I LATEST CASES OF CHINA IP PROTECTION · 2018. 9. 25. · as “Chery”), ruling that i) the two...

I

1

B

2

(

3

A

4

W

5

A

6

I

1

2

E

：LATES

1. DSQUA

BY HFG)

2. PIRELL

REPRESENTE

3. LITENS W

AUTOMOBILE

4. MOUTAI

WEBSITE

5. THE COU

AS COPYRIGH

6. HANVON

I：NEW

1. SIPO DE

2. EXAMINA

EXAMINATION

ST CASE

ARED2 WINS

LI WINS A TRA

ED BY HFG)

WINS OVER R

ENGINE

ABANDONS T

URT RULED T

HT INFRINGEM

N WINS A PAT

W TREND

EEPENS IP PR

ATION PERIO

N WILL BE CO

ES OF C

S A TRADEMA

ADEMARK INV

RMB 10.64

THE APPLICA

THAT MERELY

MENT

TENT INVALID

DS OF CH

ROTECTION I

OD FOR TRAD

OMPLETED FO

HINA IP

ARK INVALIDA

VALIDATION

4 MILLION CO

ATION FOR “N

Y USING THE

DATION CASE

HINA IP

IN THE E-COM

EMARK REGIS

OR 100,000

14/F, HuaqJingan DistTel:+86-21-www.hfg.co

PROTE

ATION CASE A

CASE AGAINS

OMPENSATION

NATIONAL S

SAME CHARA

CONCERNIN

PROTEC

MMERCE SEC

STRATION W

0 OVERSTOCK

i Building, Ntrict, Shang-5213 5500om

CTION

AGAINST THE

ST THE TRAD

N IN A PATEN

PIRIT” TRAD

ACTER NAME

G FACE RECO

CTION

CTOR

WILL BE SHORT

KED INVENTI

No.969 Wu hai, China, Fax:+8

E TRADEMARK

DEMARK OF “

T INFRINGEM

DEMARK AND

ES IN A FAN F

OGNITION SY

TENED TO 5

ON PATENTS

IP GO

(A

Ding Road200040

86-21-5213-

K OF “D2” (

“PEINEILI B

MENT CASE C

D MAKES AN A

FICTION CANN

YSTEM

MONTHS AN

BEFORE THE

OSSIP IN

August 2

,

-0895

(REPRESENTE

BEI NAI LI”

CONCERNING

APOLOGY ON

NOT BE DEEM

D SUBSTANT

E END OF 20

N CHINA

2018)

ED

ITS

MED

TIVE

019

HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)

2

I：Latest Cases of China IP Protection

1. DSQUARED2 wins a trademark invalidation case against the trademark of “D2”

(represented by HFG)

(From the Internet)

In July 2018, the Beijing IP Court made an administrative judgment on the trademark of “D2” with App. No.

4231099 (hereinafter referred to as “the Disputed Trademark”) that the Invalidation Decision on the Disputed

Trademark made by the TRAB (hereinafter referred to as “the Disputed Decision”) should be revoked in

accordance with the law, as part of the Disputed Decision was based on unclearly identified facts and contained

incorrect law application.

In 2016, DSQUARED2 TM S.A. (the Invalidation Applicant) filed an invalidation application against the

Disputed Trademark registered by Hangzhou Xiaoshan Heshang Town Chenchen Grocery Store. During the

administrative procedure, the TRAB ruled that the Disputed Trademark is not similar with the trademark of “D2

DSQUARED2” with App. No. 3968186 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cited Trademark”) and should be

maintained. The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed an administrative lawsuit in the

Beijing IP Court.

Disputed Trademark Cited Trademarks

App. No. 4231099

Class 25: Shirts; trousers; knitwear [clothing]; etc.

App. No. 3968186

Class 25: Raincoat


3

The Applicant, DSQUARED2 TM S.A., is a famous Italian clothing company. This company has sold its

products in “I.T” store in China since 2002. It registered the Cited Trademark in November 2010, designated to

the goods of raincoat in Class 25.

The Respondent, Hangzhou Xiaoshan Heshang Town Chenchen Grocery Store, applied for the Disputed

Trademark in Class 25, designated to the goods of shirts, trousers, knitwear [clothing], etc..

DSQUARED2 TM S.A., filed the invalidation application to the TRAB based on the claim that the Disputed

Trademark violates Articles 28, 31 and 41 of the Trademark Law in 2001. After examination, the TRAB held that:

i) The Disputed Trademark is not similar with the Cited Trademark on similar goods, and the Respondent did not

improperly register the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by others; ii) Meanwhile, as

there is no evidence to prove that the Disputed Trademark was obtained by fraud or other improper means, the

Disputed Trademark does not have the nature of exaggeration and fraud in advertising goods; iii) Therefore, the

Applicant’s claim should not be supported.

