Filter

Open

19

JUN

2020

业界新闻:

“新冠肺炎防疫专利信息共享平台”英文版上线

Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic Prevention Patent Information Sharing Platform now in English

为有效助力新冠肺炎疫情防控科研攻关,为国内外用户在抗击疫情中提供专业及时的专利信息服务,近日,中国国家知识产权局组织中国专利信息中心、国家知识产权局专利局专利审查协作北京中心等单位,在原“新型冠状病毒感染肺炎防疫专利信息共享平台”的基础上共同开发了防疫专利信息共享平台英文版(https://ncp.patentstar.cn/en/),已于4月20日正式上线。

Led by the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO), the English version of “Coronavirus Pneumonia Epidemic Prevention Patent Information Sharing Platform” (https://ncp.patentstar.cn/en/) ,which was developed jointly by the China Patent Information Center (CNPAT), the SIPO Patent Office Examination Center in Beijing, launched officially on April 20.

据悉,防疫专利信息共享平台英文版新增在线翻译功能,依托中国专利信息中心新一代人工智能机器翻译系统,可将中文专利在线进行翻译。除功能优化外,防疫专利信息共享平台英文版平台免费向国内外用户开放,收录与防疫工作相关的中外专利信息7000余条,按技术相关度和重要程度排序,细分为9个一级分支、34个二级分支和78个三级分支,涵盖9大技术领域;开设分析报告专区,集中收录与防疫相关的专利数据分析报告,可供用户快速查阅和了解最新专利研究成果;用户无需登录注册,不受地域限制。

It is reported that the platform adopts the new online Chinese to English translation feature, realized by CNPAT’s new AI machine translation system. It is free for users at home and abroad. It contains more than 7,000 pieces of domestic and foreign patent information concerning epidemic prevention work, sorted by technical relevance and importance, and is subdivided into 9 first-level branches, 34 second-level branches and 78 third-level branches, covering 9 major technical fields; there is a reports session that consolidates the patent data analysis reports related to epidemic prevention for users to have a quick review of the latest patent research results; users do not need to log in or register, and access is not subject to geographical restrictions.

(来源:中国国家知识产权局)

中国首次正式发布全国专利密集型产业增加值数据

CNIPA: Last Year Output Growth in Patent-intensive Industries Released for the Very First Time

日前,中国国家知识产权局、国家统计局发布的增加值数据依据《知识产权(专利)密集型产业统计分类(2019)》,利用第四次全国经济普查结果进行核算。经核算,2018年中国专利密集型产业增加值为107090亿元,占中国国内生产总值的比重为11.6%。这是中国首次正式发布全国专利密集型产业增加值数据。

The State Intellectual Property Office and the National Bureau of Statistics released the output growth data based on the “Statistical Classification for IP (Patent) Intensive Industries (2019)”, which had been audited in accordance with the results of the 4th National Economic Census. According to the data, the output growth in patent-intensive industries in 2018 was 1070.9 billion-yuan, accounting for 11.6% of China's GDP. This is the first time China has officially released national output growth data for patent-intensive industries.

中国专利密集型产业按照经济活动性质分为七大类,新装备制造业增加值为32833亿元,占专利密集型产业增加值的比重最高,为30.7%;信息通信技术制造业增加值为21551亿元,所占比重为20.1%;信息通信技术服务业增加值为19472亿元,所占比重为18.2%;新材料制造业增加值为14130亿元,所占比重为13.2%;医药医疗产业增加值为9465亿元,所占比重为8.8%;研发、设计和技术服务业增加值为7215亿元,所占比重为6.7%;环保产业增加值为2424亿元,所占比重为2.3%。《知识产权(专利)密集型产业统计分类(2019)》已于2019年4月1日正式发布实施。

Here’s the breakdown of output growth in the seven major categories of China's patent-intensive industries: 3.2833 trillion yuan in the new equipment manufacturing industry, accounting for the highest proportion of the overall output growth, at 30.7%; 2.1551 trillion yuan in the IT and communications manufacturing industry, accounting for 20.1%; 1.9472 trillion yuan in the IT and communications service industry, accounting for 18.2%; 1.413 trillion yuan in the new materials manufacturing industry, accounting for 13.2%; 946.5 billion yuan in the pharmaceutical and medical industry, accounting for 8.8%; R&D, 721.5 billion yuan in the design, and technical services, accounting for 6.7%; 242.4 billion yuan in the environmental protection industry, accounting for 2.3% .

