Newsletter: Volume 11 (2021) Chinese IP Information
(English and Chinese)
- The Beijing Intellectual Property Court carried out judicial confirmation on Beijing's first administrative mediation agreement for a dispute over patent infringement
- WIPO Annual Report: China ranks first in the number of intellectual property applications worldwide
- Restrictions on the application of patent equivalent infringement——(2021) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No.192
- Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial will take effect on January 1 next year
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court carried out judicial confirmation on Beijing's first administrative mediation agreement for a dispute over patent infringement
Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court conducted judicial confirmation 0n two administrative mediation agreements for patent disputes, which is the first case in Beijing where an administrative mediation agreement was reached for judicial confirmation of a patent infringement dispute.
A technology company in Beijing and a technology company in Jiangsu requested an administrative adjudication from the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Intellectual Property Office) for an infringement dispute over a utility model patent for smart cleaning equipment. After mediation by the Intellectual Property Office, both parties reached a mediation agreement and signed the “Patent Agreement on Administrative Mediation of Infringement Disputes”. Afterward, both parties applied for judicial confirmation of the above-mentioned administrative mediation agreement.
After accepting the case in accordance with the law, after review, it was believed that the mediation agreement reached by both applicants complied with the statutory conditions for judicial confirmation of the mediation agreement, and it was ruled as follows in accordance with Article 195 of the Civil Procedure Law: 1. The mediation agreement between the applicants presided over by the Intellectual Property Office is valid. 2. The applicants should consciously fulfill the obligations in accordance with the mediation agreement; if one applicant refuses to perform or fails to perform all of the obligations, the other applicant may apply to the court for enforcement.
The above two cases finally resolved the disputes between the parties by the court’s judicial confirmation of the administrative mediation agreement, which not only reflected the effective connection between administrative and judicial work, but also was an important measure for us to further promote the diversion of complicated and simple cases and optimize the allocation of judicial resources. It is of great importance to improve our diversified mediation mechanisms for intellectual property rights disputes and enhance the quality and effectiveness of trials.
From: Beijing Intellectual Property Court
November 9, 2021
WIPO Annual Report: China ranks first in the number of intellectual property applications worldwide
Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the annual report of World Intellectual Property Index. The report showed that in 2020, there has been a rebound in the number of global intellectual property applications, which restored growth trend. Hereinto, the CNIPA took the lead with 1.5 million patent applications. In 2020, global valid patents increased by 5.9%, and the number of valid patents owned by China reached 3.1 million, achieving the fastest growth.
It is indicated in the report that, in 2020, there were about 13.4 million trademark applications worldwide, an increase for the 11th consecutive year. China ranked first in the world with around 9.3 million trademark registration applications. It is believed in the report that during the COVID-19 epidemic, global trademark application activities have increased remarkably with some new products and services emerging due to the pandemic.
In the aspect of industrial designs, it is pointed out in the report that, in 2020, there about 1.1 million industrial design applications been filed globally, including 1.4 million designs, an increase of 2% year-on-year. In 2020, the applications accepted by CNIPA contained 770,362 designs, accounting for 55.5% of the world’s total amount
Data from 92 national and regional offices showed that there were approximate 58,800 protected and effective geographical indications in 2020. Hereinto, Germany reported 14,394 valid geographical indications, followed by China, with 8,476 valid geographical indications.
The annual report data of the "World Intellectual Property Index" once again forcefully manifested to the world that China's intellectual property industry has entered a stage of high-quality development, and it has been transforming from a large country in the introduction of intellectual property to a large country of creation, the transformation of intellectual property work from the pursuit of quantity to the improvement of quality has been accelerated in an all-round way. Such development like above mentioned has also been unanimously affirmed by all walks of life around the world.
From: China Intellectual Property News
November 10, 2021
Restrictions on the application of patent equivalent infringement——(2021) Supreme People’s Court Final Civil Judgment No.192
Recently, the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court concluded the case of a dispute over infringement of patent rights for inventions, which included Xuzhou Zhongsen Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongsen Company), Changzhou Great Garden Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Great Company), and Ningbo Anglin Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anglin Company), determined to quash the original judgment and rejected the patentee Zhongsen Company’s litigation request.
The case involved the application of the doctrine of equivalence in the patent infringement determination. The second-instance judgment pointed out that if the patentee clearly knew the related technical solution when writing the patent application document, but it did not include in the protection scope of the claim, then in the litigation, it would be no longer applied to equivalence theory to include the technical solution in the scope of protection.