The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed the administrative lawsuit in the Beijing IP

Court. After the hearing, the Court held that: i) As the designated goods of the Disputed Trademark (shirts,

trousers, knitwear [clothing], etc.) and the Cited Trademark (raincoat) have high relevance in the terms of

marketing channel and consumers, which constitute similar goods, and part of the elements of the two

trademarks are extremely similar, the coexistence of the two trademarks on similar goods can easily confuse

and mislead the relevant public about the source of the goods, and the two trademarks constitute similar

trademarks used for similar goods; ii) The Disputed Decision made by the TRAB should be corrected.

At last, the Court ruled that the Disputed Decision made by the TRAB should be revoked and the TRAB

should make a new invalidation decision.

【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that the key to the

success of this case is how to identify similar trademarks used for similar goods. In fact, the current judicial

practice has already gone beyond the act of strictly following the Classification of Similar Goods and

Services, and can even identify goods/services in different categories or non-similar groups as similar goods

or services. The most important factors in determining the similarity of the goods or services are the

relevance between the goods or services, whether they are identical or have high relevance in the usage,

user

dee

prov

exa

good

2.

(con

refe

TRA

of th

Disp

proc

it sh

r, common

em that such

viders, and

mining the

ds and mad

PIRELLI w

Bei Nai L

In August 2

nsisting of “

erred to as “

AB (hereinaft

he Disputed

In 2016, P

puted Trade

cedure, the

hould be ma

utility, sale

h products

d whether

evidence p

de the above

wins a tr

Li” (repr

018, the Bei

“PEINEILI” a

“the Dispute

ter referred

d Decision w

PIRELLI & C

emark regis

TRAB ruled

aintained.

es channels

are provide

will cause

provided by

e-mentione

rademark

resented

ijing IP Cour

and Chinese

ed Trademar

d to as “the D

was based on

C.S.P.A. (the

stered by Q

that the Dis

and consum

ed by the s

e confusion

HFG, the C

ed judgmen

k invalida

by HFG)

(Fro

rt made a fir

characters

k”) that the

Disputed De

n unclearly i

e Invalidatio

Qingdao Les

sputed Trad

mer, etc., w

ame source

n among co

Court identi

nt.

ation cas

)

om the Inter

rst-instance

equivalent

e Invalidatio

ecision”) sho

dentified fa

on Applican

shi Sanitary

demark didn

whether the

e or there i

onsumers.

fied that ra

e against

rnet)

e judgment o

to PIRELLI)

n Decision o

ould be revo

acts and con

nt) filed an

y Products

’t violate th

HFG IP

y can easily

s a specific

Based on

aincoat and

t the trad

on the trade

) with App.

on the Dispu

ked in accor

ntained inco

n invalidatio

Co., Ltd..

he provisions

P GOSSIP in C

y make the

c relationsh

the above

clothing co

demark o

emark of “PE

No. 120333

uted Tradem

rdance with

orrect law ap

on applicat

During the

s of the Trad

China (August

relevant pu

ip between

e factors, a

onstitute sim

of “PEINE

EINEILI Bei N

384 (hereina

ark made by

the law, as

pplication.

tion against

e administra

demark Law

t 2018)

4

ublic

n the

after

milar

EILI

Nai Li”

after

y the

part

t the

ative

w and


5

Disputed Trademark Cited Trademarks

App. No. 12033384

Class 5: Medicine for human purposes; medical oils; oil

formulation; etc.

Cited Trademark 1: App. No. 8522336

Class 12: Motor coaches; automobile tires; etc.


Class 12: Motor coaches; automobile tires; etc.


Class 12: Vehicles; vehicles for locomotion by land, air or water.


Class 12: Rubber wheels; pneumatic and non-pneumatic tires;

etc.

The Applicant, PIRELLI & C.S.P.A. is a famous Italian tire manufacturer, whose main brand “PIRELLI” and its

Chinese equivalence “Bei Nai Li” enjoy high reputation in the tire industry and other relevant areas and have

been identified as well-known trademarks.

The Respondent, Qingdao Leshi Sanitary Products Co., Ltd. applied for the Disputed Trademark in January

2013, designated to the goods of paste, personal sexual lubricants, chemical preparations for the diagnosis of

pregnancy, medicines for human purposes, disinfectants for hygiene purposes, lotions for pharmaceutical

purposes, isotopes for medical purposes, medicinal oils, oil formulation, etc. in Class 5.

