SUCCESSFUL CASES
The patent contract dispute case between Sun and Wang.
[Case Introduction] The case of the plaintiff Sun vs. the defendant Wang regarding a patent contract dispute was accepted by this court, which legally formed a collegial panel and held a public hearing on October 21, 2014. The plaintiff Sun's authorized agent Cai Yizhong, the defendant Wang, and his authorized agent Wang Gang attended the litigation. The case has now concluded. [Case Analysis] The plaintiff Sun claims: The plaintiff and defendant signed a "Patent Cooperation Agreement" on May 18, 2011, to engage in the research, production, and promotion of horizontally self-insulating energy-saving cement bricks. The agreement stipulates that both parties will share the costs incurred during the research phase (such as molds, machinery, and raw materials for products).
[Case Introduction]
In the case of the patent contract dispute between the plaintiff Sun and the defendant Wang, this court accepted the case and formed a collegial panel according to law, and held a public hearing on October 21, 2014. The plaintiff Sun's entrusted agent Cai Yizhong, the defendant Wang, and his entrusted agent Wang Gang attended the litigation. The case has now concluded.
[Case Analysis]
The plaintiff Sun claimed: The plaintiff and defendant signed a "Patent Cooperation Agreement" on May 18, 2011, to engage in the research, production, and promotion of horizontally self-insulating energy-saving cement bricks. The agreement stipulates that the costs incurred during the research phase (such as molds, machinery, raw materials, labor, and technical formulation) shall be shared equally. At the same time, Article 3 of the agreement settled the initial investments of both parties, with the plaintiff investing 500,000 yuan and the defendant investing 100,000 yuan, according to the agreement, the defendant's investment is still short of 200,000 yuan. After the agreement was signed, the plaintiff repeatedly urged the defendant, who has not paid to this day. Since the plaintiff's advance investment is a private loan with a monthly interest of 1.5%, the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit requesting a judgment: 1. The defendant pay the investment of 200,000 yuan, and calculate the monthly interest of 1.5% from May 19, 2011, until this payment is settled; 2. The defendant bear the litigation costs of this case.
The defendant Wang argued: The plaintiff is not qualified as a litigation subject, and the basis for his lawsuit is a "Patent Cooperation Agreement" signed on May 18, 2011, where Party A is Wang Rongshu and Party B is Liu'an Jinma Energy-saving New Building Materials Co., Ltd., and Sun Zhengchao is the legal representative of that company. Sun Zhengchao's signature on the "Patent Cooperation Agreement" is a work-related act, and his lawsuit as a natural person is obviously not qualified. Moreover, the plaintiff's claims are not factual and are taken out of context, and he has other improper purposes for filing this lawsuit. The defendant requests the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.
[Case Result]
The main basis for the plaintiff Sun's lawsuit is the "Patent Cooperation Agreement" dated May 18, 2011. In the heading of the agreement, Party A is listed as Wang and Party B as Liu'an Jinma Energy-saving New Building Materials Co., Ltd. At the end of the agreement, Party A is signed by Wang and Party B by Sun. Since Liu'an Jinma Energy-saving New Building Materials Co., Ltd. legally exists, and Sun Zhengchao is the legal representative of that company, it should be recognized that the Party B of the agreement is Liu'an Jinma Energy-saving New Building Materials Co., Ltd. and not Sun Zhengchao based on the above signing method. Additionally, the content of the agreement does not confirm that Sun Zhengchao is a party to the agreement. Therefore, Sun Zhengchao is not a party to the "Patent Cooperation Agreement" and is not a qualified plaintiff in the lawsuit based on that agreement, which does not meet the legal requirements for acceptance. Lawyer Wang from Hefei learned that according to Article 119, Item (1) of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 139, Paragraph 1 of the "Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the ruling is as follows:
Dismiss the plaintiff Sun's lawsuit.
The case acceptance fee of 4,300 yuan will be refunded to the plaintiff Sun Zhengchao, and the preservation fee of 978 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff.
If you are not satisfied with this ruling, you may submit an appeal to this court within 10 days from the date of delivery of the ruling, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, appealing to the Anhui Provincial High People's Court.
[Relevant Laws]
Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 119: A lawsuit must meet the following conditions:
(1) The plaintiff is a citizen, legal person, or other organization with a direct interest in this case;
(2) There is a clear defendant;
(3) There are specific claims and facts, reasons;
(4) It falls within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people's court and is under the jurisdiction of the people's court.
Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
139. If the lawsuit does not meet the acceptance conditions, the people's court shall rule not to accept it. If it is found that the lawsuit does not meet the acceptance conditions after filing, the court shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.
The ruling not to accept shall be signed by the judge and clerk responsible for reviewing the case; the ruling to dismiss the lawsuit shall be signed by the judge and clerk responsible for hearing the case.
Related cases
-
Telephone:0871-64184225 64189135 64189580
E-mail:info@ynrulawyer.com
Address: No. 703, Block A, Building 1, Central Golden Block, Dianchi Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province
Mobile website
