Under the guidance of the spirit of governing the country according to law at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the court ruled the case realistically based on facts and the law as the criterion, excluding unreasonable and illegal interference from large enterprises, safeguarding the national dignity of the Chinese nation, protecting the inventors' inventions and creations, and preventing some people from giving the technology invented and created by China to Americans for their own selfish interests without any reason! This problem is easy to solve. For details of this issue, please refer to Xu Zuze's judgment in the case of French search. Com and netizens' comments on this judgment. The appellant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court in June 20 14 and June 20 14, hoping that the relevant departments would act in accordance with all laws, adhere to the principle of investigating the mistakes, and make a fair and equitable ruling on this case. Let the appellant feel the warmth of fairness and justice. The appellant waited for the judicial organs to make serious and responsible treatment according to the facts and laws, so that the aggrieved inventor could get a fair and just ruling. It is hoped that under the strong and correct leadership of the CPC Central Committee and the guidance of the spirit of the rule of law at the Fourth Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee, the judicial department will correct the case based on facts and laws. Let the inventors who are nearly eighty years old get a fair and just conclusion as soon as possible and win the trust of the people. The appellant in this case filed a complaint with the Supreme Court on June 29th, 20th14th. The reasons are as follows: 1. Article 3 of the patent claim involved: The welding wire according to claim 1 is characterized in that the addition amount during smelting is Y0.2-0.4%. The judge in this case deleted it for some unknown purpose. The claim clearly stipulates that the addition of Y0.2-0.4 is a technological requirement in steelmaking, not an essential component of welding wire, not to mention playing a positive role in realizing the invention purpose in the patent involved. Steelmaking plus Y has long been known in metallurgical industry that it can be obtained without creative labor. Baosteel has advanced steelmaking equipment. On the basis of using imported high-quality iron ore, the process requirement of adding Y in smelting is omitted, and the products produced by it all belong to the protection scope of the patents involved except Y (this is also a fact admitted by Baosteel itself in court), which proves that the technical scheme of Baosteel products is completely equivalent to the invention technology of the patents involved. 2. The Patent Agreement on the Invention of Low-carbon Micro-alloy Submerged Arc Welding Wire signed by the three enterprises involved on June 8, 1993, April 7, April 1995 and March 28, 1999 can prove that the enterprises involved have implemented the patented technology of this invention. The enterprises involved signed a supplementary agreement for renewal when the previous agreement expired. What does all this mean? We don't want to ask whether the patented products involved in the above agreement provided by Baosteel contain Y? If it does not contain Y, it proves that Baosteel uses the product without Y as the technical product of the invention patent involved. This just proves that when Baosteel fulfilled the above agreement, it completely agreed that the product without Y was the product of the invention patent involved. When the three enterprises involved jointly applied for the invention patent and the national invention award with Party A, the patent appraisal certificate issued by the former Ministry of Metallurgy and the materials for applying for the national invention award did not contain Y, which just proved that Baosteel's products without Y completely belonged to the invention technology scope of the patent in this case. 4. During the validity period of the patents involved, all three enterprises involved fulfilled their obligation to pay annual patent fees to China National Intellectual Property Administration on schedule, so as to ensure the validity of the patents involved and safeguard their rights to produce and promote the patents involved. 5. The trial of this case is seriously unfair and unfair in the process of giving evidence and cross-examination. The appellant provided sufficient factual evidence. The judge turned a blind eye and refused to accept the letter. Is it normal to accept the so-called perjury that all Baosteel products provided by Baosteel lawyers use the existing technology of US Patent Specification No.3919517? To sum up, there are many mistakes in this case. When we carefully review the judgment of this case, we can find that more judges and defense lawyers in this case can't justify themselves, which are contradictory, illogical, inconsistent with the law and facts ... The appellant is nearly 80 years old. In order to serve the motherland with his knowledge and technology, he tried to make inventions from abroad, but he was involved in a protracted lawsuit. The old man is very sad. I hope that the relevant departments can conscientiously implement the party's policy of governing the country according to law, examine the case realistically, distinguish right from wrong, and do justice to the old scientific and technological workers who invented it! This case is actually a simple dispute case in which the inventor asked the patentee to pay for the invention. It doesn't need a judge's brain to judge right or wrong and make a correct conclusion. Because the three companies, as the patentees of the patents involved, clearly signed the Agreement on the Implementation and Promotion of Low Carbon Micro-metallized Submerged Arc Welding Wire Invention Patents (i.e. Patents Involved). All parties have offers and promises. The previous agreement expired and a renewed supplementary agreement was signed. During the period of validity of the patents involved, the three enterprises involved regularly