It’s worth noting that the “Statistical Classification for IP (Patent) Intensive Industries (2019)” was officially released and implemented on April 1, 2019.

(来源:人民网)

中挪(威)专利审查高速路(PPH)试点于2020年4月1日启动

China and Norway IP Offices Launced PPH Pilot Program

根据《中国国家知识产权局与挪威工业产权局关于专利审查高速路领域试点的谅解备忘录》,中国国家知识产权局(CNIPA)与挪威工业产权局(NIPO)专利审查高速路(PPH)试点于2020年4月1日启动,为期三年,至2023年3月31日止。

The China National Intellectual Property Office (CNIPA) and the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO) had kicked off the pilot of the Patent Examination Highway (PPH) on April 1, 2020, which will expire on April 1, 2013.

中挪PPH试点启动以后,NIPO申请人可以按照《在中挪专利审查高速路(PPH)试点项目下向中国国家知识产权局(CNIPA)提出PPH请求的流程》向CNIPA提出PPH请求;CNIPA申请人可以按照《在中挪专利审查高速路(PPH)试点项目下向挪威工业产权局(NIPO)提出PPH请求的流程》向NIPO提出PPH请求。

Herewith, NIPO applicants can file a PPH request with CNIPA in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the CNIPA under the China-Norway Patent Examination Highway Pilot"; CNIPA applicants can file a PPH request with NIPO in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Request to the NIPO under the China-Norway PPH Pilot".

(来源:中国国家知识产权局)

经典案例:

集佳代理首例微信截图生成软件侵权案件胜诉!

Unitalen Helped Tencent Won the First WeChat Screenshot Generator Apps Infringement Case

案件背景:

Backgrounds

近年来,移动应用市场上出现一系列以智能生成腾讯微信软件界面截图为功能卖点的移动应用。此种应用复制微信各功能界面的素材并提供相应的编辑模块,能够大量生成多种虚假微信截图。通过此种虚假截图以获得不法收益,并推出网络在线版截图生成器。

In recent years, numerous mobile applications have emerged that provide the feature of generating screenshots that mimic Tencent WeChat software interfaces as a functional selling point. These apps copy the content and art works in WeChat functional interfaces and provide editing module that can create fake WeChat screenshots; some of them have even provided the online version of the screenshot generator.

此类截图生成器的横行,破坏了腾讯公司长期维持的微信互动生态环境,损害了腾讯公司及广大用户的利益。以此,腾讯公司委托北京市集佳律师事务所代理,起诉深圳市某网络有限公司(“被告”)有关截图生成器构成著作权侵权与不正当竞争,并于近日迎来胜诉。

Tecent Company entrusted Unitalen Attorneys at Law to sue a network company in Shenzhen involved (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) for infringement of copyright and unfair competition and had recently won the lawsuit.

法院判决:

Court decision

广东省深圳市南山区人民法院在本案一审判决中认定:

The People’s Court of Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province found in the first-instance judgment of this case that:

  1. 被诉微信截图生成器侵害腾讯公司基于“微信表情、微信支付图标、微信红包详情页、微信红包气泡、微信图标”美术作品享有的信息网络传播权;
  1. The alleged WeChat screenshot generator has infringed the right of communicating WeChat works, such as “WeChat emoticons, WeChat payment icons, WeChat red envelope webpages, WeChat red envelope icons and WeChat icons”, to the public over information networks.

  1. 被告开发被诉微信截图生成器并制作相应教学内容、提供付费去水印服务的行为违反诚实信用原则和商业道德;
  1. The defendant's development of the alleged WeChat screenshot generator and production of corresponding training content and the provision of paid watermark removal services has violated the principles of good faith and business ethics;

  1. 该被诉行为损害了腾讯公司基于微信生态系统这一经营模式享有的商业利益和竞争优势,同时亦损害消费者利益和市场秩序,构成反法第二条规制之不正当竞争行为;
  1. The alleged act has infringed the commercial interests and competitive advantages enjoyed by Tencent in the WeChat ecosystem. Meanwhile, it has infringed the interests of consumers and market order, constituted unfair competition in accordance with Article 2 of the Anti-Trust Law;

  1. 本案中腾讯公司基于著作权法与反法所请求保护的法益不同,后者保护的客体为腾讯公司基于微信真实、诚信的互动生态系统享有的竞争利益,因此本案可同时适用著作权法与反法进行保护;
  1. In this case, Tencent’s legal interests vary with difference bases on Copyright Law and Anti-Trust Law respectively. The latter is to protect the competitiveness enjoyed by Tencent in the true and honor manner within WeChat ecosystem, so both Copyright Law and Anti-Trust Law can be applied for protection in this case.

