Filter

Open

10

SEP

2021

Newsletter: Volume 7 (2021) Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)

  • Interpretation of Policy of Measures for the Implementation of Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes (Trial)
  • Case No. 18338886 on invalidation of color combination trademarks
  • The Supreme Court explicitly promised that sales infringement should also be responsible for compensation
  • Protection of utility model patent rights applied in terms of the same technical solution on the same day after the rejection of an invention patent application

Interpretation of Policy of Measures for the Implementation of Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes (Trial)

1. What is the background of drafting the Measures for the Implementation of the Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes (Trial)?

The early resolution mechanism for drug patent disputes refers to the system that links the approval procedures for the marketing of related drugs with the resolution procedures for related drug patent disputes. In October 2020, Article 76 of the newly revised Patent Law introduced relevant provisions for early settlement of drug patent disputes.

In the framework of the newly revised Patent Law, the National Medical Products Administration and the CNIPA, together with relevant departments, formulated the Measures for the Implementation of Early Resolution Mechanism for Drug Patent Disputes (Trial) (hereinafter referred to as the Measures).

2. What is the purpose and main content of the Measures?

The Measures is designed to provide parties with a mechanism for resolving patent disputes during the review and approval links of relevant drugs, protect the legitimate rights and interests of drug patent holders, and reduce the risk of patent infringement after generic drugs going on the market. The main content of the Measures includes system of platform construction and information disclosure, system of patent right registration, system of generic drug patent declaration, system of judicial link and administrative link, approval waiting period system, system of drug review and approval as well as classification, and system of exclusive period of the first generic drug market, etc.

3. Which ways are there for early settlement of drug patent disputes?

The Measures stipulates that if the patent holders or interested parties have objections to the four kinds of patent declarations, they can file a lawsuit with the people's court or request the patent administration department of the State Council for administrative adjudication on whether the related technical solutions applying for marketed drugs fall within the protection scope of the relevant patent rights. That is, judicial way and administrative way. Within the regulated duration, the patentee may choose a way voluntarily. If the party chooses to request an administrative judgment from the Patent Administration Department of the State Council, and is not satisfied with the administrative adjudication, then files an administrative litigation to the People's Court, the waiting period will not be extended.

If the patentee or interested party fails to file a lawsuit or request an administrative judgment within the stipulated time limit, the generic drug applicant may file a lawsuit or request an administrative judgment in accordance with relevant regulations to conform that the relevant drug technical solution does not fall into the protection scope of related patent.

4. What are the relevant drug patents contained in the early resolution mechanism for drug patent disputes?

The specific drug patents that can be registered in the Chinese marketed drug patent information registration platform include: patent for pharmaceutical active ingredients of chemical drugs (excluding API), patent for pharmaceutical compositions containing active ingredients; patent for composition of traditional Chinese medicine, patent for extraction of traditional Chinese medicine and patent for medical application of traditional Chinese medicine; patent for the sequence structure of active ingredients of biological products, patent for medical application of biological products. Related patents do not include patents for intermediates, metabolites, crystal forms, preparation methods, detection methods, etc.

5. How to make a patent declaration?

Applicants for chemical generic drugs, applicants for traditional Chinese medicines with the same name and same prescription, and applicants for biological similar, when submitting applications for drug marketing authorization, should compare the patent information that has been public on the Chinese listed drug patent information registration platform, and make a declaration about each related generic drug. Within 10 working days after the generic drug application is accepted, the generic drug applicant should notify the marketing authorization holder of the corresponding statement and the statement basis. Wherein, if the declaration does not fall into the protection scope of the related patent rights, the basis of the statement shall include the comparison table of the generic drug technical solution and the relevant claims of the related patent and relevant technical data. In addition to the paper data, the generic drug applicant should also send the statement and its basis to the marketing license holder’s e-mail address registered on the Chinese listed drug patent information registration platform, and keep related records.

6. How to start the waiting period?

Patent holders or interested parties who have objections to the four categories of patent declarations applied for the registration of chemical generic drugs, within 45 days since the application date of the publication of the drug marketing authorization by the National Drug Evaluation Agency, may file a lawsuit with the people’s court or request an administrative judgment from the patent administration department of the State Council to determine whether the related technical solutions applying for marketed drugs have been involved in the protection scope of relevant patent rights. If patentees or interested parties file a lawsuit or request an administrative adjudication within the stipulated duration, they shall submit a copy of the case registration or acceptance notice to the National Drug Evaluation Agency within 15 working days from the date that the people’s court filed the case or the patent administration department accepted it, and notify the applicant of generic drugs. After receiving the copy of the case registration from the People's Court or acceptance notice of the Patent Administration Department of the State Council, the Drug Administration Department of the State Council will set a 9-month waiting period for the application for registration of chemical generic drugs.

