims that:
Our company is the right holder of the utility model patent (patent number ZL 00456 438+0) of "all-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller shutter". The original applicant and designer of this patent is Liu, the application date is April 28th, 2000, and the authorization announcement date is 1 year in March. On the basis of fully absorbing the existing technology, Liu independently developed and designed a new type of "all-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating louver".
This patent discloses a novel fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind, which has the advantages of high fire-resistant temperature, long fire-resistant limit time, safe use, simple structure and low cost. In order to industrialize the patented technology as soon as possible, the original patentee first transferred the patent to Beijing L Technology Company, and then transferred the patent to the plaintiff after obtaining Liu's permission, and agreed that all relevant rights shall be enjoyed by the plaintiff from the date when the patent was authorized, except that no third person is allowed to use the patented technology.
The patent searched by China National Intellectual Property Administration is novel and creative, and now it is a valid patent, which is protected by law according to Article 11 of China's Patent Law.
The independent claim of this patent discloses the following technical scheme: "A full-fire-resistant fiber composite fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind is characterized by comprising a fire-resistant fiber cloth, a fire-resistant fiber blanket, a high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, an aluminum foil, a connecting screw and a thin steel belt, wherein the fire-resistant fiber blanket is sandwiched between two layers of fire-resistant fiber cloth, the high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and the aluminum foil are placed in the fire-resistant fiber blanket, and the thin steel belt is placed outside the fire-resistant fiber cloth.
Dependent Claim 2 discloses a full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind, which is characterized by comprising fire-resistant fiber cloth, fire-resistant fiber blanket, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires, fire-resistant fiber cloth with aluminum foil stuck, connecting screws and thin steel belt, wherein the middle of the fire-resistant fiber blanket is made of fire-resistant fiber cloth with aluminum foil stuck on both sides of the fire-resistant fiber blanket, and the thin steel belt, fire-resistant fiber blanket and fire-resistant stainless steel wires with aluminum foil stuck are connected by connecting screws.
Dependent claim 4 is further supplemented as "the full fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller shutter as claimed in claim 1, which is characterized in that a thin layer of fire-resistant fiber cloth or flame-retardant cloth with decorative function can be added to the surface of the roller shutter".
The description part of this patent fully explains the above claims and gives a good example. Any person skilled in this field can put this patent into practice after reading this patent document. Compared with the prior art, the novel fireproof and heat-insulating roller blind disclosed in this patent has the advantages of high fireproof temperature, long fireproof limit time, good heat radiation resistance, good high-temperature strength, stable chemical properties, safe use, simple structure, convenient installation and low cost, and is widely used for fireproof partition of various industrial and civil buildings such as shopping malls, hotels, museums, exhibition halls and theaters.
Since the plaintiff implemented this patent, the patented product has been well received by consumers and has a good market space, and it has also become the object of counterfeiting and infringement by criminals. The plaintiff found that shortly after the introduction of the patented product, a large number of infringing products or semi-finished products specially provided for the manufacture of infringing products appeared on the market.
Therefore, the plaintiff published a lawyer's statement in the fourth edition of People's Public Security Daily on July 14, 2006, stating that this patent right is valid and advising all infringers to stop infringing. The defendant is a company specializing in the production of ceramic fiber products and has the conditions to produce this patented product. After the announcement of this patent, the plaintiff found that the defendant specialized in producing and selling semi-finished patent products in order to avoid tort liability.
The defendant sold semi-finished products lacking "thin steel strip and connecting screws" to many users. Its semi-finished products include colored glass fiber cloth, fireproof cloth, fireproof blanket and fireproof cloth with radiation-proof aluminum foil. There are high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires in the middle of the fire blanket, and then users can use them together with thin steel belts and screws or equivalent methods according to their own needs. It can be seen that no matter how the patentee states, the semi-finished products produced and sold by the defendant in pursuit of illegal profits all have the necessary technical characteristics of the above claims of this patent, covering the protection scope of this patent, and the semi-finished products produced and sold by the defendant are specially used for manufacturing patented products.
