Bailey Company believes that the design of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus sold by Zhongfu Company's stores infringes its rights, and requests Beijing Intellectual Property Office to order Apple and Zhongfu Company to stop the above-mentioned promised sales behavior.
On May 6, 20 16, Beijing Intellectual Property Office made a decision to settle the patent infringement dispute according to the Measures for the Administrative Enforcement of Patents, and ordered Apple to stop selling, and Zhongfu Company stopped promising to sell and sell the alleged infringing products.
Both Apple and Zhongfu Company refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to revoke the sued decision according to law. At the same time, they declared that the alleged infringing products, iPhone6 and iPhone6 Plus, were not covered by the patent rights involved.
Whether the appearance of trial infringes patent becomes the focus.
20 16 12, Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a public hearing to hear the case. The presiding judge of the collegial panel in this case is Su Chi, President of the Intellectual Property Court. The two jurors of the collegial panel, Mr Cui from Tsinghua University and Mr Yao from Renmin University, are well-known experts in the field of intellectual property law.
During the trial, whether the appearance of Apple's mobile phone infringes patents has become one of the focuses. According to the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, although there are a series of differences between the iPhone6 series products and the "mobile phone (100C)" involved in the case, the five differences, such as the design of the "home" button, the shape and layout of the side buttons, and the layout of the speaker hole and headphone jack, belong to functional design, while the differences between the front and rear transition designs belong to subtle differences that are almost imperceptible to ordinary consumers, so it should be recognized that there is no significant difference between them.
In this regard, Apple believes that there are many significant differences between iPhone series products and "mobile phones (100C)". These five distinctive features, such as the "home" key design determined by the property office, are not functional designs. From the appearance, the radian of iPhone6 and iPhone6 Plus is symmetrical from the front to the side, while the mobile phone of Bailey Company (100C) is asymmetrical and different.
Judge that the appearance of iPhone6 is not infringing.
On March 24th, Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment on this case, revoking the Decision on Handling Patent Infringement Disputes made by Beijing Intellectual Property Office, and confirming that the two mobile phones, iPhone6 and iPhone6 Plus, did not infringe the appearance patent right of Bailey Company.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the Beijing Intellectual Property Office identified five features, such as the design of the "home" key, the shape and layout of the side keys, and the layout of the speaker holes and headphone jacks, as functional designs, which had no factual and legal basis. The curvature of the side of the mobile phone designed by the patent involved is asymmetric, while the design accused of infringement is symmetrical, which has a significant impact on the overall visual effect. There are obvious differences between the patent design involved and the accused infringing design that other ordinary consumers can easily observe. Therefore, the accused infringing design does not constitute the same or similar to the patent design involved, and it does not belong to the protection scope of the patent involved.
In the end, the intellectual property court found that Apple's claim of non-infringement was well-founded in law and should be supported. There is no factual and legal basis for Beijing Intellectual Property Office to determine that Apple Company and Zhongfu Company infringe on the patent right of Bailey Company.
After the verdict was pronounced, Apple Shanghai Company and Zhongfu Company recognized the court's judgment, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Office and the third party Bailey Company said that they needed to study before deciding whether to appeal.