The plaintiff's company and WeChat are quite different in principle in paying QR codes, so their operation methods are totally different, and there is no infringement. Moreover, he asked for a considerable amount of compensation in court, so there is some suspicion in terms of the amount claimed, because WeChat is now a payment method that we often use in our daily life.
wechat payment system only provides payment channels for users, and the QR code does not contain the entity information of merchants, which belongs to "single-field QR code". The patent owned by the plaintiff is a "multi-field QR code", and its QR code will contain specific merchant information, which is different from the operation mode of WeChat payment.
the scope of protection of the patent right of invention or utility model shall be subject to the content of its claim. From the patent name and the court site representation of Micro Card Times Company and Yinhe Linkage Company, it can be seen that the patent contains merchant information and has strong pertinence and individuality. However, WeChat payment system only provides payment channels and has nothing to do with merchant information. Therefore, the two designs have different concepts and operation modes.
wechat payment has spread to people's daily lives, and this case has attracted attention. According to relevant reports, as of the first quarter of this year, the average daily total transaction volume of WeChat payment exceeded 1 billion times. The usage of WeChat payment is still quite large.
Micro-Card Times responded that in the process of generating payment links, it is bound to involve the specific identification of merchants. Therefore, in this case, both Tencent and Vanke Eslite have committed infringement, so they should bear joint and several liability for compensation. There must be a reasonable explanation after the public says that the public is right and the woman says that the woman is right.