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 out unreasonable and illegal interference from large enterprises based on facts and laws, tried cases in a realistic way, safeguarded the national dignity of the Chinese nation, protected the achievements of inventors, and prevented some people from surrendering the technology invented and created by China to Americans for their own selfish interests! The problem can be solved easily. For details of this problem, please refer to the judgment of Xu Zuze's case in Fasou. com and the comments made by netizens on this judgment. The appellant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court in January 214 and June 214, hoping that the relevant departments will act in accordance with all laws and adhere to the principle of investigating mistakes, and make a fair and equitable ruling on this case, so that the appellant can feel the warmth of fairness and justice. The appellant waits for the judicial organs to follow the facts. Deal with it seriously and responsibly in accordance with the law, so that the wronged inventors can get a fair and just ruling. I hope that the judicial department, under the strong and correct leadership of the CPC Central Committee and under the guidance of the spirit of the rule of law at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18 th CPC Central Committee, will correct the case based on facts and laws. Let the inventor who is 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 Law on June 29, 214. The reasons are as follows: 1. Article 3 of the patent claim involved: The welding wire according to claim 1 is characterized in that Y.2-.4% is the amount added during smelting. This important claim, The judge of this case deleted it for some unknown purpose. This claim clearly defines that the addition of Y.2-.4 is the technological requirement in steelmaking, not the necessary component of welding wire, let alone play an active role in realizing the invention purpose in the patents involved. Adding Y in steelmaking has long been known in metallurgical industry and 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 fall within 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. From June 8, 1993 to April 17, 1995, On March 28th, 1999, the "Agreement on Implementing the Invention Patent of Low Carbon Micro-alloyed Submerged Arc Welding Wire" was signed respectively, which can prove that the enterprises involved have implemented the patented technology of this invention. The enterprises involved signed a supplementary agreement for renewal at the expiration of the previous agreement. What does all this mean? We don't want to ask Baosteel whether the patented products involved in the case it supplied during the performance of the above agreement contain Y? If it doesn't contain Y, it proves that Baosteel uses products that don't contain Y as the technical products of the invention patents involved. This just proves that Baosteel fully agrees that the products that don't contain Y are the products of the invention patents involved when fulfilling the above agreement. 3 When the three enterprises involved reported the invention patents and the national invention awards together with Party A, the patent appraisal certificates issued by the former Ministry of Metallurgy and the materials applying for the national invention awards did not contain Y, It just proves that Baosteel's products without Y completely fall into the invention technical scope of the patent in the case. 4. During the validity period of the patent involved, all three enterprises involved fulfilled the obligation to pay the annual patent fee to China National Intellectual Property Administration on schedule, so as to ensure the validity of the patent involved and safeguard their right to produce and popularize the patent involved. 5. There was serious unfairness and injustice in the process of giving evidence and cross-examination in the trial of this case. The appellant provided enough factual evidence. The adjudicators turned a blind eye and refused to accept the letter. Is it normal to accept all the perjury that Baosteel's lawyer provided that the so-called Baosteel products used the prior art 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 their contradictions, are illogical, are not in line with the law, and are not in line with the facts .. The appellant is nearly eighty years old. He has worked hard to make inventions from abroad in order to serve the motherland with his own knowledge and technology, but as a result, he has been involved in a protracted lawsuit. The old man is very sad. I hope the relevant departments can earnestly implement the party's policy of governing the country according to law, review the case realistically, distinguish right from wrong, and create justice for the old scientific and technological workers who invented it! In fact, this case is a simple dispute case in which the inventor asked the patentee to pay for the invention. It doesn't take the judges' brains to judge right and wrong and make a correct conclusion. Because the three companies, as the patentees of the patents involved, clearly signed an agreement on the implementation and popularization of the invention patent of low-carbon micro-metallized submerged arc welding wire (that is, the patents involved). All parties have offers and commitments. At the expiration of the previous agreement, a supplementary agreement for renewal was signed. During the validity period of the patents involved, the three enterprises involved paid the annual fee of the patents involved to China National Intellectual Property Administration on a regular basis according to the agreement, so as to ensure the validity of the patents involved and 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 