For that a chemical generic drug applicant declares the related patent rights of the generic drug recorded in the Chinese listed drug patent information registration platform should be declared invalid, if the patentee or interested parties fail to file a lawsuit with the people's court or request an administrative judgment on whether the related technical solutions of the listed drugs fall into the protection scope of relevant patent rights, then the waiting period will not be launched.

7. If the patent disputes are not early resolved, how to deal with the related drugs after marketing?

The measures does not apply to those which have not registered relevant information on the Chinese listed drug patent information registration platform; the waiting period will not be launched in which the patentee or interested party has not filed a lawsuit or requested an administrative adjudication within the regulated time limit. For such cases where patent disputes have not been resolved early, after the related drugs are approved for marketing, if the patent holders believe that the relevant drugs infringe their corresponding patent rights and cause disputes, they shall be resolved in accordance with the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China and other laws and regulations. The drug marketing authorization decision that has been approved in accordance with law shall not be revoked, and its effectiveness will not be affected.

From: CNIPA

July 5, 2021

Case No. 18338886 on invalidation of color combination trademarks

Color combination trademarks have been filed for invalidation by many subjects due to issues of distinctiveness, which has a significant impact in the industry. Analysis and explanations of the invalidation case No. 18338886 are as follows.

Disputed trademark

(1) Claims of the applicant

The application for registration of the disputed trademark does not conform to the formal examination requirements of the color combination trademark; the color combination of the disputed trademark is the common color of mechanical products in the industry; the color combination has not been used extensively by the respondent and plays the role of distinguishing the source of the product. Therefore, the applicant requested that the disputed trademark be declared invalid.

(2) Trial and judgment by the CNIPA

Firstly, the respondent submitted a color pattern representing the color combination way and color block in accordance with the requirements of the color combination trademark form review regulations in the Standard for Trademark Examination and Trial, and made corresponding declarations, explained the color name and color number, and described the specific use method in commercial activities. Therefore, the registration application of the disputed trademark meets the formal examination requirements of the color combination trademark. Secondly, the evidence submitted by the applicant cannot prove that the color combination has become a descriptive color for commodity of the same classification. Finally, the color combination, as a new coating for the respondent’s concrete machinery, lifting machinery, environmental industry and other products, was announced globally on April 15, 2015, and was displayed at the world anti-fascist war of the 70th anniversary of the victory parade on September 3, 2015, which was reported by many media. The above evidence may prove that the color combination has been used and publicized extensively before the disputed trademark application date, and has formed a corresponding relationship with the respondent, which can distinguish the source of commodities. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Trademark Law.

Evaluation and Analysis of the Case

(1) Formal examination of color combination trademarks

In accordance with the "Examination of Color Combination Trademarks" in the Standard for Trademark Examination and Trial, the current application requirements for color combination trademarks must have three basic elements: declare in the application; submit clear color patterns and specify the color name and color number; explain the specific use of the trademark. The respondent in this case made a declaration according to the above requirements, submitted a color pattern and explained the color name and color number, and also described the specific use of the trademark. Therefore, the registration application of the color combination trademark conforms to the related formal examination requirements.

(2) Substantive examination of color combination trademarks

This case focuses on the examination of the distinctive features of the color combination trademark. The distinctiveness issue of color combination trademarks has two levels. The basic level is the distinctiveness in the meaning of "as a trademark", which refers to whether a certain logo is a "trademark" in the cognitive habits of the relevant public. The second level is to discuss the distinctiveness of trademarks based on the basic level, that is, the identification function of distinguishing the source of goods, including inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness.

1. The identify-ability issue of color combinations as trademarks

Generally, color combinations are not easily recognized as trademarks in the cognitive habits of the relevant public. However, with the cultivation of market subjects’ habits in recent years, consumers have gradually formed the cognitive habit of regarding the use of color combinations as the source of goods or service identification marks, in addition, the color combination is designed with color difference arrangement, so it involves the identify-ability as a trademark.