5、判决被告立即停止被诉侵权行为,并向腾讯公司赔偿经济损失及合理支出人民币75万元。

  1. The defendant is ordered to immediately stop the alleged infringement and compensate Tencent for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 750,000 yuan.

典型意义:

Typical Significance

本系列案件是全国首例认定开发、运营虚假微信截图生成器构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争行为的案件。现系列案件判决已经生效。

This is the first case in China, in which the development and operation of fake WeChat screenshot generator application is determined as constituting copyright infringement and unfair competition.

中国最高人民法院判决发美利稻田株式会社专利无效行政诉讼二审胜诉Unitalen Helped FAMALINADA Won the Patent Invalidation Administrative Litigation of Second Instance – A Typical Case of Determining Inventiveness with Absence of Technical Inspiration

案件事实:

Backgrounds

专利权人发美利于2008年7月14日申请了专利名称“椅子式按摩器”的发明专利(以下简称涉案专利),并于2015年2月25日获得授权。

The patentee FAMALINADA applied for an invention patent for "Chair Massager" (hereinafter referred to as “the patent involved”) on July 14, 2008, and was granted on February 25, 2015.

第三人上海荣泰针对涉案专利提起无效宣告请求,以涉案专利权利要求不清楚、不具有新颖性和创造性等理由请求宣告该专利无效,并引用了九份证据用于评价新颖性和创造性。国家知识产权局做出了无效审查决定,认为所有权利要求1-16均不具有创造性,并宣告本专利全部无效。

A third party, Shanghai Rongtai, filed the request for invalidation of the patent involved for the reasons such as unclear patent claims, lack of novelty and inventiveness, citing 9 pieces of evidence for evaluation of novelty and inventiveness. In response, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) held that all claims were not inventive and declared invalidation of the patent involved.

发美利不服无效决定,向北京知产法院提起行政诉讼,北京知识产权法院一审判决维持了国家知识产权局作出的无效审查决定,判决驳回发美利诉讼请求。

In refusal, FAMALINADA initiated an administrative lawsuit in the Beijing IP Court of the first instance. The Beijing IP Court upheld the invalidation decision made by the SIPO and ruled to dismiss the claims made by FAMALINADA.

发美利不服一审判决,向最高人民法院提起上诉。

FAMALINADA then appealed to the Supreme People's Court against the judgement of the first instance.

法院判决:

Court Decision

近日,最高人民法院作出判决认为:发美利关于涉案专利具有创造性的上诉请求成立,而国家知识产权局复审委员会和北京知识产权法院以涉案专利缺乏创造性应予无效为由而作出的无效决定及一审判决适用法律有误,应予撤销。至此,在发美利和集佳坚持不懈的努力下,集佳代理发美利案最终胜诉!

Recently, the Supreme People's Court ruled that: Famei Li's appeal request for the patent in question was established, and the State Intellectual Property Office Review Committee and Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the invalidation decision on the ground that the patent in question was invalid and should be invalid. The first-instance judgment is wrong in applying the law and should be revoked. At this point, with the unremitting efforts of Famei and Jijia, Jijia's agent issued the Meili case and won the case!

案件评析:

Comments

  在专利确权诉讼中,专利创造性判断是双方争论最多也是最具争议的问题。在创造性判断中,如何确定现有技术文献中是否存在技术启示,是决定现有技术之间能否结合的核心问题。本案的其一争议焦点则在此。“本领域技术人员是否存在根据在案证据5和证据1以及公知常识结合的技术启示,从而得到‘该臂部支撑壁与坐在所述座部的被治疗者的前臂部、上臂部及肩部对应形成为一整体,且各部位的相对位置已定(以下简称争议的区别特征)’的技术方案”

In the litigation concerning patent right determination, the patent inventiveness is the most controversial issue and the key to determine this is on how to determine whether there is a technical inspiration in the technical prior art. This case is controversial on this too.

最高院认为,技术启示是指现有技术中存在特定教导,促使本领域普通技术人员在面对客观技术问题时,考虑该教导来改进最接近的现有技术,得到所要保护的发明,实现发明的技术效果。本领域普通技术人员从现有技术中可以获知的启示原则上应该是具体、明确的技术手段,而不是抽象的想法或者一般的研究方向。

In the Supreme Court’s judgement, it’s held that technical inspiration refers to the existence of specific guidance in the prior art, prompting ordinary technical staff in the field to refer to that guidance so as improve the closest prior art when they are in face of an objective technical issue, and thus obtain the invention and realize the technical solution of the invention. The underlying definition of the inspiration that can be learnt by the ordinary technical staff in the filed from the prior art shall be those specific and clear technical means, rather than abstract ideas or general research directions.

