Xiaomi Company appealed to the court because it refused to accept the ruling of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, requesting to cancel the original ruling and transfer the case to Beijing Intellectual Property Court for trial. Recently, the ruling of the second instance was announced, and the court's final ruling rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. This ruling is final.
Things have set off a wave of "eating melons" in the field of smart home, which has aroused everyone's attention to patent protection. Why can this case trigger a "tsunami"? What are the warnings for enterprises?
0 1
Where did the case start?
First of all, let's review the cause and development of this patent case.
It is understood that this patent dispute mainly revolves around Mijia smart plug products, involving three invention patents and four utility model patents, covering compact structure, remote wireless control function, protocol conversion function, data collection and forwarding function, and electrical safety performance improvement.
Among them, Hongyan Company is the patentee of an invention patent with the name of "Intelligent Plug with Weak Current Interface" and the patent number of ZL20161065 * * *.1,which is currently in an effective state. After investigation, Hongyan Company found that the products involved were the same as the patented products on the market, that is, the products were accused of infringement. After comparison, it was found that the alleged infringing products belonged to the patent protection scope of the patents involved, so they were brought to court with a complaint.
Hongyan Company sued Xiaomi Company and Chuangmi Company for infringement of invention patents and requested the court:
Editor: He
Manuscript arrangement: Guzhen Lighting Media Center