In the first instance, Zhongsen alleged that it was the patentee of the invention patent for "Electric Hedge Trimmer" (Patent No. 201610201500.0), and Great Company produced and sold the alleged infringing products "Broadband Trimmer" that violated claim 1 of its invention patent without its permission, which constituted an infringement; Anglin Company provided parts and components for the alleged infringing product produced and sold by Great Company, which also infringed on its invention patent rights. After the first instance, the court determined that the alleged infringing product fell into the protection scope of Zhongsen Company's patent claim 1, and ordered Great Company and Anglin Company to stop the infringement and compensate losses.
Both the Great Company and Anglin Company dissatisfied and filed an appeal to the Supreme People's Court.
Both Great Company and Anglin Company argued that the alleged infringing product did not fall into the scope of protection of the patent claims involved, and the court of first instance wrongly judged that the relevant technical features of the alleged infringing product were equivalent to the driving method of the involved patent. In addition, Anglin company also claimed that its behavior of selling parts and components did not constitute assistance infringement.
The Supreme People’s Court believed that the determination of patent protection scope should not only strictly protect the interests of the patentee, but also safeguard the publicity of the claims and the public’s trust in the patent documents, and balance the relationship between the patentee and the public.
To determine whether the patentee clearly understands and incorporates the specific technical solution into the protection scope of the patent right when applying for a patent, it can be affirmed in conjunction with the content of the description and drawings, and the description and drawings should be viewed as a whole. The judgment standard is the understanding of the technical person in the art after reading the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Meanwhile, generally the subject name of the patent has a restrictive effect, which defines the technical field to which the technical solution applies.
The subject name of the patent involved in this case is "an electric hedge trimmer", and the preamble of the claims also contains an explicit record of "motor" drive.
It can be seen from the description and the claims that when drafting the claims and description of the patent involved, the patentee clearly knew that there were two methods of motor drive and fuel engine drive in the prior art, and “environmental protection” is a new technical effect of this patent compared the prior art, however, the patentee only documented motor drive in the patent claims involved, which clearly demonstrated that the drive mode in the patented technical solution involved is merely limited to motor drive without including fuel engine drive.
In terms of the relevant content of the specification that based on the pursuit of environmental protection, the patent applicant did not seek for the technical solution protecting the hedge trimmer whose power source is a fuel engine when drafting the patent claims involved.
In other words, based on the “electric hedge trimmer” defined by the claims, the introduction of the two driving modes of the hedge trimmer in the background technology section in the specification, and the emphasis on the effect of "environmental protection" in the part of invention object in the specification, etc., can be completely understood as the patent applicant clearly does not seek for the technical solution protecting that hedge trimmers use fuel engines as power sources.
In this case, if the fuel engine drive and the motor drive are determined to constitute the technical features equivalent when judging whether the alleged infringing product is included within the scope of the patent protection involved, it is not conducive to the publicity of the patent claims and the protection of the public trust interest.
From: Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court
November 17, 2021
Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial will take effect on January 1 next year
Recently, CNIPA issued the Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines), which will be take effect on January 1, 2022, and the original "Standards of Trademark Examination and Trial" will be abolished at the same time.
The Guidelines is divided into two parts: "Formal Examination and Clerical Operations" and "Trademark Examination and Trial". There are 25 chapters in the "Formal Examination and Clerical Operations", which makes systematic and comprehensive pectination to the formal examination and affairs work of trademark examination trials, stipulates the general requirements of formal examination, and refines the work standards of various trademark business forms. It regulates the classification of commodity and services, the classification of trademark text search elements, the classification of graphic elements and other search elements. It clarifies the examination standards for trademark renewal, alteration, and transfer procedures, and explains the Madrid trademark international registration application, opposition and follow-up business, regulating trademark fees, document service, trademark archives, trademark announcements, etc. In "Trademark Examination and Trial", there are 19 chapters, it improves the substantive standards of trademark examination and trial, implements the supporting requirements for the amendment of laws and regulations, stipulates the principles, scope and basic concepts of trademark examination and trial, enhances the rationality and guidance of substantive examination standards corresponding to the legislative intent of the legal provisions, and clarifies the practical requirements of the combination of consistent standard implementation and individual case examination, embedding guiding cases and adding illustration with relevant notes for the purpose of strengthening standard's guidance.
It is reported that the "Guidelines" is published by the Intellectual Property Publishing House and will be publicly released in January 2022.
