Filter

Open

30

JUN

2021

Newsletter: Volume 5 (2021) Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)

  • Interpretation of the number "one" in the claims
  • The handling of implementer of the horizontal agreements demanding other implementers’ compensation for the so-called economic losses
  • Interim measures for the processing of related examination businesses regarding the implementation of the revised Patent Law
  • Attribution of rights on the patent application by using other's technical secrets without permission

Interpretation of the number "one" in the claims——(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No. 1070

Shenzhen Chuzhidao Environmental Protection Hi-Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chuzhidao Company) is the patentee of the invention of "Dynamic Physical Shielding Purifier". Chuzhidao Company believed that the product being sued with infringement produced by Shenzhen Zhongtianmei Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongtianmei Company) belongs to the protection scope of claim 1 in the patent in dispute, and sued it to the court, demanding Zhongtianmei Company to stop the infringement and compensate its loss.

Claim 1 of the patent in dispute includes the following technical features:

A. a dynamic physical shielding purifier, which is characterized in covering a central disk and a few circular spokes;

B.one end of the spoke is radially radiated and fixed to the on the center plate;

C. the product multiplied by the diameter and the number of the spokes placed in the same plane is between 46 and 460 (including the both digitals);

D. the diameter of the spokes is in millimeters when calculating, which is bigger than or equal to 0.3mm.

In the trial of second instance, both parties confirmed that the sued infringing technical solution have the same technical features as the above-mentioned technical features A, B and D, and there was only a dispute over technical feature C. The spokes on the sued infringing product formed two parallel planes, and Zhongtianmei Company believed that this feature was obviously different from the "in the same plane" described in claim 1.

The court of first instance believed that the alleged infringing technical solution was equivalent to the claim 1 in dispute in terms of the controversial technical features, so it determined that Zhongtianmei constituted infringement and judged it to compensate Chuzhidao Company with a 500,000 yuan. Zhongtianmei Company refused to accept the original judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. The trial of second instance reckoned that the original court’s incorrectly understood the number "one" in claim 1, and in terms of the technical features in dispute, the alleged infringing technical solution was same as claim 1 involved in the case, instead of being equivalent, so the court identified the infringement to be established, and accordingly rejected the appeal and affirmed the original verdict.

In accordance with the Supreme People’s Court, based on the understanding of technical feature C by those of general skill in the art, who have already read the claims, descriptions and attached drawings of the patent involved in the case, the object defined by the technical feature C is in fact the product value of the diameter and number of spokes in the same plane. The core content of the value is the coordination between the two physical parameters of spoke thickness and arrangement density. The pursuing technical effect is to maximize the purification rate of the dynamic physical shielding purifier, rather than the number of planes composed by spokes. In other words, the “in the one identical plane” mentioned in the technical feature C should be understood as “in the same plane”, and this understanding has no relation to the number of planes formed by the spokes.

Through the trial of this case, the Supreme People’s Court clarified a rule of adjudication, that is, if a patent claim contains the number “one”, it should not be identified as a quantitative limitation, but ensure its specific meaning according to those skilled in the art after reading the documents. This case has certain reference significance for the interpretation of specific numbers in the claims.

From: CNIPA

May 11 2021

The handling of implementer of the horizontal agreements demanding other implementers’ compensation for the so-called economic losses——(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No. 1382 Monopoly Case of "Brick and Tile Association"

In the monopoly dispute case including appellant Sichuan Yibin Wuqiao Building Materials Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wuqiao Company), Cao Peijun, Yibin Brick and Tile Association (hereinafter referred to as Brick and Tile Association), and the appellee Zhang Renxun, Yibin Hengxu Investment Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hengxu Investment Company), Yibin County Sihe Building Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sihe Company), and Chuangli Machine Brick Co., Ltd. in Cuiping District of Yibin (hereinafter referred to as Chuangli Company), Zhang Renxun claimed that under the coercion of the founders of the association, that if Hengxu Investment Company, Wuqiao Company, and Sihe Company, over 50 brick and tile manufacturers including Yibin Gaodian Brick Factory (hereinafter referred to as Gaodian Factory) under Zhang Renxun’s name have successively joined the association, and they signed the "Production Suspension and Rectification Contract" and "Technical Service Contract" with the Brick and Tile Branch of Yibin Building Materials Association, which is the predecessor of the Brick and Tile Association. In accordance with the "Production Suspension and Rectification Contract", Zhang Renxun was forced to suspend production and just received a few support fees for the suspension before September 2011.