The defendant intentionally induced, instigated and instigated others to directly infringe the patent right, but still produced, sold and provided semi-finished products, knowing that others directly infringed the plaintiff's patent right after using the semi-finished products provided by him, and made huge profits from it. In addition, the defendant publicized its infringing products in various ways on various occasions. According to the provisions of the Patent Law, the defendant's intentional production, sale and promise to sell semi-finished products necessary for manufacturing patented products and the user's use of special semi-finished products provided by the defendant to manufacture patented products have constituted patent infringement and infringed on this patent right, and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Therefore, according to the relevant regulations, the defendant was sued for patent infringement and asked to bear the corresponding tort liability. The patent has great commercial value after being evaluated by a professional evaluation agency, and the defendant's infringement has caused great damage to the plaintiff. On the one hand, it crowded out the market of the plaintiff's patented products and caused direct economic losses to the plaintiff; On the other hand, the defendant made a lot of publicity while producing and selling infringing products, which caused a bad social impact and caused immeasurable and irreparable intangible damage to the plaintiff. The defendant should be liable for damages.
According to Articles 56 and 57 of the Patent Law, Article 118 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law, the defendant is requested to be ordered: 1. Immediately stop the production and sales of semi-finished products and finished products specially used for manufacturing patented products, and stop the promised sales activities such as publicity and distribution of samples; 2. Destroy the molds and tools used to produce infringing products and the infringing semi-finished products and finished products that have been produced; 3. Apologize to the plaintiff publicly in People's Public Security Daily (Fire Weekly) and Economic Daily to eliminate the influence; 4. Compensation for the plaintiff's economic loss of 6,543,800 yuan+0.5 million yuan; Five, bear all the litigation costs of this case.
Defendant Beijing Siwei Thermal Energy Ceramics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Siwei Company) argued that:
1. The plaintiff cannot prove that our company is a patent infringement. The plaintiff's 9 to 12 copies of infringement evidence materials cannot prove that the technical features of our products cover the necessary technical features of the plaintiff's patent. In the complaint, the plaintiff has admitted that our company "sold semi-finished products lacking thin steel strips and connecting screws", but in fact, the technical features lacking are more than these two. There is no factual and legal basis for the plaintiff to sue the defendant for indirect infringement.
2. Compared with this patent, the product samples produced and sold by our company sealed up by the court do not have the four necessary technical features of "placing high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil in the refractory fiber felt, and connecting thin steel strip, refractory fiber cloth, refractory fiber felt, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil together by connecting screws", nor do they have the four necessary technical features of "the refractory fiber felt is sandwiched in the second layer for fire prevention". This difference involves not only the use and architectural structure, but also the similarities and differences of the purpose of the invention. In a word, the technical characteristics of the products produced and sold by our company are different from the necessary technical characteristics of this patent, which does not constitute infringement.
Third, our company's product technology is freely known technology. Our company was established in 1993, which is a professional factory engaged in the production and operation of refractory ceramic fiber and glass fiber textiles and their products. 1993 printed bilingual product description introduces the kiln curtain technology, which is the first product in China. Its schematic diagram shows the important technical characteristics of the stainless steel buckle equivalent to the connecting screw. 1995 started the trial production of aluminum foil ceramic fiber cloth. From 1995, we began to supply fire-resistant fiber composite materials for the production of fire shutter to Jiangsu M Fire Equipment Co., Ltd. (referred to as Jiangsu M Company) and Jilin Changchun J Fire Equipment Factory. 1August, 1996, Jiangsu m company drew and provided users with the "installation drawing of ceramic fiber fire shutter", which basically contained all the necessary technical features of the patents involved. The fire shutter made by Jiangsu M Company with ceramic fiber materials provided by our company has been publicly used in buildings in Guangzhou, Wuhan and Nanjing before the patent application. Therefore, the product technology and product structure used by our company are well-known and open existing technologies, and there is no possibility of infringement. Therefore, our company has formally requested China National Intellectual Property Administration to declare the patent invalid.
4. Our company disputes whether the plaintiff is a qualified party. This case is a patent infringement case and the plaintiff should be the patentee. According to the complaint, the original patentee of the patent was Liu, who first transferred the patent to Beijing L Technology Company, and Beijing L Technology Company transferred the patent to the plaintiff with Liu's consent. However, the copy of the patent registerNo. 00234256. 1 provided by the plaintiff does not have the registration record that Liu transferred the patent to Beijing L Technology Company, only Beijing L Technology Company transferred the patent to the plaintiff. Because the patent register is an official document produced by state organs, its probative force is greater than other documents. According to the contents of the patent register: 2001126, the non-patentee Beijing L Technology Company transferred the patent right of Liu to the plaintiff; On may 28th, 20001year, the original patentee Liu was changed to plaintiff. Since the plaintiff obtained the patent right on May 28th, 200 1 year, why did he repeatedly transfer the patent right to the non-patentee after half a year? For such contradictory registration items, it is difficult to judge whether the meaning of registration is true or not, thus denying the plaintiff's status as a bona fide third party.