2. The inherent distinctiveness issue of color combination trademarks

In the Standard for Trademark Examination and Trial, the natural color of the designated goodsthe descriptive color combinations of colors commonly or usually used in the commodity itself or the packaging, and service locations are excluded from the color combination trademarks with distinctive features. The evidence submitted by the applicant in this case cannot prove that, before the application date of the disputed trademark, the color combination belonged to descriptive color of the same category of goods.

3. Considerations and specific application of obtaining distinctiveness through the use of color combination trademarks

When determining whether a color combination trademark has acquired distinctive features after use, it should be combined with the general provisions of that whether a certain mark has acquired distinctive features after use in the Standard for Trademark Examination and Trial, take issues including the color combination trademark itself, related public perception habits, the service condition and practice in the industry, the service condition and promotion of color combination trademarks into consideration, regard that determining whether the disputed trademark is stably connected with the applicant, and whether it has the function of distinguishing the source of goods or services as standards. The three considerations have been analyzed in the above-mentioned issues of trademark identify-ability and inherent distinctiveness, so the following analysis is mainly from the perspective of the service and propaganda of color combination trademarks.

The report information the exhibition pictures and contracts of the global launch of new coatings in Changsha and Milan, the data of the world anti-fascist war of the 70th anniversary of the victory parade, and the participation materials after the approval for submitted by the respondent in this case, may respectively prove the color combination trademark’s universality of the use and publicity, broad scope of the audiences, the intensity of publicity, and continuous use situation. Based on which, it is sufficient to judge that before the application date of the disputed trademark, in the cognition of the related public, the color combination trademark has been already stably and correspondently collected with the respondent that can refer to each other, and has provided with the function of distinguishing the source of goods and is enable to play that role, and the use of it has further strengthened its distinctiveness. Therefore, the administration made the judgment of maintaining the registration of the color combination trademark.

From: CNIPA

July 20, 2021

The Supreme Court explicitly promised that sales infringement should also be responsible for compensation

In March this year, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court made second-instance judgments in two cases of infringement of utility model patent rights, explicitly indicating that the accused infringers should bear civil liability for stopping the infringement and compensating for losses though they only committed the infringement of offering for sale.

In the two cases, the court of first instance determined that the accused infringer’s act of displaying the accused infringing product on the website constituted offering for sale and infringed on the patent right involved in the case. The accused infringer should bear the civil liability for stopping the infringement and compensating for the losses, and the amount of compensation was determined based on statutory compensation. In addition, the court decided the amount of compensation in accordance with legal compensation.

For this, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court held that the act of offering for sale would objectively cause harm to the patent holders. The act of offering for sale may occur after or before the completion of the product manufacturing, and may occur before the product sales or during the sales process. Though the act of offering for sale is aimed at sales, it is a legal and independent way of infringement of act, the assumption of civil liability for the act of offering for sale is not based on whether there was really sales. Once the act of offering for sale occurs, it will give potential consumers a psychological hint and affect the reasonable pricing of the patented product due to the price of offering for sale by the accused infringer usually lower than the price of the patented product; or it will lead to consumers to give up purchasing the patented product and consider contacting with the accused infringer, causing delay or even reducing the normal sales of the patented product.

In addition, the accused infringer's act of offering for sale may also have an adverse influence on the advertising publicity effect of the patented product. It can be seen that offering for sale will cause damages such as price erosion of the patented product, reduction or delay of business opportunities, etc. to the patentee, which is can be reasonably inferred. There must be remedies for damages to rights. Unless there are other special provisions in law, the remedy should at least include the two most basic forms of civil liability for torts, that is, suspension of the infringement and compensation for losses, rather than just either of them. Meanwhile, the judgment pointed out that when determining the specific amount of compensation that the accused infringer should bear for the act of offering for sale, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court held that for the act of offering for sale, the original court decided basically appropriate legal compensation applying to the legal compensation when calculating the compensation for the loss and the judgment shall be maintained.

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

July 21, 2021

Protection of utility model patent rights applied in terms of the same technical solution on the same day after the rejection of an invention patent application——(2020) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No. 699

If the party applied for invention patents and utility model patents of the same technical solution on the same day, the invention patent application was not authorized due to the lack of novelty or being determined not to involve inventive step based on the same technical field and the legal status had been determined, and then the party request for infringement damage relief based on the authorized utility model patent, in this case, the people's court shall not provide support.