In essence, the aforesaid behavior eliminated Zhang Renxun’s participation in competition, and constituted a monopolistic conduct, violating Zhang Renxun’s legitimate rights and interests, who filed a lawsuit with the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance). The Supreme People's Court rejected Zhang Renxun's claim on November 6, 2020.

The second instance of the Supreme People’s Court held that the core issue of this case was whether Zhang Renxun, as one of the implementers of the horizontal agreements in this case, had the right to demand compensation from other implementers of the agreement for his so-called economic losses. As for this, it should be considered in light of factors such as the legislative purpose of Article 50 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China, the characteristics of the accused monopoly conduct, and the legal effect of damage compensation.

Firstly, the legislative purpose of Article 50 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China. Article 50 stipulates that a business operator who commits a monopoly and causes losses to others shall assume civil liability in accordance with the law. This article is aimed at providing civil judicial channels to stop and crack down on monopolistic behaviors, and providing civil remedies for subjects who have suffered damage due to monopolistic conducts. If the plaintiff is not the victim of the monopolistic behavior stipulated by the anti-monopoly law, but the implementer of the monopolistic behavior, his claim for damage compensation is actually a demand for the division of monopoly benefits, so it is not the object of relief intended by the anti-monopoly law. In this case, Zhang Renxun is one of the participants and implementers of the horizontal agreement, and he obtained a share of monopoly benefits within a certain period of time due to his participation in and implementation of the accused monopoly conduct in this case. He was not the victim of monopolistic behavior that anti-monopoly law intends to offer relief.

Secondly, those who request damage compensation must behave properly and legally. The subjects who participate in and implement the illegal act, though they suffer losses due to the participation and implementation of the illegal act, the loss should not be remedied as a result of their own improper act. In this case, Zhang Renxun voluntarily accepted the production suspension and rectification in the related contract, participated in and implemented the horizontal agreement, which itself is illegal, thus the damage he suffered should not be remedied.

Finally, compensation for damages to implementers of monopolistic behavior will impose negative legal effect of encouraging and supporting related monopolistic conducts. In this case, Zhang Renxun's claim of losses due to monopolistic behavior is essentially a requirement to enforce the horizontal agreement, and divide the monopoly income of the group in terms of the monopoly agreement on the distribution of monopoly benefits. If support Zhang Renxun's litigation claims, it is tantamount to holding and encouraging the illegal act.

Above all, the implementers of a horizontal agreement have no right to request other implementers of the monopoly agreement to compensate their so-called economic losses in accordance with the anti-monopoly law. As the implementer of the horizontal agreement involved in the case, Zhang Renxun's claim for compensation for losses cannot be established and supported.

From: Sohu News

May 14 2021

Interim measures for the processing of related examination businesses regarding the implementation of the revised Patent Law

Article 1 Since June 1, 2021 (including that date, the same below), the patent applicant may submit the patent application requesting for protection of the product’s partial industrial design, in accordance with Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the revised Patent Law, in the form of paper or offline electronic application. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 2 As for the patent application which is applied after June 1, 2021, if the applicant believes that there are circumstances as prescribed in Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the revised Patent Law, he or she may submit the request in paper form. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 3 As for industrial design patent application that applied after June 1, 2021, the applicant may submit a written statement requesting priority for the industrial design patent in accordance with Article 29, paragraph 2 of the revised Patent Law. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications and the prior industrial design patent requesting for basis of priority after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 4 As for patent application applied after June 1, 2021, the applicant may submit a copy of the patent application document filed for the first time in accordance with Article 30 of the revised Patent Law.

Article 5 As for invention patent that has been announced and authorized since June 1, 2021, the patentee may, in accordance with the Article 42, paragraph 2 of the revised Patent Law, submit a request for compensation for the duration of the patent right in paper form, within three months from the date of the announcement and the authorization of the patent right, and then pay relevant fees according to the payment notice issued by CNIPA. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 6 Starting from June 1, 2021, the patentee may, in accordance with Article 42, paragraph 3 of the revised Patent Law, submit a request for compensation for the duration of the patent right in paper form, within three months from the date that the request for new drug coming into market is approved and authorized, and then pay the relevant fees in accordance with the payment notice issued by CNIPA. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 7 From June 1, 2021, patentees may voluntarily declare an open license for own patents in paper form, in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 1 of the revised Patent Law. The CNIPA will examine the above-mentioned applications after the newly revised Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law has taken into effect.