pay the annual fees of the patents involved to China National Intellectual Property Administration according to the agreement, so as to ensure the validity of the patents involved, safeguard their right to implement production and promote the application of the patents involved. All this fully proves that Baosteel, as the signatory of the above agreement, the products it promised to provide under the agreement belong to the patented products involved. Whether it contains Y or not, Baosteel shall pay the inventor the remuneration for the invention in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Contract Law and the Intellectual Property Law. This is the inventor's reasonable and legal right. Compared with those corrupt officials who seek ill-gotten gains, I don't know where it is aboveboard ... The judge in this case bypassed the essence of the "invention reward dispute" and made a big fuss about Y. In fact, whether Baosteel's products contain Y is a false proposition that can't stand scrutiny. Baosteel, as the patentee, has the right to make minor changes to its own patents, which will not affect the invention and creativity of the patents involved at all, nor will it shake the fait accompli of implementing production and promoting the patents involved as determined by the agreements signed by the three companies involved! The evidence in this case is conclusive, and any attempt to deny the facts and cover up the truth is futile. It is hoped that the relevant personnel will respect the facts, fear the law, correct their mistakes and gain the understanding of the people. What's wrong with this case? 1. This case is a dispute between the service inventor and the patentee about the inventor's remuneration, not a patent infringement dispute. The judge shall make corrections in accordance with the relevant legal provisions of the Contract Law and the Patent Law on the payment of remuneration to inventors. However, the judge in this case tried the case according to the laws and regulations of patent infringement. There are obvious mistakes in the application of the law. 2. The adjudicator in this case ignored the fact that three enterprises involved in the case signed an agreement to implement the patent involved and fulfilled it, and concluded that Baosteel did not implement the patent involved. According to the provisions of the patent law, in order to obtain the patentee, two obligations must be fulfilled according to law, one is to pay the annual patent fee (that is, the patent maintenance fee), and the other is to actually implement the patented invention-creation. The judge in this case misjudged Baosteel's failure to implement the patent involved. Isn't this a blatant instigation of Baosteel's violation of the patent law? Is this an act of knowing the law and breaking the law? This judgment is absurd, ridiculous and absurd, which is commented by the world. 3. Baosteel's lawyer dared to openly violate the facts, saying that the patented products involved in Baosteel were the so-called existing technology of American Patent Specification No.3919517, and provided perjury ... The judges in this case did not argue according to reason, accepted all the orders and made a wrong ruling at the same time. Is this case a wrong case? People have their own understanding. The balance in the chest of the judge in this case is too tilted. It is understood that the appellant in this case sent a complaint to the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate respectively on June 29th, 20th14th. The express number to the Supreme Court is 105485678408. The mail number sent to the Supreme Court is 105485680708. Later, he sent the supplementary materials to the Supreme Court. They are 2065438+August 8, 2004. E-mail:100388182109, 20 14 August E-mail: 1003808352609. It is hoped that relevant departments will conscientiously implement the spirit of governing the country according to law at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. Conscientiously implement the Opinions on Letters and Visits Involving Law and Litigation issued by the Central Political and Legal Committee 20 14+0 1, investigate and deal with this case as soon as possible, so that the aggrieved old scientific and technological workers can feel the fairness and justice of the law as soon as possible!
The appellant is very puzzled that this misjudged case has not been corrected for a long time. Why can't the relevant departments make a reasonable and legal conclusion on this misjudged case according to law? On the contrary, it has been dragging its feet, keeping silent, and failing to implement the spirit of the party organization, which hurts the old inventor's heart. No matter whether the case is right or wrong, you should always give the appellant a reasonable and legal conclusion. I hope that the Ministry of Supervision of CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the Central Political and Legal Committee will pay attention to this case and make it clear to both parties.
Ask a few questions to the judges in this case:
1. As the patentees of the invention patent of "low-carbon microalloyed submerged arc welding wire", should the three enterprises involved in this case fulfill their obligations to implement the invention patent according to law?
2. Are the agreements and supplementary agreements signed by the enterprises involved to implement the production, promotion and application of the patented invention technology involved signed for the failure to implement the patented invention technology involved?
3. During the validity period of the patents involved, the three enterprises involved paid the annual patent fees to China National Intellectual Property Administration on schedule and in quantity to maintain the validity of the patents involved. Is all this because the patents involved have not been implemented?
4. Since the judges in this case focus on Y, why should they claim Article 3 of the patent claim involved? 3. The welding wire according to claim 1 is characterized in that 0.2-0.4% of Y is added in the smelting process. This content has been completely deleted. What's the intention?