The Applicant filed the invalidation application to the TRAB based on the claim that the Respondent

improperly registered the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by others. After

examination, the TRAB held that the Disputed is not similar with the Cited Trademarks on similar goods, and the

Respondent did not improperly register the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by

others, therefore, the Applicant’s claim should not been supported.

The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed the lawsuit in the Beijing IP Court. After the

first-instance hearing, the Court held that: i) the Third Party has registered a large quantity of trademarks,


6

which has disturbed the public order, damaged the public interest, disturbed the trademark registration order

and violates the principles of good faith; ii) Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Trademark violates the

relevant provision about improper registration in the Trademark Law.

【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that from the perspective

of present judicial practice, Article 44 of the Trademark Law pays more attention to the protection of the

public interest and public order. If the applicant registers a large quantity of trademarks without legitimate

reasons, and has no actual intention to use the trademarks, it can be deemed as improper occupation of

public resources.

In this case, the Third Party registered 439 trademarks, in which many are intended imitation of

famous/well-known marks of others. Although the Third Party interpreted such large amount of trademark

registration as commercial reserves, but it failed to submit the evidence to prove that these applications

are really for the usage. Above all, the Court held that the Third Party disturbed the regular trademark

registration order, and finally made the above-mentioned judgment.

3. Litens wins over RMB 10.64 million compensation in a patent infringement

case concerning automobile engine

(From the Internet)

On 24 July, 2018, the Jiangsu High People’s Court made a second-instance judgment on an invention patent

infringement case filed by Litens Automotive Parts (Suzhou) co., Ltd (the Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as

“Litens Suzhou”) against Gates Unitta Power Transmission (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1, hereinafter

referred to as “Gates Unitta Shanghai”) and Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. (Defendant 2, hereinafter referred to


7

as “Chery”), ruling that i) the two types of four-cylinder engine assembly of SQR481 and SQR484 series

manufactured and sold by the two defendants constitute patent infringement and ii) the two defendants should

bear joint liabilities for compensation of over RMB 10.64 million in total for damages and reasonable

expenditure.

Background:

The Plaintiff, Litens Suzhou, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Litens Automotive Group in Canada, was

registered in 2003, and mainly manufactures automatic tension pulleys and shock absorbers of automobile

engines.

Defendant 1, Gates Unitta Shanghai, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gates Nitta Belt Company LLC in the

United States, was registered in 2003, and mainly produces automotive transmission equipment. In the above

dispute, Defendant 1 mainly provided technical solutions and major parts for Defendant 2.

Defendant 2 is a well-known full-vehicle manufacture in China which produced and sold the products

accused of infringement.

The patent involved in this case is the Chinese invention patent of “Synchronous Transmission Device with

Non-Circular Drive Parts as well as Operation and Construction Method Therefor” with Patent No. ZL02823458.8,

applied by Litens Automotive Group (the parent company of Litens Suzhou) through the PCT route. This patent

was applied on October 24, 2002, granted on June 25, 2008 and its priority date is November 27, 2001. The

patent is to set the driving wheel of the engine timing system (on/off control system for engine intake and

exhaust system) as a non-circular wheel and correct the torque by using the fluctuation of the non-circular

wheel to reduce or offset the fluctuation load torque generated by the camshaft, so as to eliminate or reduce

the vibration and noise of the automobile engine timing system.

This patent was licensed to Litens Suzhou through a patent license. Afterwards, Litens Automotive Group

authorized Litens Suzhou to file a lawsuit for compensation in its own name.


8

Litigious Process:

In 2012, the Plaintiff, Litens Suzhou, filed the first lawsuit against Gates Unitta Shanghai, Chery and Suzhou

New Century Automobile Trade Co., Ltd (as the company was only involved in selling the accused products and

has evidence of legitimate sources, after being canceled in the process of second instance, the Plaintiff

withdrew the lawsuit against it, it will not be discussed here) in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court,

claiming for compensation of over RMB 38.44 million for damages, on the grounds of Claims 1, 30, 39 and 58 of

the patent involved in this case.

On August 2, 2010 before the lawsuit was filed, Gates Nitta Belt Company LLC (the parent company of

Gates Unitta Shanghai) filed an invalidation application against the patent involved in this case to the Patent

Reexamination Board of SIPO, and the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO ruled that the patent should be

maintained. On August 6, 2012 after the patent lawsuit, Gates Unitta Shanghai again filed an invalidation

application against the patent to the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO, and the Patent Reexamination Board

of SIPO still ruled that the patent should be maintained.