according to the agreement belong to the patented products involved. Regardless of whether it contains Y or not, Baosteel should pay the inventor the invention remuneration 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 to be aboveboard ... The adjudicators in this case bypassed the essence of the "dispute over invention remuneration" and made a big fuss about Y. In fact, whether Baosteel's products contain Y or not is a false proposition that can't stand scrutiny. Baosteel, as the patentee, has the right to make slight changes to its own patents, and this change will not affect the invention creativity of the patents involved at all, nor will it shake the fait accompli of implementing production and popularizing the patents involved as determined by the agreement signed by the three enterprises involved! This case is irrefutable evidence, and all attempts to deny the facts and cover up the truth are futile. I hope that the relevant personnel will respect the facts, fear the law, and correct their mistakes when they know them, so as to gain the understanding of the people. What is 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 adjudicator should correct the case according to the relevant laws and regulations of contract law and patent law on paying the inventor's remuneration. However, the adjudicator of this case tried the case with the laws and regulations on patent infringement, and there were obvious mistakes in the application of the law. 2. The adjudicator of this case ignored the fact that three enterprises involved signed an agreement to implement the patent involved and fulfilled the agreement. It is judged that Baosteel has not implemented the patent involved. According to the provisions of the Patent Law, the patentee must fulfill two obligations 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. Isn't it a blatant instigation for Baosteel to violate the Patent Law by the adjudicators in this case? Is this an act of knowing the law and breaking the law? This kind of judgment is ridiculous, ridiculous and absurd, which is commented by the world. 3. Baosteel lawyers dare to openly violate the facts by saying that Baosteel's patented products involved in the case are the existing technology of the so-called US patent specification No.3919517, and provide perjury ... The trial personnel in this case did not argue the truth, accepted the letter according to the order, and made a wrong ruling at the same time. What kind of mistake is this? Is this case a wrong case? The people have their own recognition. The balance in the chest of the judge in this case is too tilted. It is known that the appellant in this case sent a complaint letter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court respectively on June 29th, 214, with the express mail number of 15448567848 to the Supreme Court, and the mail number of 1544856878 to the Supreme Court. Later, he sent supplementary materials to the Supreme Court on August 8th, 214. The mail number is 1388618219, and the mail number was 138835269 on August 17, 214. I hope the relevant departments will earnestly implement the spirit of governing the country according to law at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, and earnestly implement the opinions issued by the Political and Legal Committee of the CPC Central Committee on September 11, 214 on matters related to litigation and letters and visits, so that the wronged old scientific and technological workers can feel the fairness and justice of the law as soon as possible.
The Appellant has not been corrected for this misjudged case for a long time, and he feels very puzzled. Why can't the relevant departments make a reasonable and legal conclusion on this misjudged case in accordance with the law? Instead, they have been procrastinating, keeping silent, and failing to implement the spirit of the Party organization as a decoration, 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 the Ministry of Supervision of CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, The Central Political and Legal Committee is concerned about this case, hoping that the two parties can clarify the facts, hold accountable those who bend the law, straighten up the judicial balance, investigate the legal responsibility of those unscrupulous lawyers, and let the elderly feel fairness and justice!
ask some questions to the trial personnel of 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 exploit this invention patent according to law?
2. Are the agreements and supplementary agreements signed by the enterprises involved in the case to implement the production, popularization and application of the patented invention technology involved in the case signed for not implementing the patented invention technology involved?
3. During the validity period of the patents involved, the three enterprises involved in the case paid the annual patent fees to China National Intellectual Property Administration on schedule to maintain the validity of the patents involved. Is this all because the patents involved were not implemented?
4. Since the trial personnel in this case focused on Y, why did they want to claim Article 3 of the patent claims involved: 3. The welding wire according to claim 1 is characterized by the addition of Y .2-.4% during smelting. This content is completely deleted. What is the intention?
5. Why did the investigators believe that Baosteel's lawyer said that the patent involved in Baosteel's patent right was perjury by using the existing technology of U.S. Patent Specification No.3919517, and sent our own scientific and technological inventions to foreign countries? What purpose did you achieve by doing so? In this case, why did Baosteel declare the patents involved and receive the national invention award?