The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that the patent right is protected by law, and that the patent right is legal and effective and the right is relatively stable is the premise for obtaining protection in accordance with the law. Patent holders have the right to implement their patents and prohibit others from implementing their patented technology without permission, thus providing necessary incentives for invention and creation. However, for technical solutions that should not be protected by law, and the accused infringer also clearly argues that the accused act did not constitute infringement or should not be liable for infringement, if the court still supports the prohibition from others’ implementing it, it is obviously unfair and goes against the legislative purpose of the patent law. For the same technical solution in which the same applicant applies for invention and utility model patents respectively on the same day, utility model patent application can be granted patent right without substantive examination, and invention patent application may be must granted patent right through necessary substantive examination. Therefore, in practice, it is likely that the same technical solution is rejected or modified due to being determined as not conforming to the authorization condition during the examination process of the invention patent application, but it is authorized during the utility model patent application process. In this case, whether the examination conclusion of the invention patent application affects the protection of the utility model patent right should be specifically analyzed in specific circumstances. Generally speaking, if the applicant accepts the examination conclusion of the invention patent application of the same technical solution, or the invention patent application of the same technical solution is rejected due to no use of reference documents and lack of novelty, it can usually be regarded as a the basis of judging whether the utility model patent of the same technical solution conform to the authorization condition, and it may have a substantial impact on whether the utility model patent should obtain civil protection. Nevertheless, if the invention patent application of the same technical solution is rejected due to being deemed to lack inventive steps, then it should appropriately consider the difference in inventiveness requirements between the invention patent and the utility model patent and make different treatments. Generally, if an invention patent application of the same technical solution does not significantly exceed the examination standard of the utility models patent authorization conditions when being identified lack of inventive-step. For example, if the examination standards for authorization condition of invention patent application are not obviously different from that of utility model patent in technical field and the number of reference documents, then the examination conclusion of the invention patent application can be used as the basis for judging whether the utility model patent of the same technical solution conforms to the authorization condition, and it may also have a substantial effect on whether the utility model patent should obtain civil protection. Therefore, in this case, there is no the situation in which a technical solution that cannot be granted protection for invention patent right may be authorized protection for a utility model patent right due to the difference in the inventive step requirements of the invention and utility model patents. In addition, the patent right evaluation report issued by the CNIPA also shows that the validity of the patent right involved is unstable. In the lawsuit for infringement of a utility model patent right, if the utility model patent on which the patentee claims rights protection is highly likely to belong to a technical solution that should not be authorized, then it does not belong to the “legitimate rights and interests” protected by the patent law either, it should not be protected. Considering the above mentioned circumstances overall, the patent involved does not belong to the "legitimate rights and interests" protected by the Patent Law. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims based on claims 1-5 of the patent involved should all be rejected.

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

July 26, 2021

  • 药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法(试行)》政策解读
  • 18338886号颜色组合商标无效宣告案
  • 最高法院明确许诺销售侵权亦应承担赔偿责任
  • 发明专利申请被驳回后就同一技术方案同日申请的实用新型专利权的保护

《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法(试行)》政策解读

一、《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法(试行)》起草背景是什么?

药品专利纠纷早期解决机制是指将相关药品上市审批程序与相关药品专利纠纷解决程序相衔接的制度。202010月,新修正的《专利法》第七十六条引入药品专利纠纷早期解决的有关规定。

国家药监局、国家知识产权局会同有关部门在新修正的《专利法》相关规定的框架下,制定了《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法(试行)》(以下简称《办法》)。

二、《办法》目的和主要内容是什么?

《办法》旨在为当事人在相关药品上市审评审批环节提供相关专利纠纷解决的机制,保护药品专利权人合法权益,降低仿制药上市后专利侵权风险。《办法》的主要内容包括:平台建设和信息公开制度、专利权登记制度、仿制药专利声明制度、司法链接和行政链接制度、批准等待期制度、药品审评审批分类处理制度、首仿药市场独占期制度等。

三、药品专利纠纷早期解决的途径有哪些?

《办法》规定,专利权人或者利害关系人对四类专利声明有异议的,可以就申请上市药品的相关技术方案是否落入相关专利权保护范围向人民法院提起诉讼或者向国务院专利行政部门请求行政裁决,即:司法途径和行政途径。在规定的期限内,专利权人可以自行选择途径。如果当事人选择向国务院专利行政部门请求行政裁决,对行政裁决不服又向人民法院提起行政诉讼的,等待期并不延长。

专利权人或者利害关系人未在规定期限内提起诉讼或者请求行政裁决的,仿制药申请人可以按相关规定提起诉讼或者请求行政裁决,以确认其相关药品技术方案不落入相关专利权保护范围。

四、药品专利纠纷早期解决机制涵盖的相关药品专利有哪些?