Our company believes that whether the plaintiff's patentee qualification is legal or not should be solved by China National Intellectual Property Administration, and the plaintiff is not a qualified party until this legal procedure is completed. As the patent register is an official document produced by state organs, only the legal department of China National Intellectual Property Administration can decide which registered items are invalid or changed, and register the ruling in the patent register to straighten out the existing confusing legal facts. To sum up, the plaintiff is not only a qualified party in this case, but also the evidence provided to the court can not prove that our company produced and sold the alleged infringing products. The products produced and sold by our company are not the same as the necessary technical characteristics of this patent, and they are freely known technologies, which cannot infringe anyone's patent right. Therefore, the people's court is requested to reject the plaintiff's claim.
case analysis
It was found through trial that this case involved the patent for utility model of "All-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller shutter" authorized by China National Intellectual Property Administration on March 1 2006, with the patent number of 00234256. 1 and the application date of April 28, 2000. The original patentee is Liu. On may 28th, 200 1 year, with the approval of China National Intellectual Property Administration, the patentee of this patent was changed to Beijing y company, the plaintiff. 200 1, 65438+2, 10, the related rights holders of this patent, Liu and Beijing L Technology Company, have agreed with the plaintiff that the plaintiff will inherit all rights and obligations related to this patent from the date of authorization.
The content of this patent claim is:
"1, the full-refractory fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind is characterized by comprising a refractory fiber cloth, a refractory fiber blanket, a high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, an aluminum foil, a connecting screw and a thin steel strip, wherein the refractory fiber blanket is sandwiched between two layers of refractory fiber cloth, the high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and the aluminum foil are placed in the refractory fiber blanket, the thin steel strip is outside the refractory fiber cloth, and the thin steel strip
2. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, which is characterized by comprising fire-resistant fiber cloth, fire-resistant fiber blanket, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, fire-resistant fiber cloth pasted with aluminum foil, connecting screws and thin steel strip, wherein the fire-resistant stainless steel wire is in the middle of the fire-resistant fiber blanket, and the two sides of the fire-resistant fiber blanket are respectively fire-resistant fiber cloth pasted with aluminum foil, thin steel strip, fire-resistant fiber cloth and fire protection.
3. The full fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 2, characterized in that two or more layers of roller blind can be combined together, and the inside of the roller blind is fire-resistant fiber cloth with aluminum foil.
4. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller shutter according to claim 1, characterized in that a thin layer of fire-resistant fiber cloth or flame-retardant cloth with decorative function can be added to the surface of the roller shutter.
5. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that the roller blind can be assembled by overlapping multiple sections.
6. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that the aluminum foil can be stuck on a fire-resistant fiber cloth or a fire-resistant fiber blanket, or can be separately sandwiched in the curtain core.
7. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-resistant and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that a fire-resistant coating can be further arranged on the fire-resistant fiber cloth and fire-resistant fiber blanket.
8. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that the fire-resistant fiber cloth and fire-resistant fiber blanket are sewn by high-temperature resistant sewing thread or high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire, and can also be sewn by fire-resistant fiber yarn.
9. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1, characterized in that high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires or high-temperature resistant stainless steel thin strips are planted at equal intervals in the roller blind, and a plurality of small thin steel strips are added to the high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires, high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires or high-temperature resistant stainless steel thin strips at equal or unequal intervals in the vertical direction of the roller blind surface.
10. The full-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating roller blind according to claim 1 is characterized in that the fire-resistant fiber cloth and fire-resistant fiber blanket are made of carbon fiber, aluminum silicate fiber, expanded or ordinary glass fiber, high silica fiber, mullite fiber, alumina fiber, zirconia fiber, calcium silicate fiber and mineral wool by pure spinning or blending, and can be used alone or mixed. "
Figures 3 and 4 of the patent specification show that high-temperature resistant stainless steel wire and aluminum foil can be respectively arranged at one side or the center of the refractory fiber blanket.