Article 8 From June 1, 2021, the accused infringer may request the CNIPA to issue a evaluation report for patent right in paper form in accordance with Article 66 of the revised Patent Law.

Article 9 From June 1, 2021, the CNIPA shall examine the patent application in the procedure of preliminary examination, substantive examination and reexamination, in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 1, and Article 25, paragraph 1, Item (5) of the revised Patent Law.

Article 10 The protection term of the industrial design patent right applied before May 31, 2021 (including that date) shall be ten years, counting from the filing date.

Article 11 These measures shall come into force on June 1, 2021.

From: CNIPA

May 24 2021

Attribution of rights on the patent application by using other's technical secrets without permission——(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No. 871

In the case of patent attribution dispute between the appellant Tianjin Qingsong Huayao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qingsong Company) and the appellee Huabei Medicine Hebei Huamin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huamin Company), an invention patent with the number ZL201410517486. 6. Was involved, which is entitled as "Preparation Process of High Purity Fluoxef Sodium" (hereinafter referred to as the patent involved).

Qingsong Company believed that it is the right holder for the technical secrets of the confidential preparation process of fluoxef sodium. After Huamin Company obtained the technology, it applied for and obtained the patent right involved of the confidential process without Qingsong Company's permission. Therefore Qingsong Company filed a lawsuit to the intermediate peoples’ court of Shijiazhuang, Hebei (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance) requesting confirmation that the patent right involved belongs to Qingsong Company.

The court of first instance held that the existing evidence could not prove that the technical solutions recorded in the patent application documents involved of Huamin Company came from the confidential technical information in the " Agreement on commission of processing and production " implemented by both parties, which is provided by Qingsong Company, so the litigation request of Qingsong Company was rejected. Qingsong Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.

The Supreme People's Court detemined to quash the original judgment on December 16, 2020, confirming that the patent involved in the case was jointly owned by Qingsong Company and Huamin Company.

In the trial of second instance of the Supreme People's Court, the party should examine whether the patent documents disclose technical secrets and whether the patented technical solutions use technical secrets when claiming patent rights based on the infringement of technical secrets. If patent documents disclose technical secrets or patent technical solutions use technical secrets, then it constitutes an infringement of technical secrets.

In this case, regarding the secret information 1 "Deprotecting intermediates with the use of mixed cresol (m-cresol) ", the claims of the patent involved did not directly document specific method used to deprotect the intermediates, but Example 1 of the patent specification, but it discloses the use of m-cresol for deprotection, and secret information 1 uses mixed cresol for deprotection, in which mixed cresol is a mixture of three isomers of o-cresol, m-cresol and p-cresol, while o-cresol, m-creso and p-cresol all use the hydrogen bond of the phenolic hydroxyl group for the deprotection of intermediates, there is no essential difference between them. Therefore, the patent specification involved in this case has disclosed and used secret information1.

Regarding the secret information 2 "the overall technical information of the acid forming reaction step", firstly, the step a) in claim 1 of the involved patent is the acid reaction, that is, it includes the secret information 2. In addition, the technical solution described in Example 1 of the patent specification involved differs in deprotection reagents, reaction atmosphere, temperature control timing, reaction temperature, time, and reagent dosage of the secret information 2 in the confidential process technical solution, and the confidential process does not disclose "dissolution and clarification" and "pH to 2.5", while the above difference is not a substantive difference. Therefore, it can be determined that the patent specification has disclosed and used secret information 2.

As for the secret information 3 "the overall technical information of washing, extraction, and sterile filtration", first, there are differences between step b) in claim 1 of the involved patent and the secret information 3 as follows.

(1) Materials added are different, during the process of extraction to the water phase, sodium chloride and sodium metabisulfite are additionally added in the confidential process; during the process of extraction to the organic phase, sodium chloride is additionally added in the confidential process;

(2) Methods of materials addition and related operations are different. Materials are added all at the same time for the patents involved, and added in batches, stirred several times and separated through standing for the confidential process;

(3) The undisclosed filtrating operation of the confidential process is sterile filtration. After comparing the differences, the above-mentioned difference between step b) in claim 1 of the involved patent and the secret information 3 is not a substantive difference, it can be determined that the step b) in claim 1 of the involved patent contains secret information 3.

Therefore, it can be held that the patent specification involved has disclosed and used secret information3.

