1 The principle of universal coverage refers to that the accused infringer (product or method) reproduces all the necessary technical features of the technical scheme recorded in the patent claim, and the accused infringer (product or method) corresponds to and is the same as all the necessary technical features recorded in the patent independent claim. The principle of universal application is one of the most basic principles for judging patent infringement. It mainly includes the following forms: (1) Literal infringement is also called full technical feature coverage, that is, if the technical features of the object (product or method) accused of infringement include all the necessary technical features recorded in the claim, it belongs to the scope of patent protection. (2) Infringement of the superior concept When the necessary technical features recorded in the patent independent claim adopt the superior conceptual features, and the accused infringing object (product or method) adopts the corresponding inferior conceptual features, the accused infringing object (product or method) falls into the protection scope of the patent right. (3) The infringement of the number of features, such as the object (product or method) accused of infringement, adds new technical features on the basis of using all the necessary technical features in the patent claim, and still belongs to the protection scope of the patent right. At this time, whether the technical effect of the accused infringing object (product or method) is the same as the patented technology is not considered. (4) Infringement of the accused infringing object (product or method) of the subordinate patent is an improved technical scheme for the existing patented technology, and has obtained the patent right, so 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. 2. Principle of Equivalence The concept of "principle of equivalence" refers to achieving basically the same function and effect by basically the same means. Technical personnel in the field can associate the characteristics of infringement by reading the instructions, drawings and claims without creative work. The "equivalence" of the principle of equivalence refers to the equivalence of specific technical features in function and function, rather than the overall equivalence of infringing products and patents. Therefore, the combination of the three technical features of the accused infringing product has basically the same function as the necessary technical feature "elastic cover edge" of this patent claim, and basically the same effect is achieved by basically the same means, which should be regarded as equivalent. When applying the principle of equivalence, we should pay attention to the following two points: (1) For groundbreaking major invention patents, the scope of equivalent protection can be appropriately relaxed; For combined inventions or selective inventions, the scope of equivalent protection can be strictly determined. (2) The patent claim intentionally omits some necessary technical features, which makes the technical scheme inferior to the patented technical scheme in performance and effect, and this deteriorated technical scheme is obviously caused by the omission of necessary technical features, which shall be deemed to constitute patent infringement. 3. The principle of estoppel is a restriction on the principle of equivalence, which means that in the process of patent application and patent infringement trial, the patentee's interpretation of the claim should be consistent, and the patentee can't interpret the claim in the patent application documents (including letters with the Patent Office) in a narrow or narrow sense in order to obtain a patent, but in the subsequent patent infringement litigation process, in order to make the accused infringing object fall into the scope of patent protection, the claim is also interpreted in a broad and narrow sense. For the content that has been promised, recognized or abandoned in the process of patent application, the patentee cannot go back on his word in the subsequent patent infringement litigation. When applying the estoppel principle, we should pay attention to the following points: (1) When there is a conflict between the equivalence principle and the estoppel principle, that is, when the patentee claims to apply the equivalence principle to determine the infringement and the accused infringer claims to apply the estoppel principle to determine that he does not constitute infringement, the estoppel principle should be applied first. (2) The content of estoppel must be what has been recorded in the patent documents, including all the documents and letters between the patent applicant and the patent office from the submission of the patent application to the grant of the patent. (3) The content of estoppel must play a substantial role in granting or maintaining patent rights. (4) The people's court should not actively apply the "estoppel principle", because if the parties do not claim that the obligee gives up or promises a certain right in the patent application, the court is unaware of it and should not take the initiative to investigate. (II) Patent Infringement Defense 1 Patent Invalidity In patent infringement litigation, it is the most common and simple patent infringement defense that the accused infringer applies to the Patent Reexamination Board for patent invalidation. Once the patent is deemed invalid, the basis of infringement reappears, and infringement is out of the question. 2. Known technology Known technology refers to the known technology that has entered the public domain and anyone can use it for free without restriction. The defense of known technology refers to that in patent infringement litigation, if the accused infringing object (product or method) is equivalent to the patent technical scheme recorded in the patent claim, and if the defendant pleads and provides evidence to prove that the accused infringing object (product or method) is equivalent to an existing technology, then the defendant's behavior does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's patent right. Problems that should be paid attention to when applying the principle of freely known technology: (1) When using the existing technology to defend infringement, the existing technology should be a separate technical scheme that existed before the patent application date, or a technical scheme that ordinary technicians in this field think is an obvious and simple combination of the existing technologies. (2) the court can only use the defense principle of freely known technology to judge whether it constitutes infringement, but can't make a conclusion on whether the patent is effective. (3) The defense of known technology only applies to equivalent patent infringement, not to the same patent infringement. When the patent technical scheme and the accused infringer are obviously the same as the cited known technical scheme, the defendant may not defend according to the existing technology, but may request the Patent Reexamination Board to declare the patent right invalid. 3. If the infringer is repeatedly authorized to own the patent right, which takes precedence over the plaintiff's patent right, the patent with earlier application shall be protected according to the principle of earlier application stipulated in the Patent Law. Note: If the plaintiff's patent right precedes the infringing patent, the above general application principle shall be applied to determine whether it is infringing. Two. Identification of design patent infringement Design patent infringement refers to that the infringing product is the same or similar to the patented product of design, including the same or similar product category and the same or similar product design, both of which are indispensable. (a) the definition of whether infringing products and patented products belong to the same category; When examining whether the patented product of design and the product accused of infringement belong to the same category, we should refer to the classification table of design and consider the sales of goods. The so-called design classification table refers to the international design classification table. If the design product and the alleged infringing product are the same in function and use, it is a similar product.
Legal basis:
The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes.
Article 7 The people's court shall examine all the technical features recorded in the patent claim when judging whether the alleged infringing technical scheme belongs to the scope of patent protection. If the technical scheme accused of infringement contains the same or equivalent technical features as all the technical features recorded in the right claim, the people's court shall determine that it belongs to the protection scope of the patent right; If the technical features of the technical scheme accused of infringement lack more than one technical feature recorded in the claim compared with all the technical features recorded in the claim, or more than one technical feature is different or the same, the people's court shall determine that it does not belong to the protection scope of the patent right.
Article 11 When determining whether the designs are identical or similar, the people's court shall make a comprehensive judgment according to the design features of the authorized design and the accused infringing design and the overall visual effect of the design; Design features mainly determined by technical functions, and features such as materials and internal structures that have no influence on the overall visual effect of products should not be considered.
Article 120 Where the civil rights and interests are infringed, the infringed has the right to request the infringer to bear the tort liability.
Article 183 Where an infringer damages himself by defending the civil rights and interests of others, he shall bear civil liability and the beneficiary may give him appropriate compensation. If no infringer or infringer escapes or is unable to bear civil liability, and the victim requests compensation, the beneficiary shall give appropriate compensation.
Article 167 Where an infringement endangers the personal and property safety of others, the infringed party has the right to demand the infringer to bear the tort liability of stopping the infringement, removing the obstruction and eliminating the danger.
Article 168 Where two or more persons jointly infringe and cause damage to others, they shall be jointly and severally liable.