On September 6th, 2000 1 year, the preliminary conclusion of China National Intellectual Property Administration's "Search Report on Utility Models" for this patent is that claimsNo.1toNo. 10 all conform to the provisions of Article 22 of the Patent Law on novelty and creativity.
On July 5th, 20001year, the plaintiff obtained a set (two pieces) of curtains made and sold by the defendant from the general manager's office of the defendant's domicile, and a sample of the contract between the defendant and Beijing G Decoration Material Factory for buying and selling super fire shutter.
In this case, upon the plaintiff's application, the court made a civil ruling ([2002] Chu Zi No.3255) on April 22, 2002, and on June 5 of the same year, it preserved the evidence of the defendant, extracted samples of products such as fire shutter made by the defendant, and entrusted Beijing T Certified Public Accountants to conduct a financial audit on the profits of the defendant's production and sales of the alleged infringing products.
In the court investigation of this case, both parties recognized that the sample of the defendant's infringing product fire shutter extracted by the court was the same as the sample of the curtain surface of the super-grade fire shutter obtained by the plaintiff, and had the following technical structure, namely, the first layer was glass fiber cloth, the second layer was high-temperature resistant fiber cloth, the third layer was fire-resistant fiber blanket, and the fourth layer was glass fiber cloth with aluminum foil. Wherein the refractory fiber blanket is arranged between the refractory fiber cloths, and the stainless steel wire and the aluminum foil are respectively arranged at one side or the middle of the refractory fiber blanket. The defendant admitted that he placed steel wire on one side or the middle of the fireproof fiber blanket of the fireproof roller shutter and arranged screws and steel belts on the outside of the fireproof roller shutter according to the requirements of customers. It is considered that the product material is low fire-resistant glass fiber cloth, which is different from the fire-resistant fiber cloth material in this patent, so it does not completely cover the necessary technical characteristics of the plaintiff's patent. According to the evidence 3 cited by the defendant, the defendant claimed that its products used the existing technology. The plaintiff thinks that the figure number of the graphic page of the defendant's evidence 3 is missing, and the graphic page is missing. This evidence has insufficient probative force and will not be recognized.
According to the audit verification report (2002) Hua Zheng Huizi No.278 issued by Beijing Tianheng Certified Public Accountants and the defendant's related financial bills, from March 5438+0, 2006 to April 2002, the defendant successively sold or signed the super-grade fire shutter and fire inorganic shutter (also known as fire shutter or fire shutter) produced by Shenzhen L Industrial Co., Ltd., Baoding J Door Industry Co., Ltd., Beijing Y Ceramic Fiber Products Factory and Shenzhen F Security Technology Co., Ltd. Ltd., Shenzhen P Electric Security Co., Ltd., Shenzhen B Fire Equipment Factory, Hangzhou X Rolling Brake Factory, Hangzhou Q Flame Retardant Material Factory.
The main conclusions of the above audit verification report are as follows: From March 5438+0, 2006 to April 2002, the defendant sold fire curtain 13 307.549 square meters (including 283.722 square meters). The total sales revenue is 1.439 896.538+. Although the defendant claims that the sales profit of the accused infringing products should be from the fire curtain and fire prevention, since the plaintiff agrees that the fire curtain is not the accused infringing product, the profit of the fire curtain should be deducted from the profit of the accused infringing product, so the total area of the accused infringing product should be deducted from the fire curtain area, which is 13 023.827 square meters. The defendant's profit here is 2.
The above facts have a copy or original of documentary evidence confirmed by the parties concerned, that is, No.425939 "Patent Certificate for Utility Model" all-fire fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating shutter; Patent specification for utility model of all-fire-resistant fiber composite fire-proof and heat-insulating shutter; China National Intellectual Property Administration No.425939 patent register copy and search report; Patent transfer memorandum dated 200 110, notarial deed (2001) Chang Zheng nei min zi No. 08 16; (2002) No.278 Audit Verification Report; 055 143 19, 034 18293, 034 18288, Beijing special invoices for value-added tax; Contracts for the purchase and sale of industrial and mining products on February/KOOC-0/0, June/KOOC-0/0, June 65438+/KOOC-0/0/7, March/KOOC-0/3, 2002; There are physical evidence, fire shutter samples, statements and transcripts of the parties and other evidence on file.
