After receiving the complaint, someone sued him for patent infringement and demanded huge compensation. As a defendant, it is really difficult to be calm and calm, especially for defendants who are not familiar with patents. In fact, you don't have to panic, because you may not really infringe the plaintiff's patent right.
Some defendants know that they are completely imitating the plaintiff's products. If you tell him that it may not infringe the plaintiff's patent right, he thinks you are obviously cheating him. He thinks that the plaintiff is telling the truth, and he must have infringed the plaintiff's patent right. It's a little crazy for you to tell him not to panic at this time.
Practice tells me that even if the defendant completely imitates the plaintiff's products, the proportion that really constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's patent right is often a minority. Why do you say that? There is a simple reason. A few products produced by the plaintiff were made according to patent documents, and most of them were inconsistent with the declared patents. In other words, the product produced by the plaintiff is not a patented product, and the defendant completely imitates the plaintiff's non-patented product, which naturally does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's patent right. However, the defendant can only know this situation after carefully studying the plaintiff's patent documents. Therefore, even if the defendant completely imitates the plaintiff's products, it does not necessarily constitute infringement.
A defendant said that I have carefully studied the plaintiff's patent documents, that is, the products made according to the technical scheme of the patent documents, or there is no substantive difference, which constitutes infringement. I think, even if the products produced and sold by the defendant do constitute patent infringement, you don't have to panic, because the defendant's production and sales behavior may not be recognized as infringement by the court. The court found that the facts that constituted patent infringement were established on the basis of evidence. Without the evidence supporting the infringement, the court can't hold that the patent infringement is established. However, the patent dispute itself is technical and professional, and the form of evidence is special. Most plaintiffs and their agents are not sure about the form of evidence, which leads to its irrationality and ultimately cannot be supported by the court. For example, if the evidence products claimed by the plaintiff are not sealed, it will be impossible to compare them with patent documents, and it is impossible to determine whether they constitute infringement.
Some defendants said that the plaintiff had sufficient evidence to sue for patent infringement, so there was no need to panic. No matter how much evidence there is, the defendant should also declare the patent invalid to the reexamination board, so as not to establish infringement. In fact, most patent disputes involve utility model patents and design patents, but utility model patents and design patents have not been substantially examined, and the patent stability is poor. If the patent application is invalid, most of these patents will be invalid. If the plaintiff claims that your infringing patent is invalid, why should he sue you for infringement?
A defendant said that the plaintiff's patent could not be invalidated, the plaintiff had sufficient evidence to sue for infringement, and the plaintiff's agent was very professional and must have lost. I said, not necessarily, and don't panic, because you still have a long way to go. Your way is that your product uses the existing technology, and your way is that you have made and used the same product before applying for a patent. You make the court realize that you are using the existing technology, you have the right of first use, and you have submitted sufficient evidence to support your point of view, and the court will not judge you for patent infringement.