Who won the lawsuit between Chint Electric and Schneider, and how much did they lose?

China's largest intellectual property infringement case was pronounced in Wenzhou on the 29th. In this contest between Zheng Tai Group, a private enterprise in China, and Schneider, the world's largest low-voltage electrical appliance giant, Schneider was finally sentenced by Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court to immediately stop infringing intellectual property rights and compensate Zheng Tai Group for more than 330 million yuan. Zheng Tai Group Co., Ltd., located in Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, sued Schneider Electric Low Voltage (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (Schneider's joint venture in China, Schneider holds 75% of the shares), Ningbo Free Trade Zone Starr Electric Equipment Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Free Trade Zone Starr Electric Equipment Co., Ltd. Yueqing Branch (Schneider dealer) on the grounds of patent infringement last August, demanding that Schneider immediately stop selling and destroy five types of infringing products, and filed a high claim of 330 million yuan. The subject matter of the claim set the highest price for intellectual property disputes in China. Xu, the legal director of Zheng Tai Group, said that the five products produced and sold by Schneider-C65A, C65N, C65H, C65L and EA9An-all infringed a utility model patent of Zheng Tai Group with the patent number ZL 97248479.5. This patent, named "High Breakage Miniature Circuit Breaker", was applied to China National Intellectual Property Administration by Zheng Tai Group on 19971month, and was granted a patent in 1999. The NB 1 series products produced by enterprises with this patent have achieved good market effects once they were launched, but "Schneider's behavior seriously violated our interests". He said, "From August 2, 2004 to July 3, 2006, Schneider produced and sold the above-mentioned infringing products for more than 883.6 million yuan, and made a profit of 334.8 million yuan by calculating the profit rate of the products declared to the industrial and commercial and tax authorities." Schneider thinks Chint's patent is invalid. During the litigation, he submitted a request to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China to rule that the patent was invalid, but it was rejected. Xu said that as the most authoritative intellectual property review institution in China, the effective administrative judgment of the Patent Reexamination Board on Chint's patent later became a strong basis for Chint to defeat Schneider. After two court sessions, multiple evidence exchanges and sales and profit audits, Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court announced the first-instance judgment on the 29th, demanding that the two defendants immediately stop the infringement of patent rights from the effective date of the judgment, and ordered the defendant Schneider to compensate the plaintiff Zheng Tai Group for losses of 334,868,972 yuan within ten days from the effective date of the judgment. In this regard, Schneider expressed dissatisfaction. Its entrusted agent, Chen Ding, a lawyer of Beijing Gao Jie Law Firm, said that whether the patent is valid or not is the legal basis of the lawsuit, but the administrative decision of the Patent Reexamination Board is not the final legal ruling. Earlier, Schneider filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court on the judgment of the Patent Reexamination Board, which was heard on the 24th of this month, but the court has not yet made a final judgment. He said that once the court ruled that the patent was invalid, the lawsuit and judgment of Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court lost its legal basis and was meaningless. Chen Ding also said that he did not consult with Schneider and another lawyer on whether to appeal, but he personally thought that Schneider would definitely appeal within the prescribed time limit. It is understood that this is not the first lawsuit between Chint and Schneider, nor is it the first time that this private enterprise has defeated a well-known multinational company. According to Zheng Tai Group, Schneider filed a lawsuit in Beijing as early as 1999, accusing two products of Zheng Tai of infringing its three patents (one of which was found invalid, Zheng Taisheng sued; Since 2004, Schneider has filed a number of patent infringement allegations against Chint in Europe, Germany, Italy, France and other countries. According to the data of Zhejiang Intellectual Property Office, Schneider has prosecuted 18 patent infringement cases abroad since 1999. China has six cases of patent infringement against Zheng Tai. For example, Schneider sued the Grand Court of Paris, France, and Chint products infringed three of its patents. At its request, the court announced the sales ban of Zhengtai products. However, at present, the French Paris Grand Court has lifted the sales ban, and Zheng Tai has achieved a preliminary victory. Similarly, in Italy, in order to prevent the market share of Chint products from rising, a multinational electrical appliance company sued the local court for five patent infringements of Chint products, and created public opinion through the media. However, Zheng Tai recently won three patent cases, and the settlement request made by this multinational electric company was also rejected by Zheng Tai. This small workshop, which used to be a front shop and a back factory, has successfully entered the international market after 23 years of development and continuous development and innovation, and entered the major markets such as Britain, France, Germany and Italy occupied by multinational companies such as Schneider. Nan Cunhui, chairman of Zheng Tai Group, believes that attaching importance to independent innovation and intellectual property development and protection are the fundamental reasons for the rapid development of enterprises. "Prosecuting patent infringement is a common practice for multinational companies to occupy the market and crowd out competitors." Nan Cunhui also believes that the successful expansion of Zheng Tai has aroused the high vigilance of foreign rivals. In his view, the real purpose of Schneider's move is not a simple patent dispute, but to clear the way for its industrial layout by suppressing and cracking down on Zheng Tai. But he denied counterclaiming Schneider for the same purpose. "The purpose of my lawsuit is not for money, but to enhance the self-confidence of national enterprises and safeguard their intellectual property achievements." The young and capable industrialist said that private enterprises in China have long been regarded as synonymous with imitators and followers, lacking innovative spirit and awareness of intellectual property protection. He believes: "In the era of economic globalization, China enterprises are facing not only the competition for manufacturing capacity, but also the competition for manufacturing power." And I hope that through this successful lawsuit, I will pay attention to the importance of independent innovation and intellectual property protection to enterprises.