Mobike was sued in court over whether the "Sweep" unlocking technology constituted infringement. On September 14, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court pronounced its judgment on the dispute over invention patent infringement between the plaintiff Hu and the defendant Mobike (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mobike), and ruled to reject all the plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff Hu claimed that he applied for an invention patent for "an electric vehicle control system and its operating method" to the State Intellectual Property Office in June 2013, and was authorized in May 2016. The patent is valid to this day. The plaintiff believed that the technical features of Mobike’s bicycle lock control system were similar to the invention patent rights enjoyed by the plaintiff, and requested the court to determine that Mobike had infringed its patent rights and to pay compensation of RMB 500,000.
The defendant Mobike argued that the alleged infringing product, the Mobike bicycle lock control system, did not infringe the patent rights involved and did not constitute infringement.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court stated that based on the pleading opinions of both parties, the two focus points of dispute in this case are whether the accused infringing products fall within the scope of patent protection; if the defendant’s behavior constitutes infringement, what liability should be borne civil liability.
After the trial, the hospital held that although the preamble of the claim of the patent involved in the case was named "an electric vehicle control system", the person who applied the patent involved in the case to the field of bicycle technology was an ordinary technician in the field of bicycle technology. , can be thought of without any creative work. Secondly, comparing the technical features of the patent involved in the case with the corresponding structure of the Mobike bicycle lock control system of the allegedly infringing product does not constitute equivalence. In addition, although Mobike and the patent involved both have an “alarm” function, the technical paths to achieve this function are different.
Based on this, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the defendant Mobike’s bicycle lock control system did not fall within the protection scope of the plaintiff’s patent involved and did not constitute an infringement of the patent rights involved.