Please ask the judge of this case to give a realistic answer to the above questions according to law. Since you can publish the article on the Internet as a case, please also openly answer the questions on the Internet. The touchstone is whether the judge of this case handles the case fairly according to law.
Because the old man is nearly eighty years old and suffering from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, he has no energy to cope with this protracted lawsuit. He said that he didn't haggle over every ounce here for a few rewards, why he was so persistent, and it was only to see that the spirit of ruling the country according to law became popular in the great motherland, and the socialist legal system was 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 patented technology who should be paid according to law. It is not a patent infringement dispute. Before the fact that the patentee involved fulfilled the annual fee according to law and signed an agreement and supplementary agreement to implement the production and popularization of the patent involved during the validity period of the patent involved, and actually implemented the invention technology of the patent involved, is it suspected that the trial personnel of this case continued to explain the case with patent infringement laws and regulations?
Now we are not arguing with the trial personnel of this case about remuneration. It's a matter of principle whether the trial of this case is legal or not. Please ask the trial personnel and experts and scholars in the legal field to report the action. Some people ignore the principles and policies of the CPC Central Committee and the regulations of higher organizations, which makes the people feel chilling and disappointed. I hope the relevant departments will pay close attention to the work style of the judicial organs, let officials listen to the voices of the masses, be grounded, and be civil servants of the people, good cadres of the party in a down-to-earth manner With the spirit of seeking truth from facts and doing everything according to law, we will safeguard the fairness and justice of the law!
It has been a month since the successful conclusion of the two sessions, and the echoes of the reports of the two sessions are still echoing around the people. However, some judicial organs have not seriously implemented the two sessions.
We have to ask the investigators a few more questions:
Is Baosteel the patentee of the invention patent No.9215621.4 involved? What two obligations should Baosteel perform according to law after obtaining the authorization of this invention patent and the national invention award for this purpose?
after Baosteel and other three enterprises involved in the case signed the agreement and supplementary agreement on "implementing the production and popularization of the patented invention technology involved" according to law, during the validity period of the patented invention involved, they paid the annual fee of the patented invention to China National Intellectual Property Administration on a regular basis according to law, so as to maintain the validity of the patented invention. Meanwhile, should Baosteel fulfill its legal obligation to actually implement the invented technology of the patented invention involved according to law, or should it implement the existing technology of the so-called U.S. Patent Specification No.3919517?
The trial personnel of this case took rare earth Y as the focus of this case, why did they take Article 3 of the patent claim involved? 3. The welding wire mentioned in claim 1 is characterized in that .2%-.4% of Y is added during smelting/this definition of Y as the production process requirement of the patented product involved is completely deleted. Then Y is said as "Rare earth Y plays an active role in the patent involved, which is involved.
The above questions are asked to be answered openly and realistically in accordance with the law, so as to set the record straight.
Article 7 of the Civil Procedure Law: The people's courts shall try civil cases based on facts. Take the law as the criterion.
The facts of this case are as follows:
1. Baosteel is the patentee of the 9215621.4 invention patent involved.
2. Baosteel and other enterprises involved signed an agreement on "implementing the production and popularizing the patented invention technology involved" according to law after the patent involved was publicly applied and authorized. All parties who signed the agreement have clear offers and commitments.
3. Baosteel and other enterprises involved. During the validity of the invention patent, the annual fee of the patent involved was paid to China National Intellectual Property Administration on a regular basis in accordance with the law.
This case should be ruled by the legal provisions of the patent law on the rights and obligations of the patentee after being authorized.
As the patentee of the invention patent of 9615621.4, Baosteel and other enterprises involved in this case signed an agreement and a supplementary agreement to implement the invention technology of this patent. And pay the annual fee of the patent according to law. The gist of the judgment should be:
1. The basis of the claim of the inventor or designer of the service invention creation.
2. The subject of the obligation to pay the remuneration of the inventor or designer of the service invention creation.
3. How to pay the remuneration of the creator or designer of the service invention creation.