Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights

[Case Introduction]

The appellant, a certain Lean Company in Wuhan, is dissatisfied with the civil judgment No. (2013) He Min San Chu Zi No. 00176 made by the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province on December 9, 2013, regarding the dispute over the infringement of invention patent rights with the appellee, a certain Shang, and the original defendant, referred to as Hefei Guangli Company. The appellant has filed an appeal to this court.

[Case Analysis]

Shang Jianzhong is the patent holder of the involved patent (Patent No.: ZL2011102198**.2), which was applied for on April 16, 2009, announced for authorization on October 31, 2012, and has a priority date of June 25, 2008. Claim 20 of the involved patent is an independent claim, and its protection scope is: "A circumcision stapler, including an outer ring for cutting and clamping and an inner ring for covering the foreskin, characterized in that: the inner ring is made of a whole ring, or two half rings, or more than two arc segments, with at least one circle of grooves on the outer surface of the inner ring, and at least one circle of blades on the inner side of the outer ring, with the blades cooperating with the grooves to squeeze and/or cut the foreskin; the outer ring is either two semi-circular open rings, or a whole open flexible ring, with corresponding upper and lower blade junctions at both ends of the opening, where the upper and lower blades can be single-layer or double-layer, and several blades perpendicular to the double-layer blades are arranged between the double-layer blades."

Wuhan Lean Company is a medical device manufacturing enterprise. On January 14, 2009, investors signed the company’s articles of association with Gu Xi and Ouyang Zhiwei, and the company was established on January 20, 2009. Wuhan Lean Company and Hefei Guangli Company are both companies that act as agents for the sale of medical devices. In July 2013, Shang Jianzhong discovered that the products sold by Wuhan Lean Company and Hefei Guangli Company were suspected of infringing his involved patent, and he entrusted a notary office to preserve evidence of the products sold by Hefei Guangli Company and the website of Wuhan Lean Company. The involved product is a disposable circumcision stapler, characterized as follows: it consists of an outer ring and an inner ring, with the inner ring being a whole ring, having a circle of grooves on its outer surface, and a circle of blades on the inner side of the outer ring, with the blades cooperating with the grooves of the inner ring to squeeze the foreskin; the outer ring is a whole open flexible ring, with corresponding upper and lower blade junctions at both ends of the opening, and the upper and lower blades are single-layer. The product images promoted on the website of Wuhan Lean Company, which were preserved by notary, are consistent with the appearance of the involved products. During the litigation, Wuhan Lean Company did not dispute that the technical features of the products promoted on its website are consistent with those of the involved products.

Shang Jianzhong believes that the products manufactured, sold, and promised to be sold by Wuhan Lean Company, as well as the products produced and sold by Wuhan Lean Company and Hefei Guangli Company, fall within the protection scope of claim 20 of the involved patent, constituting patent infringement, which has caused him significant economic losses. He filed a lawsuit with the original court, requesting the following judgments: 1. Wuhan Lean Company immediately stop producing, selling, and promising to sell the infringing products, and destroy the molds and inventory used for producing the infringing products; 2. Hefei Guangli Company immediately stop selling the infringing products; 3. Wuhan Lean Company compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan, with Hefei Guangli Company bearing joint liability; 4. Wuhan Lean Company and Hefei Guangli Company jointly bear reasonable expenses of 100,000 yuan incurred by Shang Jianzhong in stopping the infringement.

During the litigation, Wuhan Lean Company applied to the Patent Reexamination Board of the National Intellectual Property Administration for the invalidation of the involved patent and requested to suspend the litigation. During the trial, Hefei Guangli Company provided evidence proving that the involved products originated from Wuhan Lean Company, and Wuhan Lean Company confirmed that the products purchased by Shang Jianzhong from Hefei Guangli Company were produced and sold by it.

According to the parties' arguments, the original court summarized the focal points of the dispute in this case as follows: 1. Whether the involved products fall within the protection scope of the independent claim 20 of the involved patent; 2. Whether the technology of the involved products originates from existing technology; 3. Whether Wuhan Lean Company enjoys prior use rights to the technology of the involved patent; 4. Whether the source of Hefei Guangli Company's products is legal.

[Case Result]

Lawyer Zhang from Hefei learned from the court that the reasons for appeal presented by Wuhan Lean Company lack factual basis and are untenable, and their appeal request should be dismissed. The original judgment is clear in its factual findings, correctly applies the law, and follows legal procedures, and should be upheld. According to Article 170, Paragraph 1, Item (1) and Article 175 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal is dismissed, and the original judgment is upheld.

The second-instance case acceptance fee is 5,950 yuan, to be borne by Wuhan Xin Xing Lean Company.

This judgment is a final judgment.

[Relevant Laws]

Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 170 The second-instance people's court shall handle the appealed cases according to the following circumstances after trial:

(1) If the original judgment or ruling has clear factual findings and correctly applies the law, the appeal shall be dismissed by judgment or ruling, and the original judgment or ruling shall be upheld;

(2) If the original judgment or ruling has erroneous factual findings or incorrectly applies the law, it shall be changed, revoked, or modified by judgment or ruling according to law;

(3) If the original judgment has unclear basic facts, it shall revoke the original judgment and remand the case to the original people's court for retrial, or change the judgment after clarifying the facts;

(4) If the original judgment omits parties or is a serious violation of legal procedures such as a judgment in absentia, it shall revoke the original judgment and remand the case to the original people's court for retrial.

After the original people's court makes a judgment on the remanded case, if the parties appeal, the second-instance people's court shall not remand the case for retrial again.

Article 175 The judgments and rulings of the second-instance people's court are final judgments and rulings.