(2) The principle of universal coverage is also called the principle of complete coverage of technical features or the principle of literal infringement. That is, if the technical features of the object accused of infringement include all the necessary technical features recorded in the claim, it belongs to the protection scope of the patent right. When the necessary technical features recorded in the patent independent claim adopt the upper conceptual features and the accused infringer adopts the corresponding lower conceptual features, the accused infringer falls into the scope of patent protection. The accused infringer added new technical features on the basis of using all the technical features recorded in the claim, which still belongs to the protection scope of patent right. At this time, whether the technical effect of the accused infringer is the same as the patented technology is not considered. If the object accused of infringement is an improved technical scheme of the prior patented technology and has obtained the patent right, it belongs to the subordinate patent. Without the permission of the prior patentee, the implementation of the subordinate patent also covers the protection scope of the prior patent.
(3) the principle of complete treatment of technical features, that is, the principle that the technical content recorded in the claim is regarded as a complete technical solution. When judging infringement, all the necessary technical features of the technical scheme recorded in the claim shall be compared with all the technical features of the accused infringing object one by one. Generally, patented products are not directly compared with infringing articles, but patented products can be used to help understand relevant technical features and technical solutions.
(4) The principle that the content of the claim shall prevail. For the patent right of invention or utility model, the principle of compromise interpretation should be adopted when interpreting the claim in combination with the specification and drawings. It is necessary to avoid adopting the principle of "peripheral restriction", that is, the scope of protection of the patent right is exactly the same as that recorded in the written claim, and the specification and drawings can only be used to clarify some ambiguities in the claim; It is also necessary to avoid adopting the principle of "central restriction", that is, the claim only determines a general invention core, and the scope of protection can be extended to what technical experts consider to be the scope of protection of the claim after reading the specification and drawings. The eclectic interpretation is between these two extreme interpretations, and the reasonable and fair protection of the patentee should be combined with meeting the public's legal stability requirements and protecting their reasonable interests.
(5) The principle of patent validity, that is, what the plaintiff requests for protection must be the valid patent protected by China's patent law: (1) The patent implemented by the actor is a patent granted by the patent administrative department of the State Council in accordance with legal procedures, not a right granted by a foreign patent office. (2) The patent implemented by the actor is still protected by law. (3) If the object implemented by the actor is only an invention that has been accepted by the patent administrative department of the State Council, but has not been granted a patent right, patent infringement will not occur before the invention is granted a patent right.
(6) The principle of redundancy designation refers to that when judging patent infringement, when interpreting the independent patent claim and determining the protection scope of the patent right, the obvious additional features (i.e. redundant features) recorded in the independent patent claim are omitted, and the protection scope of the patent right is determined only by the necessary technical features in the independent patent claim, so as to judge whether the accused infringer covers the protection scope of the patent right. There is no patent estoppel in this technical feature. The court should not actively apply the principle of repeated designation, but should be based on the plaintiff's request and the corresponding evidence. For utility model patents with low degree of invention, the principle of repeated designation is generally not applicable to determine the scope of patent protection. When applying the principle of repeated designation, the fault of the patentee should be properly considered and reflected in the compensation for losses.
(7) The principle of estoppel means that in the process of patent examination and approval, revocation or invalidation, the patentee makes a commitment to limit the scope of patent protection or give up some rights by means of a written statement or revision of patent documents, and thus obtains the patent right; In patent infringement litigation, when applying the principle of equivalence to determine the scope of patent protection, the court should prohibit the patentee from re-incorporating the content that has been restricted, excluded or abandoned into the scope of patent protection. When the principle of equivalence conflicts with the principle of estoppel, that is, the plaintiff claims to apply the principle of equivalence to determine that the defendant infringes his patent right, while the defendant claims to apply the principle of estoppel to determine that he does not infringe his patent right, the principle of estoppel should be applied first.