可以在中国上市药品专利信息登记平台中登记的具体药品专利包括:化学药品(不含原料药)的药物活性成分化合物专利、含活性成分的药物组合物专利、医药用途专利;中药的中药组合物专利、中药提取物专利、医药用途专利;生物制品的活性成分的序列结构专利、医药用途专利。相关专利不包括中间体、代谢产物、晶型、制备方法、检测方法等的专利。

五、如何进行专利声明?

化学仿制药申请人、中药同名同方药申请人、生物类似药申请人提交药品上市许可申请时,应当对照已在中国上市药品专利信息登记平台公开的专利信息,针对被仿制药每一件相关的药品专利作出声明。仿制药申请被受理后10个工作日内,仿制药申请人应当将相应声明及声明依据通知上市许可持有人。其中,声明未落入相关专利权保护范围的,声明依据应当包括仿制药技术方案与相关专利的相关权利要求对比表及相关技术资料。除纸质资料外,仿制药申请人还应当向上市许可持有人在中国上市药品专利信息登记平台登记的电子邮箱发送声明及声明依据,并留存相关记录。

六、如何启动等待期?

专利权人或者利害关系人对化学仿制药注册申请的四类专利声明有异议的,可以自国家药品审评机构公开药品上市许可申请之日起45日内,就申请上市药品的相关技术方案是否落入相关专利权保护范围向人民法院提起诉讼或者向国务院专利行政部门请求行政裁决。专利权人或者利害关系人如在规定期限内提起诉讼或者请求行政裁决,应当自人民法院立案或者国务院专利行政部门受理之日起15个工作日内将立案或受理通知书副本提交国家药品审评机构,并通知仿制药申请人。收到人民法院立案或者国务院专利行政部门受理通知书副本后,国务院药品监督管理部门对化学仿制药注册申请设置9个月的等待期。

对化学仿制药申请人声明中国上市药品专利信息登记平台收录的被仿制药相关专利权应当被宣告无效的,如果专利权人或者利害关系人未就上市药品的相关技术方案是否落入相关专利权保护范围向人民法院提起诉讼或者向国务院专利行政部门请求行政裁决,不启动等待期。

七、未早期解决专利纠纷的,相关药品上市后如何处理?

未在中国上市药品专利信息登记平台登记相关专利信息的,不适用本办法;专利权人或者利害关系人未在规定期限内提起诉讼或者请求行政裁决的,不设置等待期。对此类未能早期解决专利纠纷的,相关药品获批上市后,如专利权人认为相关药品侵犯其相应专利权,引起纠纷的,依据《中华人民共和国专利法》等法律法规的规定解决。已经依法批准的药品上市许可决定不予撤销,不影响其效力。

摘自:国家知识产权局

202175

18338886号颜色组合商标无效宣告案

颜色组合商标因显著性问题被多个主体提起无效宣告申请,在行业内影响较大下文针对第18338886号无效宣告案作分析阐释。

争议商标:

(一)申请人主张,

争议商标的注册申请不符合颜色组合商标的形式审查要求;争议商标的颜色组合是行业内机械产品的通用色;该颜色组合未经被申请人大量使用并起到区分产品来源的作用。故请求对争议商标予以宣告无效。

(二)国家知识产权局审理与裁定

首先,被申请人按照《商标审查及审理标准》中颜色组合商标形式审查规定的要求提交了表示颜色组合方式色块的彩色图样并进行了相关声明、说明了颜色名称和色号、描述了其在商业活动中的具体使用方式,故争议商标的注册申请符合颜色组合商标的形式审查要求。其次,申请人提交的证据不能证明该颜色组合已经成为同类商品的描述性颜色。最后,该颜色组合作为被申请人混凝土机械、起重机械、环境产业等产品的新涂装于2015415日进行了全球发布,并在201593日的世界反法西斯战争胜利70周年阅兵仪式上进行了展示,诸多媒体进行了相关报道,上述证据可以证明该颜色组合在争议商标申请日前经过大量使用和宣传,已与被申请人形成了对应关系,可以起到区分商品来源的作用。因此,争议商标的申请注册并不违反商标法第十一条第一款第(三)项的规定。