In summary, the patent documents involved in the case disclosed the technical secrets of Qingsong Company, and the patented technical solutions also used technical secrets, which constituted an infringement of the technical secrets. Therefore, the technical secrets of Qingsong Company constitute the substantive content of the patented technical solution involved, and Qingsong Company shall have legal rights of patent involved.

From: The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court

May 31 2021

  • 权利要求中数字“一”的解释
  • 横向垄断协议实施者要求其他实施者赔偿其所谓经济损失的处理

  • 关于施行修改后专利法的相关审查业务处理暂行办法

  • 未经许可使用他人技术秘密申请专利时的权利归属

权利要求中数字“一”的解释——(2020)最高法知民终1070

深圳厨之道环保高科有限公司(以下简称厨之道公司)是“动态物理屏蔽净化器”发明专利权人。厨之道公司认为深圳市中天美科技有限公司(以下简称中天美公司)生产的被诉侵权产品落入涉案专利权利要求1保护范围,遂将其诉至法院,要求中天美公司停止侵权并赔偿损失。

涉案专利权利要求1包含以下技术特征:A. 一种动态物理屏蔽净化器,其特征在于:包括中心盘和数根圆形辐条;B. 所述辐条一端呈径向辐射的固接在所述中心盘上;C. 设置在同一平面内的辐条的直径与辐条的根数的积的值满足大于等于46,小于等于460D. 计算时,辐条的直径以毫米为单位,且辐条的直径大于或等于0.3mm。二审中,双方当事人均确认被诉侵权技术方案具有与技术特征ABD相同的技术特征,仅就技术特征C存在争议。被诉侵权产品上的辐条构成了相互平行的两个平面,中天美公司认为该特征与权利要求1所述“同一平面内明显不同。

原审法院经审理认为,被诉侵权技术方案与涉案权利要求1在系争技术特征上构成等同,故认定侵权成立并判令中天美公司赔偿厨之道公司50万元。中天美公司不服原审判决并上诉至最高人民法院。二审经审理认为,原审法院关于涉案权利要求1中数字“一”的理解错误,被诉侵权技术方案与涉案权利要求1在系争技术特征上并不构成等同,而是相同,故认定侵权成立,并据此驳回上诉,维持原判。

最高人民法院认为,根据本领域普通技术人员阅读涉案专利权利要求及说明书与附图后对技术特征C的理解,该技术特征所限定的对象实为所处相同平面内的辐条直径与辐条根数的乘积值,其核心内容是辐条粗细与排列密度两个物理参数之间的协调,所追求的技术效果是使得动态物理屏蔽净化器的净化率尽可能最大化,而非辐条所构成平面的个数,换言之,技术特征C所述“同一平面内”应理解为“相同平面内”,该理解与辐条所构成的平面数量并无关联。

通过本案审理,最高人民法院明确了一项裁判规则,即:专利权利要求含有数字“一”的,不应当然认定其具有数量意义上的限定作用,而应根据本领域技术人员阅读权利要求书和说明书后的理解,确定其具体含义。该案对于权利要求中具体数字的解释具有一定参考和借鉴意义。

摘自:国家知识产权局

2021511

横向垄断协议实施者要求其他实施者赔偿其所谓经济损失的处理——(2020)最高法知民终1382砖瓦协会”垄断案

上诉人四川省宜宾市吴桥建材工业有限责任公司(以下简称吴桥公司)、曹培均、宜宾市砖瓦协会(以下简称砖瓦协会)与被上诉人张仁勋、宜宾恒旭投资集团有限公司(以下简称恒旭投资公司)、宜宾县四和建材有限责任公司(以下简称四和公司)、宜宾市翠屏区创力机砖有限责任公司(以下简称创力公司)垄断纠纷案中,张仁勋主张在砖瓦协会发起人恒旭投资公司、吴桥公司、四和公司的胁迫下,包括张仁勋名下的宜宾市高店机制砖厂(以下简称高店厂)在内的50余家砖瓦厂家陆续加入砖瓦协会,并与砖瓦协会的前身宜宾市建材协会砖瓦分会签订了《停产整改合同》《技术服务合同》。根据《停产整改合同》,张仁勋被迫停止生产,并仅在20119月前获得了少量的停产扶持费。

上述行为实质上起到了排除张仁勋参与竞争的效果,构成垄断行为,侵害了张仁勋的合法权益,向四川省成都市中级人民法院(以下简称一审法院)提起诉讼。最高人民法院于2020116日驳回张仁勋的诉讼请求。