Trial of a case
The court held that, according to the ascertained facts, the plaintiff obtained this patent right on the basis of the Patent Transfer Agreement and the Patent Change Registration Certificate approved by China National Intellectual Property Administration, was the assignee of this patent, enjoyed all the rights and obligations of this patent from the date of authorization, and had the right to bring a lawsuit against others for unauthorized implementation of this patent according to law, and was a qualified plaintiff in this case. According to the defense reasons of the parties, this case involves the following focuses:
First of all, the determination of the scope of protection of this patent. According to China's patent law, the scope of protection of the patent right of utility model is subject to the content of its claim, and the description and attached drawings can be used to illustrate the claim. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Patent Law stipulate that the independent claim of a patent shall reflect the technical scheme of the invention or utility model as a whole and record the necessary technical features for solving technical problems. Therefore, the determination of the maximum protection scope of this patent should be based on the necessary technical features of the independent claim 1. The defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the independent claim 1 of this patent, and admits that high-temperature resistant stainless steel wires are placed in the middle or one side of the refractory fiber blanket according to the customer's requirements, and only thinks that the glass fiber cloth of its products is different from the refractory fiber cloth of this patent. In this regard, the court held that the patent claim 10 clearly defined the raw materials for manufacturing refractory fiber cloth, and the limited materials that can be used independently include ordinary glass fiber and other materials, as well as in the specification. Therefore, glass fiber cloth is also the technical feature of the technical scheme protected by this patent. There is no difference between the glass fiber cloth used in the defendant's products and the corresponding technical features of the plaintiff's patent.
Second, about the nature of the defendant's behavior. According to the facts identified and ascertained above, the fire shutter made by the defendant was a semi-finished product dedicated to this patent before installing connecting screws and thin steel belts. Semi-finished products, connecting screws and thin steel strip are isomorphic to all the necessary technical features of this patent, which completely belongs to the protection scope of this patent. The defendant explicitly admitted that he arranged screws and steel belts outside the fire curtain according to the customer's requirements. Therefore, customers use the semi-finished products of this patent manufactured by the defendant to install and use thin steel belts and connecting screws. The defendant knew that he had the intention to jointly infringe the plaintiff's patent with others subjectively. At the same time, the defendant actually sold the semi-finished products dedicated to the implementation of this patent to customers for a long time, that is, the accused infringing products obtained commercial benefits from it, and the fact that they infringed with others has actually occurred. At the same time, the defendant's defense of known technology cannot be established because of lack of factual basis, and the court will not accept it.
To sum up, the defendant manufactured and sold the semi-finished products specially used for implementing the plaintiff's patented technology, and the technical features of the assembled final products completely covered all the necessary technical features of this patent, which belonged to the protection scope of the plaintiff's patent right. The defendant's behavior infringed the plaintiff's patent right of utility model, and he should bear the tort liability, stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses. The defendant's defense that his behavior does not constitute infringement of this patent cannot be established and the court will not accept it. The amount of infringement compensation that the defendant should bear shall be determined according to the amount of profits obtained by the defendant in manufacturing and selling infringing products. That is, according to the relevant figures obtained from the audit verification report, the total area of infringing products is 130238.27 square meters multiplied by the profit of infringing products per square meter 16.64 yuan, so the profit of the defendant's infringing products is 2 167 16.48 yuan. The plaintiff claimed to destroy the molds, tools, infringing semi-finished products and finished products used by the defendant to produce infringing semi-finished products, but the court did not support it because the plaintiff did not submit relevant evidence. There is no legal basis for the plaintiff to ask the defendant to publicly apologize to him, and the court will not support it. The audit fees and evidence preservation fees paid in advance by the plaintiff for the litigation in this case belong to the necessary expenses incurred in the litigation and shall be borne by the losing party, that is, the defendant. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 56, paragraph 1 of Article 57 and Article 60 of the Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is as follows:
1. Defendant Beijing D Company immediately stopped manufacturing and selling products such as super-grade fire shutter, fire shutter and fire-resistant inorganic shutter (collectively referred to as fire shutter or fire shutter) that infringed plaintiff Beijing Y Company ZL00234256. 1 utility model patent;
2. Defendant Beijing D Company shall compensate plaintiff Beijing Y Company for its economic losses totaling 2 167 16 yuan within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment;
Three. Reject the plaintiff Beijing Y Company's other claims.