On December 19, 2014, after the hearing, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court made a first-instance

judgment, ruling that the products accused of infringement do not fall into the scope of protection of the

patent, and dismissed Litens Suzhou’s claim. Litens Suzhou, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment,

appealed to the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province. The High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held that:

i) The first-instance court made a restrictive interpretation of the relevant technical features of the claims and

improperly narrowed the scope of protection of the claims; ii) Through infringement comparison, the products

accused of infringement fall into the scope of protection of Claims 1, 30, 39 and 58; iii) The act conducted by

Chery is manufacturing, using and selling the products that infringed on the patent right; iv) Gates Unitta

Shanghai provided technical solutions and major parts for the patent infringement of manufacturing and selling

the infringing products conducted by Chery, which constitutes contributory infringement.

In terms of compensation, the second-instance court made the final judgment, ruling that according to the

relevant data of sales volume and profit margin of the products accused of infringement, the two defendants

should bear joint liabilities for compensation of over RMB 10.64 million in total for damages and reasonable

expenditure to Litens Suzhou.


9

【HFG Former Patent Examiner’s Views】The former patent examiner and senior patent attorney of HFG

pointed out that this patent lawsuit had lasted for about six years from 2012 to 2018, which mainly

involved the identification of patent infringement, particularly the interpretation of claims and

infringement comparison. In the field of mechanical mechanism, the technical features of the patent are

usually described in structural terms, and include the position relationship between the parts and the

features of change in the movement, but not limited to the mere mechanical connection relation of each

part. Based on the technical expertise and complexity of the patent involved in this case and the infringing

products, both parties and the second-instance court invited several expert assistants to participate in the

analysis and discussion to determine the correct interpretation of technical solutions.

In accordance with the provisions of functional features in Article 4 of the Interpretation by the

Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent

Infringement Disputes and Article 8 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues

Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (2), the determination of

whether the technical features of the patents involved in this case is functional features or not shall be

based on the correct interpretation of technical solutions, and the records of patent examination,

reexamination, invalidation and other procedures shall also be taken into consideration to determine

whether the technical solutions to be protected can be obtained by a person having ordinary skill in the art

from the claims.

In addition, as the technical solutions applied in the infringing products of synchronous transmission

device for engine transmission system cannot be identified by technical identification when the infringing

products are being used, Litens Suzhou conducted the related measurement tests by itself and issued four

measurement experiment reports to prove that the infringing products fall into the scope of protection of

the claims involved in this case.

Therefore, although the identification of patent infringement is complicated in the field of automobile

parts where infringement occurs frequently, professional and reasonable protection measures can be

taken to stop massive infringement and pave the way for the promotion of products in the market.


10

4. Moutai abandons the application for “National Spirit” Trademark and makes

an apology on its website

(From the Internet)

In the evening of August 13, 2018, Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. (a well-known spirit manufacturer in China,

hereinafter referred to as “Moutai”) made a statement on its official website, declaring that it had decided to

abandon the application for the trademark of “National Spirit Moutai” in Chinese equivalence, withdraw the

lawsuit against the TRAB and make an apology to the TRAB and relevant parties.

The reason that Moutai had been continuously pursuing the registration of “National Spirit Moutai”

trademark can be traced back to the year of 1975, when the vice-premier Wang Zhen formally stated in a

national conference that “Kweichow Moutai is the national spirit”.

Due to the above-mentioned episode, Moutai had been applying for “National Spirit Moutai” trademark

since 2001. In the following 17 years, the trademark application was refused for many times. Moutai,

dissatisfied with the refusal decision, filed applications for review to the TRAB for many times.

On May 25, 2018, the TRAB refused the registration of “National Spirit Moutai” trademark again. It is stated

clearly in the Decision on Refusal of the Registration of “National Spirit Moutai” Trademark with App. No.

8377491 that the TRAB held that: i) The refused trademark “National Spirit Moutai” was designated to the goods

of “fruit extracts, alcoholic; liquor [beverages], etc.” in Class 33; ii) Moutai claimed that although the refused

trademark “National Spirit Moutai” contains the word “National”, it cannot be deemed as a mark that is

identical or similar with the name of the People's Republic of China, therefore, the application for the refused

trademark does not violate the provision of Article 10.1.1 of the Trademark Law; iii) The above-mentioned

claim should not be supported.


11

On July 2018, Moutai, dissatisfied with the above review decision, filed an administrative lawsuit against

the TRAB to the Beijing IP Court, and listed 31 institutions and enterprises including Wuliangye, JNC, Langjiu

and Fenjiu (all the above are well-known spirit manufacturers in China) as the Third Party.