  回到本案,根据在案证据5的方案,本领域技术人员根本不会想到要解决“即使姿势调整也要保持臂部各部分相对位置固定”的技术问题;而在案证据1给出了相反的启示,即“证据1中第一保持部和第二保持部虽然连接为一整体,但是第一保持部和第二保持部之间是可以活动的”,因此无论是证据5还是证据1都不存在使被治疗者的前臂部、上臂部及肩部的“相对位置一定”的明确具体的启示。

  另外,在此判决中,最高院亦明确指出“证据1并未公开对应于肩部的结构,亦未有证据证明本领域技术人员容易想到对肩部和臂部提供一体式的按摩,不能因为尽可能提供对更多部位的按摩是按摩设备中的广泛需求,而直接得出本领域技术人员容易想到将对应于上臂部的第一保持部进一步向上延伸至肩部,从而形成对应于肩部的部分”,这一确定性认定实际上是明表达了对在专利授权确权过程中常用的“事后诸葛亮”这一规则的否定性态度。换句话说,就是在判断创造性时,不能在看到本专利的技术方案后,想当然地认为本专利与现有技术之间的区别是很容易想到的改进,而要判断是否有明确的、具体的启示。

In addition, in this judgment, the Supreme Court expressed a negative attitude toward the “judgement in hindsight" that is commonly found in the process of determining patent right. In other words, when judging the inventiveness, after reading the technical solution of this patent, one should not assume that the difference between this patent and the prior art is an improvement that can be easily imagined, instead, it shall be judged with respect to the existence of clear and specific inspiration.

  综上,在专利确权案件中,首先要完全熟悉本专利和证据的技术方案,清楚地对比出本专利的权利要求与最接近现有技术的区别,并确定区别技术特征所要实际解决的技术问题,然后再看现有技术中是否有明确的教导。切忌把没有结合启示的证据之间的技术特征进行机械的拼凑,并得到涉案专利的技术方案,这是对发明人创造性劳动的无视。

集佳新闻:

集佳律所代理案件入选2019年度“最高院知识产权案件年度报告60件典型案”

Unitalen Case Selected into the 60 Typical Cases of 2019 by the Supreme People’s Court

在世界知识产权日期间,中华人民共和国最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院知识产权案件年度报告(2019)摘要》,并从2019年审结的3254起知识产权案件中精选出60件典型案件。集佳律所代理的“重庆力帆汽车销售有限公司在该公司与曹桂兰等专利无效行政诉讼再审案”【(2019)最高法行再268号】入选60件典型案件

On the World IP Day, the Supreme People's Court issued their annual report on IP cases in 2019. And the Chongqing Lifan Automobile v. Cao Guilan and others patent invalidation administrative litigation case, represented by Unitalen, was selected into the 60 typical cases out of the 3254 IP cases concluded in 2019.

集佳律所代理案件入选“2019年度北京市法院知识产权司法保护十大案例”

Unitalen Case Selected into the Top 10 Judicial Protection IP Cases of 2019 by the Beijing IP Court

在第20个世界知识产权日期间,北京市高级人民法院从2019年北京市各级法院审结的海量案件中遴选出一批在社会上具有重大影响的知识产权案件,最终确定了“2019年度北京市法院知识产权司法保护十大案例”,集佳律师事务所代理的“‘吹牛APP’侵害著作权纠纷案”(或称“微信表情”案)光荣入选!

On the World IP Day, as announced by the Beijing Higher People’s Court, the “Chuiniu App” copyright infringement case (also known as “WeChat emotion” case) represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 Beijing IP Court Cases of 2019”of the court.

相关阅读:

More on the case can be found at Unitalen Helped Tencent Win the First Instance in the Case Involving “WeChat Red Pocket” Design Works and “WeChat Emoticons”

集佳律所代理案件入选“2019年江苏法院知识产权司法保护十大典型案例”

Unitalen Case Selected into the Top 10 Judicial Protection IP Cases of 2019 by Jiangsu IP Court

在第20个世界知识产权日期间,江苏法院发布2019年知识产权司法保护十大典型案例,集佳律所代理的“小米科技有限责任公司等诉中山奔腾电器有限公司等商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案”作为新商标法修订后国内判赔数额最高的适用惩罚性赔偿制度保护驰名商标案光荣入选!

