1.(20 14) Shen-Fa Zhi Ming Chu Zi No.377 violated the technical secrets of the source program of ECG algorithm. Mindray Company claims that Yang Ge, an employee who resigned in 2007, worked for Koman Company for one month, thinking that he might illegally disclose the software algorithm code monitored by Mindray Company to Koman Company, so as to sue Koman Company for infringing its technical secrets. In response to this claim, the Nanshan District Court clearly stated in its judgment against Yang Ge in 2007 that the case did not involve Koman Company, and no technical information about Koman Company was found at the scene. Moreover, before 2007, Koman Company had listed a variety of monitors, and the software performance was better than similar products in the industry. Therefore, Koman Company will never infringe on the commercial and technical secrets of others. On May 22nd, 201May, the collegial panel of our hospital decided that both parties should conduct third-party technical appraisal. According to the normal legal process, it is estimated that it will take about 3-5 months, and then the next trial procedure will be carried out according to the appraisal results.
(2014) patent infringement case of flow sensor and its installation components (Z-Z Zhiminchuzi No.376 200720 170903). x)。 Mindray claims that Coleman violated the power requirements of its flow sensor and its installation components. As we all know, flow sensors have been used in many industries and anesthesia machines and ventilators for many years. Therefore, Koman Company applied to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office for its patent as an existing technology, which was supported by the Patent Reexamination Board and invalidated some power requirements of its flow sensor. According to the technical scheme of installing components in Mindray patent, the technical scheme is mainly to install misoperation prevention in the second matching section of the flow sensor. Coleman's technical scheme is to install a guide device on the annular assembly wall, which can realize the visual operation of medical staff, judge the specific position of the flow sampling hole and realize the limit function. This scheme is obviously superior to Mindray's patented technical scheme. In the court hearing on May 22, 20 15, the court did not make a judgment on whether our technical scheme infringed the patent right of the other party, and suggested that both parties settle out of court, and asked both parties to provide more specific and detailed evidence materials for their respective claims. If no settlement can be reached, the court will further hear it.
3.(20 15) Shen Zhong Zhi Min Chu Zi No.544 00808884.5 Patent infringement case of blood oxygen module and blood oxygen probe. This case is a patent infringement case of Mindray Company v. Massimo Company. As the seller, our company is listed as the second defendant, and according to the requirements of the patent law, sales that can provide legal sources are not liable for compensation. At present, in view of this case, our company has applied to the court for jurisdiction objection, and at the same time, the first defendant Massimo Company of the United States has submitted the patent invalidation request of Mindray Company to the National Patent Reexamination Board. Therefore, the trial date of this case will be postponed, and the specific date will mainly be subject to the court ruling.
4.(20 15) Shen Zhongfa Zhimin Zi Chu No.545 2007 1030506 1.9 Patent infringement case of gas concentration device. This case is a patent infringement case of Mindray Company v. Massimo Company. As the seller, our company is listed as the second defendant, and according to the requirements of the patent law, sales that can provide legal sources are not liable for compensation. At present, in view of this case, our company has applied to the court for jurisdiction objection, and at the same time, the first defendant Massimo Company of the United States has submitted the patent invalidation request of Mindray Company to the National Patent Reexamination Board. Therefore, the trial date of this case will be postponed, and the specific date will mainly be subject to the court ruling.