5. why do the judges believe that the patent involved in Baosteel's patent right is perjury by using the existing technology of No. 39 195 17 American patent specification, sending our own scientific and technological inventions abroad? What purpose do you want to achieve by doing this? In this case, why did Baosteel declare the patent involved and win the national invention award?
Please answer the above questions realistically according to law. Since the article can be published online as a case, please answer the online questions publicly. Whether a judge handles a case fairly according to law is the touchstone.
Because the old man is nearly eighty years old and suffers from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, he has no energy to cope with this protracted lawsuit. He said he didn't bargain here for a few rewards. Why is he so persistent? It is entirely to see that the spirit of governing the country according to law is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people in the great motherland, and the socialist legal system has been implemented and implemented in all walks of life. Therefore, he asked netizens to make the above appeal on his behalf.
The essence of this case is a dispute between the patentee and the inventor of patent technology that should be paid according to law, not a patent infringement dispute. Is it unreasonable and far-fetched for the judges in this case to actually implement the invention technology of the patent involved before the fact that the patentee involved paid the annual fee according to law and signed an agreement and a supplementary agreement to implement the production and promotion of the patent involved within the validity period of the patent involved?
Now what we are arguing with the judge in this case is not the remuneration, but the principle of whether the trial in this case is legal. Judges in this case and experts and scholars in the legal field are invited to report their actions. Some people ignore the principles and policies of the CPC Central Committee and the regulations of higher-level organizations, which makes the people feel chilling and disappointed. It is hoped that the relevant departments will pay close attention to the work style of the judiciary and let officials listen to the voices of the masses, be grounded and step on their feet. In the spirit of seeking truth from facts and acting according to law, safeguard the fairness and justice of the law!
The two sessions have been successfully concluded for a month, and the echoes of the reports of the two sessions are still echoing around the people, but no judicial organ has seriously implemented the two sessions.
We'd like to ask a few more questions about the judges in this case:
Is Baosteel the patentee of the invention patent No.92105621.4 involved? What two obligations should Baosteel perform according to law after obtaining the patent authorization of the invention and the national invention award?
After Baosteel and other three enterprises involved in the case signed the Agreement on the Implementation of the Production and Promotion of the Patent Invention and Technology Involved and the supplementary agreement, they will regularly pay the annual fee of the patent invention to China National Intellectual Property Administration in accordance with the law within the validity period of the patent invention, so as to maintain the validity of the patent invention. At the same time, should Baosteel fulfill its legal obligation to actually implement the invention technology of the patented invention involved, or should it implement the so-called US Patent Specification No.39 195 17?
The examiner in this case regards rare earth Y as the focus of this case, why only delete Articles 3 and 3 of the patent claims involved. The welding wire as claimed in claim 1 is characterized in that 0.2%-0.4% Y is added during smelting. This independent claim defines Y as the production process requirement of the patented product involved. Then he said that Y played a positive role in the patent involved in the invention.
The above questions should be answered openly and realistically in accordance with the law in order to set the record straight.
Article 7 of the Civil Procedure Law: In trying civil cases, the people's courts shall take facts as the basis and the law as the criterion.
The facts of this case are:
Baosteel is the patentee of the 92 1056 1.4 invention patent involved.
2. Baosteel and other enterprises involved in the case signed an agreement to "implement the production and popularization of the patented invention technology involved" after applying for patent disclosure and obtaining authorization. All the parties who signed the agreement have clear proposals and commitments.
3. Baosteel and other enterprises involved in the case pay the annual patent fee to China National Intellectual Property Administration on a regular basis within the validity period of the invention patent involved in 92 10562 1.4.
This case should be based on the legal provisions of the patent law on the rights and obligations of the patentee after being authorized.
This case is a compensation dispute between the inventor and the patentee before Baosteel and other enterprises involved as the patentee of 96 10562 1.4 invention patent signed an agreement and supplementary agreement to implement the patented invention technology and paid the annual patent fee according to law. The main points of the judgment should be:
1. The basis of the right of claim of the inventor or designer of service invention-creation.
2. The subject of payment obligation of the inventor or designer of the service invention-creation.
3. How to pay the remuneration of the inventor or designer of the service invention-creation?
This case shall be corrected and ruled in accordance with Articles 76, 77 and 78 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law and Paragraph 1 of Article 320 of the Contract Law. There are obvious deviations in the application of the law in this case.
Baosteel and other enterprises involved in the case are the patentees of 96 10562 1.4 invention patents, and no one has sued them as infringers of the invention patents. This fact must be clarified.
Put forward the above views, not for the remuneration, but to distinguish right from wrong and safeguard the legal dignity of the people and the country of China!