On the World IP Day, as announced by Jiangsu IP Court, the Xiaomi trademark infringement and unfair competition case represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 Typical IP Cases for Judicial Protection of 2019”of the court as the case ruled with the highest indemnity amount so far, where punitive damage is applied to protect the well-known trademark, after the revision of the new Trademark Law.

相关阅读:

More on the case can be found at: Unitalen Client “Xiaomi” Won the 50M Yuan Indemnity in the Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Litigation

集佳律所代理案例入选“2019年度山东法院十大知识产权案件”

Unitalen Case Selected into the Top 10 IP Cases of 2019 by Shandong IP Court

4.26世界知识产权日期间,集佳代理的“英利”商标侵权及不正当竞争案入选了“2019年度山东法院十大知识产权案件”

本案系山东法院知识产权案件首例书面训诫的典型案件。本案同时是一起适用证据妨碍排除规则的典型案例。

On the World IP Day, as announced by Shandong IP Court, the “Yingli” trademark infringement and unfair competition case represented by Unitalen was selected into the “Top 10 IP Cases” of the court.

This case is the first IP case ruled with written admonishment in Shandong court. This case is also a typical case of applying the evidence obstruction exclusion rule.

MIP发布2020 IP Stars商标业务排行榜 集佳再次荣登榜单

Unitalen Ranked among Top Tiers in Trademark Matters by MIP

近日,全球领先的权威知识产权媒体MIP公布了2020年商标业务的知识产权之星排行榜,集佳再次蝉联商标申请及确权领域(Trademark Prosecution)排行榜第一梯队,并荣登商标保护及诉讼领域(Trademark Contentious)排行榜第二梯队。

Recently, MIP, a global leading IP media, announced the 2020 IP Star ranking of trademark matters. Unitalen was found in tier 1 in Trademark Prosecution and tier 2 in Trademark Contentious again.

集佳荣获Asia IP 2019年度及2020年度多项荣誉

Unitalen Ranked among Top Tiers and Awarded by Asia IP

权威知识产权杂志Asia IP 近期公布了2019年亚太地区领先的知识产权事务所名单以及2020年度中国知识产权事务所的年度奖项名单。集佳凭借优质的专业服务及良好的客户口碑获得业界认可。其中,集佳在商标申请(Trademark Prosecution)和商标诉讼业务(Trademark Contentious)均列第一梯队,专利诉讼(Patent Contentious)、专利申请(Patent Prosecution) 和版权业务(Copyright)均列第二梯队。在2020年度中国知识产权事务所中荣获“年度商标事务所”(China IP Awards Trademark Firms of the Year)、“年度维权事务所”(China IP Awards Enforcement Firms of the Year)、“年度知识产权诉讼事务所”(China IP Litigation Firms of the Year)三项大奖!

Asia IP, the region’s leading IP magazine, has recently announced the region’s leading IP firms and the Chinese IP firms that won the annual awards in 2019. Unitalen, highly recognized by the industry for quality professional services and reputation among clients, is found among tier 1 in Trademark Contentious, tier 2 in Patent Contentious, Patent Prosecution and Copyright.

Also, Unitalen won the following three China IP Awards including“Trademark Firms of the Year”, "Enforcement Firms of the Year" and " IP Litigation Firms of the Year”.

About the Firm

Unitalen Attorneys at Law
Address 7th Floor, Scitech Place, No. 22 Jian Guo Men Wai Ave., Beijing, 100004 P. R. China
Tel 86-10-5920 8888
Fax 86-10-5920 8588
Email mail@unitalen.com
Link www.unitalen.com

Related Newsletters

19
JUN
2020
19
JUN
2020
業界ニュース: 「新型コロナウィルス感染症予防専利情報共有プラット...

Read More

13
JAN
2020
13
JAN
2020
业界新闻: 《世界知识产权报告》发布 日前,世界知识产权组织在日内瓦...

Read More

13
JAN
2020
13
JAN
2020
業界ニュース 『世界知的財産報告書」が発表 先頃、世界知的所有権機関...

Read More

13
JAN
2020
13
JAN
2020
업계 뉴스: 발표 세계지식재산권기구는 최근 제네바에서 2019년판 를 발...

Read More

13
JAN
2020
13
JAN
2020
目 录 ► IP资讯 / IP News 3 国家知识产权局印发《专利侵权纠纷行政裁...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2