最高人民法院二审认为,本案核心问题是,张仁勋作为本案横向垄断协议的实施者之一,其是否有权要求该垄断协议的其他实施者赔偿其所谓经济损失。对此,应结合反垄断法第五十条的立法目的、被诉垄断行为的特点、损害赔偿的法律效果等因素予以考量。

首先,反垄断法第五十条的立法目的。反垄断法第五十条规定,经营者实施垄断行为,给他人造成损失的,依法承担民事责任。该条的立法目的在于,为制止和打击垄断行为提供民事司法渠道,对因垄断行为而受到损害的主体提供民事救济。如果原告并非反垄断法所规制的垄断行为的受害者,而是该垄断行为的实施者,其主张损害赔偿,实质上是要求瓜分垄断利益,因而其并非反垄断法所意图救济的对象。本案中,张仁勋系其所指控的本案横向垄断协议参与者和实施者之一,且因参与和实施本案被诉垄断行为在一定期间内获得了垄断利益的分享,其非反垄断法所意图救济的垄断行为受害者。

其次,请求损害赔偿救济者,其行为必须正当合法。自身参与和实施违法行为的主体,即便因参与和实施该违法行为而受到损失,该损失亦因该主体自身行为的不正当性而不应获得救济。本案中,张仁勋在整改合同中自愿接受停产整改,参与并实施本案横向垄断协议,其行为自身具有违法性,其因此所受损害不应获得救济。

最后,给予垄断行为实施者以损害赔偿会产生鼓励和支持相关垄断行为的消极法律效果。本案中,张仁勋所主张的因垄断行为所受损失,实质上是要求强制执行本案横向垄断协议,根据该垄断协议关于垄断利益分配的约定瓜分群体垄断所得。如果支持张仁勋的诉讼主张,则无异于维持和鼓励该违法行为。

综上,横向垄断协议的实施者无权依据反垄断法要求该垄断协议的其他实施者赔偿其所谓经济损失。张仁勋作为涉案横向垄断协议的实施者,其关于赔偿损失的诉讼请求不能成立,不予支持。

摘自:搜狐新闻

2021514

关于施行修改后专利法的相关审查业务处理暂行办法

第一条 专利申请人自202161日(含该日,下同)起,可以通过纸件或离线电子申请形式,依照修改后的专利法第二条第四款提交请求保护产品的局部的外观设计专利申请。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述申请进行审查。

第二条 申请日为202161日后的专利申请,申请人认为存在修改后的专利法第二十四条第一项规定情形的,可以通过纸件形式提出请求。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述申请进行审查。

第三条 申请日为202161日后的外观设计专利申请,申请人可以依照修改后的专利法第二十九条第二款提交请求外观设计专利优先权的书面声明。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述申请以及作为要求优先权基础的在先外观设计专利申请进行审查。

第四条 申请日为202161日后的专利申请,申请人可以依照修改后的专利法第三十条提交第一次提出的专利申请文件的副本。

第五条 对自202161日起公告授权的发明专利,专利权人可以依照修改后的专利法第四十二条第二款,自专利权授权公告之日起三个月内,通过纸件形式提出专利权期限补偿请求,后续再按照国家知识产权局发出的缴费通知缴纳相关费用。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述请求进行审查。

第六条 专利权人自202161日起,可以依照修改后的专利法第四十二条第三款,自新药上市许可请求获得批准之日起三个月内,通过纸件形式提出专利权期限补偿请求,后续再按照国家知识产权局发出的缴费通知要求缴纳相关费用。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述申请进行审查。

第七条 202161日起,专利权人可以依照修改后的专利法第五十条第一款,以纸件形式自愿声明对其专利实施开放许可。国家知识产权局将在新修改的专利法实施细则施行后对上述声明进行审查。

第八条 202161日起,被控侵权人可以依照修改后的专利法第六十六条,通过纸件形式请求国家知识产权局出具专利权评价报告。

第九条 202161日起,国家知识产权局依照修改后的专利法第二十条第一款、专利法第二十五条第一款第(五)项对初步审查、实质审查和复审程序中的专利申请进行审查。

第十条 申请日为2021531日(含该日)之前的外观设计专利权的保护期限为十年,自申请日起算。

第十一条 本办法自202161日起施行。

摘自:国家知识产权局 2021524

未经许可使用他人技术秘密申请专利时的权利归属——(2020)最高法知民终871

上诉人天津青松华药医药有限公司(以下简称青松公司)与被上诉人华北制药河北华民药业有限责任公司(以下简称华民公司)专利权权属纠纷案中,涉及专利号为ZL201410517486.6、名称为“高纯度氟氧头孢钠制备工艺”发明专利(以下简称涉案专利)。