However, in the evening of August 13, Moutai made a statement unexpectedly, declaring that it respects

and is willing to accept the review decision made by the TRAB; besides, the company has decided to file an

application for withdrawing the lawsuit against the TRAB to the Beijing IP Court and hereby expresses its

sincere apology to the TRAB and relevant parties.

Hence, after 17 years of vain effort, Moutai finally abandoned the application for “National Spirit Moutai”

trademark.

【Comments by HFG】In this case, Moutai has made a wise choice, because even if Moutai files a lawsuit

against the TRAB, there is little chance for it to win the lawsuit. The TRAB refused the trademark

application filed by Moutai from the perspective of the interests of major domestic spirit manufacturers,

on the grounds of fairness and consistency of legal interests. If the trademark of “National Spirit Moutai” is

registered, it can be seen that not only major spirit manufacturers, manufacturers of various types will

apply for trademarks that includes “National”, which will cause consumers’ confusion and bring negative

effect to fair competition in other commodity markets. Considering this, “National Spirit Moutai”

trademark violates the provision of “having other unhealthy influence” in Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark

Law, and shall not be registered.

5.

copy

Yong

othe

shou

com

is a

disc

influ

the

clas

the

The cou

cannot b

In the morn

yright dispu

g) against Ya

ers on the g

uld cease th

mpensation o

The Plainti

lso well kno

cussion on th

uencial laws

The fan fic

Beijing Univ

smates. The

characters s

rt ruled

be deeme

ning of Augu

te case filed

ang Zhi (the

grounds of

heir unfair c

of over RMB

ff, Zha Lian

own as a fa

he Internet

suit case con

ction involve

versity, and

e model of t

such as Guo

that me

ed as cop

ust 16, 2018

d by Zha Lia

author of th

copyright in

competition

1.88 million

ngyong, has

an fiction o

, and the P

ncerning fan

ed in this ca

describes in

the Bianjing

o Jing, Huan

rely usin

pyright in

(From

, the People

angyong (a C

he campus n

nfringement

n acts of pu

n for damag

a great influ

of Jin Yong’

laintiff clai

n fiction.

ase, There T

nteresting e

g University

g Rong, Yang

ng the sa

nfringem

m the Inte

e’s Court of

Chinese well

novel There

t and unfair

blishing and

ges to Zha Li

uence amon

’s wuxia nov

med huge c

They Were,

pisodes and

in the fan f

g Kang, Qiao

ame char

ment

ernet)

Tianhe Dist

l-known wux

They Were,

r competitio

d selling the

iangyong.

ng readers, a

vels. As var

compensatio

is created b

positive ca

fiction is the

o Feng and

HFG IP

acter na

rict, Guangz

xia novelist,

known by h

on, ruling t

e novel The

and the cam

rious fan fic

on, this case

based on the

mpus life of

e Beijing Un

Ling Huchon

P GOSSIP in C

ames in a

zhou made a

known by h

his pen name

that i) Yang

ere They We

mpus novel T

ctions have

e is known

e campus lif

f the main c

niversity, an

ng are Yang

China (August

a fan fict

a judgment

his pen name

e Jiang Nan)

g Zhi and ot

ere and ii) m

There They W

e caused he

as China’s m

fe of Yang Z

haracter an

nd the mode

Zhi’s classm

t 2018)

12

tion

on a

e Jin

) and

thers

make

Were

eated

most

Zhi in

d his

els of

mates


13

and friends, which are the same with the name of famous heroes in Jin Yong wuxia novels. The fan fiction and

Jin Yong wuxia novels are also similar in the relationship and personality of the characters as well as the story.

In October 2016, Zha Liangyong filed a lawsuit to the People’s Court of Tianhe District, Guangzhou,

claiming that: i) The character names in the novel There They Were are the same with that of Jin Yong wuxia

novels, which constitutes copyright infringement; ii) Yang Zhi used the original elements of Jin Yong wuxia

novels to attract the readers, and gained huge profit by acquiring competitive advantages, which violates the

principles of good faith and has brought great obstacles to the use of Jin Yong wuxia novels by Zha Liangyong,

therefore constitutes unfair competition; iii) Considering this, Yang Zhi should make compensation of over RMB

5 million for damages.

After the hearing, the court held that: i) Merely using the same character names cannot be deemed as

copyright infringement; ii) Considering the influence of Jin Yong wuxia novels in the field of literature, film and

television in the China Circle, Yang Zhi’s act of using the character names same with Jin Yong wuxia novels is

suspected of taking advantage of the reputation of others to gain profit and constitutes unfair competition.