案件评析

(一)颜色组合商标的形式审查

根据《商标审查及审理标准》中“颜色组合商标的审查”规定可知,目前对于颜色组合商标的申请要求必须具备三个基本要件:在申请书中予以声明;提交清晰彩色图样,并说明颜色名称和色号;说明商标的具体使用方式。本案被申请人按照上述要求进行了声明,提交了彩色图样并对颜色名称和色号进行了说明,亦说明了商标的具体使用方式,因此,该颜色组合商标的注册申请符合相关的形式审查要求。

(二)颜色组合商标的实质审查

本案重点是颜色组合商标显著特征的审查。颜色组合商标的显著性问题有两个层次,基底的层次是“作为商标”意义上的显著性,是指在相关公众的认知习惯里,某个标识是不是“商标”。第二个层次是在此基础上,讨论商标的显著性,即区分商品来源的识别作用,包括固有显著性和获得显著性。

1、颜色组合作为商标的可识别性问题

一般情况下,颜色组合在相关公众的认知习惯中不易被当作商标加以识别,但随着近年来市场主体使用习惯的培养,消费者逐渐形成了将颜色组合作为商品或服务来源识别标志的认知习惯,加之该颜色组合进行了色差安排的设计,因此,其具有作为商标的可识别性。

2、颜色组合商标的固有显著性问题

《商标审查及审理标准》中将对指定使用商品的天然颜色、商品本身或者包装物以及服务场所通用或常用颜色具有描述性的颜色组合排除在具有显著特征的颜色组合商标之外。而本案申请人提交的证据不能证明该颜色组合在争议商标申请日前属于同类商品的描述性颜色。

3、颜色组合商标使用获得显著性的考虑因素及具体适用

在判定颜色组合商标是否经过使用获得显著特征时,应结合《商标审查及审理标准》中判定某个标志是否经过使用取得显著特征的一般性规定,考虑颜色组合商标自身情况、相关公众认知习惯、同行业使用情况和惯例、颜色组合商标的使用和宣传情况,以判定系争商标是否与申请主体产生了稳定对应联系,是否具备了区分商品或服务来源的功能为标准。前三项考虑因素在上述商标的可识别性和固有显著性问题中已经进行剖析,故下文主要从颜色组合商标的使用和宣传角度进行分析。

本案被申请人提交的其在长沙、米兰召开新涂装全球发布会的报道资料、参展图片和合同、参与反法西斯战争胜利70周年阅兵仪式的资料以及在争议商标获准注册后的参展资料分别可以证明该颜色组合商标使用和宣传地域的普遍性、受众范围的广泛性、宣传强度、持续使用情况。基于此足以判定,在争议商标申请日前,在相关公众的认知中,该颜色组合商标已经与被申请人建立了可以相互指代的稳定对应联系,具备了区分商品来源的功能,可以起到区分商品来源的作用,且通过使用进一步强化了其显著性。因此,该颜色组合商标的注册被我局予以维持。

摘自:国家知识产权局商标局

2021720

最高法院明确许诺销售侵权亦应承担赔偿责任

今年3月,最高人民法院知识产权法庭作出两起侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案件二审判决,明确指出被诉侵权人即使仅实施许诺销售侵权行为,也应当承担停止侵害和赔偿损失的民事责任。

在该两起案件中,原审法院认定被诉侵权人在网站上展示被诉侵权产品的行为构成许诺销售,侵害了涉案专利权,被诉侵权人应当承担停止侵权、赔偿损失的民事责任,并依据法定赔偿酌定了赔偿数额。被诉侵权人对其许诺销售行为侵害了涉案专利权并无异议,但上诉认为其只需承担赔偿专利权人维权合理开支的责任,而不应承担赔偿损失的法律责任。