青松公司认为,其系氟氧头孢钠保密制备工艺的技术秘密权利人,华民公司获取该工艺后,未经青松公司许可使用该保密工艺申请并获得涉案专利权,故向河北省石家庄市中级人民法院(以下简称一审法院)提起诉讼,请求确认涉案专利权归青松公司所有。

一审法院认为,现有证据不能证明华民公司涉案专利申请文件记载的技术方案来自于青松公司在双方履行《委托加工生产协议》中提供的保密技术信息,故判决驳回青松公司的诉讼请求。青松公司不服,向最高人民法院提起上诉。

最高人民法院于20201216日判决撤销原判,确认涉案专利由青松公司和华民公司共有。

最高人民法院二审认为,当事人以侵害技术秘密作为请求权基础主张专利权权属时,应当考察专利文件是否披露了技术秘密和专利技术方案是否使用了技术秘密。专利文件披露了技术秘密或者专利技术方案使用了技术秘密的,即构成对技术秘密的侵害。

本案中,对于秘密信息1“使用混甲酚(间甲酚)法对中间体脱保护”,涉案专利权利要求中并没有直接记载使用何种方法对中间体脱保护,但专利说明书实施例1中公开了使用间甲酚脱保护,秘密信息1使用混甲酚脱保护,其中混甲酚是邻甲酚、间甲酚和对甲酚三种异构体的混合物,而邻甲酚、间甲酚和对甲酚对中间体脱保护都是利用了酚羟基的氢键,两者并无实质区别,故涉案专利说明书已经披露并使用了秘密信息1

对于秘密信息2“成酸反应步骤整体技术信息”,首先,涉案专利权利要求1步骤a)即成酸反应,即包含了秘密信息2。此外,涉案专利说明书实施例1中记载的技术方案与保密工艺技术方案中的秘密信息2在脱保护试剂、反应气氛、温控时机、反应温度、时间、试剂用量方面存在不同,并且保密工艺没有公开“溶清”“pH2.5”,但上述区别并非实质性区别。因此,可以认为 专利说明书已经披露并使用了秘密信息2

针对秘密信息3“水洗、萃取、无菌过滤步骤整体技术信息”,首先,涉案专利权利要求1步骤b)与秘密信息3,其存在如下区别:(1)加入物料不同,萃取到水相过程中,保密工艺还加入氯化钠、焦亚硫酸钠;萃取到有机相过程中,保密工艺还加入氯化钠;(2)物料加入方式及相关操作不同,涉案专利同时添加,保密工艺分批添加且多次搅拌、静置分离;(3)保密工艺未公开过滤操作为无菌过滤。在比对区别之后,涉案专利权利要求1步骤b)与秘密信息3存在的上述区别并非实质区别,故而可以认定涉案专利权利要求1步骤b)包含秘密信息3。因此,可以认为涉案专利说明书已经披露并使用了秘密信息3

综上,涉案专利文件披露了青松公司相关技术秘密,而且专利技术方案也使用了技术秘密,构成对技术秘密的侵害,故青松公司的技术秘密构成涉案专利技术方案实质性内容,青松公司应对涉案专利享有合法权利。

摘自:最高人民法院知识产权法庭

2021531

About the Firm

Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.
Address Level 19, Tower E3, The Towers, Oriental Plaza, No 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100073, China.
Tel 86-10-8518 8598
Fax 86-10-8518 3600
Email davidcheng@gechengip.com , info@gechengip.com
Link www.gechengip.com

Related Newsletters

30
JUN
2021
30
JUN
2021
特許請求の範囲における数字「一」の解釈 水平的独占契約の実施者が他...

Read More

28
MAY
2021
28
MAY
2021
Newsletter: Volume 4 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Interpretation of the "...

Read More

28
MAY
2021
28
MAY
2021
商標登録禁止条項における「欺瞞的」条項への解釈 最高人民法院の知的...

Read More

19
MAY
2021
19
MAY
2021
Newsletter: Volume 3 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Are you rea...

Read More

19
MAY
2021
19
MAY
2021
新薬の特許権期間補償に準備できていますか? 指導事例:「上海崇明区...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5