Therefore, the court ruled that Yang Zhi should make compensation of over RMB 1.88 million in total for

damages to Zha Liangyong, without fully supporting the Plaintiff’s claim of compensation of over RMB 5 million.

【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that the personality,

relationship of characters and background story in the novel There They Were were not based on Jin Yong

wuxia novels. The novel There They Were is a modern novel, and the story and plot are different from Jin

Yong wuxia novels. Therefore, the key point of this case is whether the name, relationship, personality of

the characters and the story can be deemed as original and protected by the Copyright Law or not.

After the hearing, the Court held that the novel involved in this case is only similar in non-critical

elements like character names, and has originality in the whole plot; on the whole, it will not make the

readers believe that it is a work of Jin Yong, and hence does not constitute copyright infringement.

Therefore, the Court ruled that Yang Zhi enjoys the complete copyright.

However, Yang Zhi obviously took advantage of the readers’ interest and attention to the heroes in Jin

Yong wuxia novels to raise the attention to his own work, and is suspected of making huge profit, which has

obviously exceeded the necessary limits. Therefore, the Court held that Yang Zhi’s act is improper and


14

violates the accepted business morals in the cultural industry, which should be prohibited by the

Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case has a symbolic significance on fan fictions, which sets a line for the

creation of fan fictions while provides some creation space to encourage the creation of fan fictions, which

will help culture communication and development.

6. Hanvon wins a patent invalidation case concerning face recognition system

(from the Internet)

On July 30, 2018, the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO ruled that the invention patent of “Ramp Type

Image Acquisition Device and Face Recognition System” with Patent No. 200810115547.0 (hereinafter referred

to as “Disputed Patent”) should be maintained in the ruling on the application for patent invalidation filed by

Guangzhou Realand Information Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese manufacturer of access control products

established in 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Realand”).

The disputed patent was applied by Hanvon Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese manufacturer of

human-computer interactive products established in 1998, hereinafter referred to as “Hanvon”) on June 25,

2008 and granted on March 23, 2016. It relates to a ramp type image acquisition device and a face recognition

system using the device therefor, which sets the axis of the camera vertical to the ramp type interface.

The above-mentioned patent invalidation case resulted from a patent lawsuit.

On April 20, 2017, Hanvon filed a lawsuit against Realand to the Beijing IP Court on the grounds of patent

infringement, claiming for compensation of RMB 500,000 for damages. In response to the lawsuit, on December

4, 2017, the defendant, Realand, filed the above application for patent invalidation, stating that Claims 1-6 of

the disputed patent do not possess inventive step specified in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law.


15

Afterwards, Hanvon, in response to the reasons of invalidation application provided by Realand,

supplemented the review decision issued before the disputed patent was granted. The disputed patent was

refused in the procedure of substantive examination, and then after two years of review process, it was finally

granted, which shows to some extent that the right of the disputed patent is relatively stable.

In this patent infringement dispute concerning face recognition technology, the disputed patent was

maintained, and its effectiveness and stability was basically confirmed. The subsequent litigation procedure

will focus on the identification of infringement. It still needs to be concerned about whether Realand’s act will

be determined as infringement.

【Comments by HFG】With the rapid development of intelligent identification technology, human-machine

interactive products such as attendance machines, household intelligent door locks, mobile phones and

computer interface unlocking products have been popularized around the world. Hanvon applied for the

disputed patents in 2008, with strong awareness of innovation protection. Through eight years of refusal,

reexamination and authorization procedures, the disputed patent was finally granted.

In the above patent invalidation procedure, although Realand submitted 11 pieces of evidence,

including a design patent of a bank counter machine with a ramp interface, as the image acquisition device

with a inclined camera was not disclosed, the disputed patent was unable to be invalidated. It can be seen

that the disputed patent has high stability.

At present, intelligent home door locks are becoming popular and low-priced and facing fierce

competition in China, but many relevant companies do not have self-developed technologies. There is a

large quantity of face recognition devices with ramp type interfaces in the Chinese market, and there is a

high possibility of patent infringement in these devices. Therefore, the patentee, Hanvon, filed the first

patent infringement lawsuit, which not only protected its technology innovation, but also warned potential

infringing competitors in the fierce market competition and improved the competitiveness of its products.


16

II：New Trends of China IP Protection

1. SIPO deepens IP protection in the e-commerce sector

(From the Internet)

On August 8, 2018, the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as “SIPO”) announced

that it will launch a four-month specific action in the e-commerce sector, enhancing the countermeasures

against intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting on e-commerce platforms. This action is based on

the problems of e-commerce platforms which are increasingly reported by the public, particularly, the massive

infringement and counterfeiting occurs on Pin Duo Duo and other shopping platforms recently.