对此,最高法知产法庭认为,许诺销售行为客观上会给专利权人造成损害。许诺销售行为既可能发生在产品制造完成之后,也可能发生在产品制造完成之前,既可能发生在产品销售之前,也可能发生在销售过程中。许诺销售行为的目的虽指向销售行为,但许诺销售行为是一种法定的独立的侵权行为方式,许诺销售侵权行为的民事责任承担不以销售是否实际发生为前提。许诺销售行为一旦发生,因被诉侵权人许诺销售的价格通常低于专利产品的价格,会对潜在消费者产生心理暗示,影响专利产品的合理定价;或导致消费者放弃购买专利产品转而考虑与被诉侵权人联系,造成延迟甚至减少专利产品的正常销售。此外,被诉侵权人许诺销售行为还可能对专利产品的广告宣传效果造成不利影响。可见,许诺销售行为的存在,将会给专利权人造成专利产品的价格侵蚀、商业机会的减少或者延迟等损害,这种损害是可以合理推知的结果。权利有损害必有救济,除非法律另有特殊规定,该救济即应当至少包括承担停止侵害和赔偿损失这两种最基本的侵权民事责任形式,而不是只承担其中一种形式。判决同时指出,在确定被诉侵权人就许诺销售行为应当承担的具体赔偿金额时,最高法知产法庭认为对于许诺销售行为,原审法院在赔偿损失的计算时,适用法定赔偿,酌定的金额基本适当,应予维持。

摘自:最高人民法院知识产权法庭

2021721

发明专利申请被驳回后就同一技术方案同日申请的实用新型专利权的保护——(2020)最高法知民终699

当事人就同一技术方案同日申请发明专利和实用新型专利,发明专利申请因不具备新颖性或者基于相同技术领域的一篇对比文件被认定不具备创造性而未获授权且其法律状态已经确定,当事人另行依据授权的实用新型专利请求侵权损害救济的,人民法院不予支持。

最高人民法院二审认为,专利权依法受到法律保护,专利权合法有效且权利相对稳定是其依法获得保护的前提。专利权人有权实施其专利并依法禁止他人未经许可实施其专利技术,从而给发明创造提供必要的激励。但是,对于不应获得法律保护的技术方案,且被诉侵权人也明确据此抗辩被诉行为不构成侵权或其不应承担侵权责任的,如果仍然支持其禁止他人实施,则显失公平且亦有悖专利法的立法目的。对于同一申请人同日分别申请发明和实用新型专利权的同一技术方案而言,由于实用新型专利申请可以不经实质审查就授予专利权,而发明专利申请必须经过实质审查才可能授予专利权,故实践中可能出现同一技术方案在发明专利申请审查过程中因被认定为不符合授权条件而被驳回或修改,但在实用新型专利申请过程中却获得了授权的情形。此种情形下,发明专利申请的审查结论是否影响实用新型专利权的保护,应根据具体情况做具体分析。一般来说,如果申请人认可相同技术方案的发明专利申请审查结论,或者相同技术方案的发明专利申请未采用对比文件以及因缺乏新颖性被驳回的,通常可以作为判断相同技术方案的实用新型专利是否符合授权条件的依据,并可能对该实用新型专利是否应获得民事保护产生实质影响。但是,如果相同技术方案的发明专利申请系因被认定不具备创造性而驳回,则应适当考虑发明专利和实用新型专利创造性要求的不同并做出不同处理。通常来说,如果相同技术方案的发明专利申请被认定不具备创造性时并未明显超越实用新型专利授权条件的审查标准,例如在技术领域、对比文件数量上并未与实用新型专利授权条件的审查标准明显不同,则发明专利申请的审查结论可以作为判断相同技术方案的实用新型专利是否符合授权条件的依据,亦可能对该实用新型专利是否应获得民事保护产生实质影响。因此本案不存在因发明和实用新型专利创造性要求的不同导致不能授予发明专利权保护的技术方案可能被授权实用新型专利权保护的情形。此外,国家知识产权局出具的专利权评价报告也显示涉案专利权效力不稳定。在侵害实用新型专利权诉讼中,专利权人据以主张权利保护的实用新型专利如果有极大可能属于不应获得授权的技术方案,则其也不属于专利法保护的“合法权益”,不应对其予以保护。综合考虑上述情形,涉案专利不属于专利法保护的“合法权益”。因此,原告依据涉案专利权利要求1-5提出的诉讼请求,应当全部予以驳回。

摘自:最高人民法院知识产权法庭

2021726

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

12
NOV
2021
12
NOV
2021
Newsletter: Volume 9 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) The influence of the mo...

Read More

28
OCT
2021
28
OCT
2021
Newsletter: Volume 8 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) The main statistics of...

Read More

10
SEP
2021
10
SEP
2021
「医薬品特許紛争の早期解決メカニズムの実施のための措置(試行)」...

Read More

27
JUL
2021
27
JUL
2021
ブロックチェーン技術は、版権の保護と運用のために科学的および技術...

Read More

27
JUL
2021
27
JUL
2021
Newsletter: Volume 6 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Block-chain technolo...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6