The SIPO will launch the specific action from four aspects as below:

1. Enhancing countermeasures in the key areas. In the e-commerce sector with large commodity

transaction volume and high social concern, the SIPO will enhance the countermeasures against online

intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting acts, strengthen the information management of online

transaction platforms such as Internet self-operated stores, third party-operated stores and mobile client

transaction platforms, lead the platforms to conduct self-inspection, and attach importance to complaints

about intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting.

2. Enhancing countermeasures and exposure of key cases. The SIPO will comprehensively check the current


17

situation and problems of intellectual property protection on large e-commerce platforms, intensify efforts to

combat with infringement and counterfeiting acts that are widely reported by the public and have great social

influence, and pay close attention to the investigation and raid action of typical cases.

3. Intensifying efforts to trace and combat with offline sources. The SIPO will effectively promote

coordinated law enforcement and joint law enforcement among different departments to improve the accuracy

of tracing the offline source of infringement and counterfeiting, conduct in-depth investigation to identify the

source of production and cut off the circulation chain, strengthen integrated online and offline

countermeasures, and quickly and effectively combat with offline intellectual property infringement and

counterfeiting acts.

4. The SIPO will strengthen the implementation of responsibilities, clarify responsibilities and intensify

efforts of countermeasures. At the same time, the SIPO will strengthen statistical analysis and comprehensively

record the situation of specific action in various regions.

The above specific action plan shows that the SIPO is enhancing enforcement, aiming to significantly

increase the cost of breaking the law and make great efforts to combat with infringing and counterfeiting on

e-commerce platforms.

【Comments by HFG】Recently, the news that Pin Duo Duo went public soon after it was established for a

short time has triggered a series of controversies. Many consumers complains that the products purchased

on Pin Duo Duo are suspected of infringement, which has attracted a lot of attention. Meanwhile, Pin Duo

Duo will also face a class-action filed by the U.S law firms.

The controversy about Pin Duo Duo has swept the Internet, and the core issue is counterfeiting.

Although many media speak for Pin Duo Duo and report the news of listing, it cannot change the fact that

there is a large quantity of counterfeits on the Pin Duo Duo platform. At present, the China government

attaches great importance to the problem of selling infringing products on e-commerce platforms.

Meanwhile, the Market Supervision Administrations, Public Security Bureaus and other authorities in China

are enhancing countermeasures against illegal e-commerce operators to regulate the market and safeguard

the interest of consumers and the rights of intellectual property owners.

18


2. Examination period for trademark registration will be shortened to 5 months

and substantive examination will be completed for 100,000 overstocked

invention patents before the end of 2019

(From the Internet)

On May 5th, 2018, the General Office of the State Council of the PRC released the notification to deepen

“delegation, regulation and services” (the abbreviation of “streamline administration and delegate power,

strengthen regulation, improve government service, and continuously improve government effectiveness”)

nationwide for the reform and transfer of the government’s function. The main measures hereof to encourage

the operation of trademark, patent bureaus and other departments are as below:

1. The SIPO should be responsible for the reform of trademark examination facilitation, sharply shortening

the period for trademark registration, publicizing the trademark database to the society and shortening the

examination period for trademark registration to six (6) months before the end of 2018; further shortening such

examination period to five (5) months before the end of 2019 and shortening such period to four (4) months in

five years.

2. The SIPO should be responsible for the reform of patent application facilitation, shortening the period

for an invention patent with a high value for more than 10%; completing 100,000 overstock of examination of

invention patent examination and shortening the examination period for invention patent with a high value for

more than 30% before the end of 2019; and shortening such examination period for one thirds in five (5) years,

in which shortening the examination period for invention patent with high value to a half.

3. The SIPO has been responsible for carrying out the creative research on supervision for patent agency on

19


the basis of “Internet plus” and proposing the project of Internet supervision platform, which is adapted for the

background of “Internet plus”.

4. The Development and Reform Commission, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the State

Administration of Taxation, and the SIPO should cooperate with each other and be responsible for optimizing

the service to entrepreneurial and innovative enterprise, providing more convenience in terms of business

registration, patent application, etc., practicing beneficial policy on taxation actively, insisting comprehensive

and cautious supervision and supporting these enterprises to develop healthily.

【Comments by HFG】The three basic numbers that the amount of trademark & patent application,

trademark registration& patent granting and effective trademark registration in our country have been at

the top of the world consistently for more than ten years, plus, China has been working hard on the

strategy to develop intellectual property and accelerate the intellectual property establishment.

Therefore, the amount of trademark and patent application is rising continuously, in some extent, such

fact has caused more difficulties on trademark and patent management and longer examination period.

The amount of Chinese trademark and patent application has been consistently and rapidly increasing

for several years. Meanwhile, the examination period and the amount of overstocked trademark and

patent rank a high level worldwide at the same time. To resolve the overstock of trademark application,

SAIC has established 56 trademark hearing windows nationwide, strongly motivating the trademark

registration cyberization process in the meantime. So far, China has reached the target to register

trademark at home. The proportion of online trademark application has increased to 88% among all

trademark application.

Compared with the substantial examination of trademark, the substantial examination of invention

patent is also the reason to cause the examination period for patent so long. Thus, the present operation of

SIPO is to pick patent with high level preliminarily and carry out their examination in advance, accelerating

the speed for patent with high value to pass examination, and creating green channels for patent with high

value which helps them enter into the market and create value. Meanwhile, there are lots of “trash”

patent with low value merged in all patent application cases. Therefore, it is an effective reform method to

let patent with low value make way for the patent with high value.

HFG Law Firm August 30, 2018

ABO

HFGprov

com

busi

Cons

HFGlong

judi

auto

HFGa on

com

phar

Case

Mini

bran

man

cont

HFG

Cham

Plea

Cont

Tel：

Fax：

Ema

OUT HFG

G since foundviding clients

mmercial req

ness interest

sulting Co. L

G collects ang-term practi

cial authori

onomous reg

G integrates tne stop solut

mmunication，

rmaceuticals

es completed

stry of Publi

nd protection

ny main provi

tinuous years

G is recomme

mbers and P

ase feel comf

tact informa

+86 21 5213

：+86 21 521

ail：Hfg_chin

d in 2003，a

s with servic

uirements o

ts for clients

Ltd and HFG

n abundant

ical experien

ties at vari

ions of the c

the commerc

ion to compa

petrochem

s standard, t

d by HFG ar

ic Security f

n committee

inces. HFG h

s.

ended by Leg

artners and

fort to conta

ation:

3 5500

13 0895

[email protected]

s a firm uniq

ce of the hig

f clients fro

s. At the mom

Intellectual

and diversif

nce, and doe

ious levels

country.

cial and corp

anies whose

mistry, wine s

the acquirem

re evaluated

for several co

e of CAEFI an

has been awa

gal 500 as th

WRT 1000.

act us if you

m

quely integra

ghest standa

m all walks

ment, HFG co

Property Age

ied knowled

es all kinds o

at province

porate law se

intangible a

such as grape

ment of certi

d as the top

ontinuous ye

nd the classic

arded as the

he No.1 in te

have any ad

ated and co-

rd and quali

of life all o

onsists of thr

ency Co. Ltd

dge base and

of intellectua

es, municipa

ervices of IP c

assets out va

e wine, fashi

ficate and th

ten represe

ears, in addi

cal lawsuit in

best IP servi

erms of IP b

dvices or opi

-managed by

ity all the ti

ver the wor

ree entities:

d. and sets u

d multi-lingu

al property b

alities direct

contentious

alue the tang

on cosmetics

he earnings

entative crim

ition, the to

n that every

ice provider

business in Sh

nions for IP n

y multi-natio

me. By pro

ld, we do ou

HFG Law Fir

p two office

ual commun

business for

tly under th

and non-con

gibles. Serv

s, retail and

of patent tec

minal cases a

p ten best c

year by man

by many int

hanghai sinc

news of food

onal professi

ofound unde

ur best to o

rm, HFG Inte

es in Beijing

nication capa

clients in ad

he central

ntentious pra

vice scope of

e-commerce

chnology etc

and top five

cases claimed

ny medium a

ternational c

ce 2010 and

d industry in

onals, persis

rstanding fo

btain the la

ellectual Prop

and Shangha

ability throu

dministrative

government

actices, prov

f HFG includ

e trade, food

c.

classic case

d by high qu

and high cour

clients for sev

by MIP ranke

this season.

sts in

r the

rgest

perty

ai.

ugh a

e and

and

iding

des IT

d and

es by

uality

rts at

veral

ed in

.

I LATEST CASES OF CHINA IP PROTECTION · 2018. 9. 25. · as “Chery”), ruling that i) the two...

Documents

Transcript of I LATEST CASES OF CHINA IP PROTECTION · 2018. 9. 25. · as “Chery”), ruling that i) the two...