From: The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court
November 24, 2021
Notice on items related to the charge for the international phase of PCT applications in RMB standard
In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding on the Remittance of Fees under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) signed by CNIPA and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), starting from December 1, 2021, CNIPA will charge for the international phase of PCT applications on behalf of WIPO in accordance with the RMB standard published by WIPO, and is no longer converted to the Swiss franc standard. The relevant affairs are hereby notified as follows:
1. The upcoming RMB standard
In terms of the latest expense standard published by the WIPO in November 2021, CNIPA will charge the international phase fee for PCT applications according to the following standards.
In accordance with the agreement, each year WIPO publishes the RMB standard for the international phase of PCT applications for the next year. In principle, it remains valid for one year. If the standard needs to be adjusted due to great exchange rate fluctuations, it will be announced at some other time.
2. Scope of application
International filing fees for PCT applications submitted to CNIPA and received after December 1, 2021 (inclusive), and service charge for PCT international preliminary examination requirements received after December 1, 2021 (inclusive) apply to the RMB standard published in this notice. For PCT applications and PCT international preliminary examination requirements received before December 1, 2021, the relevant fees shall be converted and collected in Swiss francs according to the existing way.
Apart from the fees collected on behalf of International Bureau, the search fees and other fees charged by CNIPA remain unchanged. More details can be seen on the Standards for Patent Fees, Integrated Circuit Layout Design Fees issued on the website of CNIPA.
Hereby inform.
From: CNIPA
November 26, 2021
- 北京知识产权法院对北京首例专利侵权纠纷行政调解协议进行司法确认
- WIPO年度报告：中国多项知识产权申请量居全球首位
- 专利等同侵权适用之限制——（2021）最高法知民终192号
- 《商标审查审理指南》将于明年1月1日起施行
- 关于以人民币标准收取PCT申请国际阶段费用相关事项的通知
北京知识产权法院对北京首例专利侵权纠纷行政调解协议进行司法确认
近日，北京知识产权法院对两起专利纠纷行政调解协议进行司法确认，该两案是北京首例专利侵权纠纷达成行政调解协议进行司法确认的案件。
北京某科技公司与江苏某科技公司因智能清洁设备实用新型专利侵权纠纷向北京市知识产权局（简称知识产权局）请求行政裁决处理，经知识产权局调解，双方当事人达成调解协议并签署《专利侵权纠纷行政调解协议书》。此后，双方当事人向我院申请就上述行政调解协议进行司法确认。
我院依法受理后，经审查认为，申请人达成的调解协议，符合司法确认调解协议的法定条件，依照民事诉讼法第一百九十五条裁定如下：1、申请人经知识产权局主持调解达成的调解协议有效。2、申请人应当按照调解协议的约定自觉履行义务；一方申请人拒绝履行或者未全部履行的，另一方申请人可以向法院申请执行。
上述两案最终以法院司法确认行政调解协议的方式化解当事人纠纷，既体现了行政与司法工作的有效衔接，也是我院进一步推进案件繁简分流优化司法资源配置的重要举措，对于完善我院知识产权纠纷多元调解机制及提高审判质效意义重大。
摘自：北京知识产权法院
2021年11月9日
WIPO年度报告：中国多项知识产权申请量居全球首位
日前，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）发布《世界知识产权指标》年度报告。报告显示，2020年全球多项知识产权申请量均出现反弹，恢复增长态势。其中，中国国家知识产权局以受理150万件专利申请独占鳌头。全球有效专利在2020年增长了5.9%，中国拥有的有效专利数量达310万件,实现增长最快。
报告显示，2020年，全球约有1340万件商标申请，连续第11年增长。中国以约930万商标注册申请量居全球首位。报告认为，新冠疫情期间全球商标申请活动强劲增长，一些新的商品和服务在疫情的催生下应运而生。
在工业品外观设计方面，报告指出，2020年，全球共提交了约110万件工业品外观设计申请，其中包含140万项外观设计，年度同比增长了2%。2020年，中国国家知识产权局受理的申请中包含了77.0362万项外观设计，占世界总量的55.5%。
来自92个国家和地区主管局的数据显示，2020年共有约5.88万个受保护的有效地理标志。其中，德国报告的有效地理标志为1.4394万个，其次是中国，有效地理标志数量为8476个。
《世界知识产权指标》年度报告数据，再次强有力地向世界彰显中国知识产权事业进入高质量发展阶段，正在从知识产权引进大国向创造大国转变，知识产权工作从追求数量向提高质量转变全面提速。这样的发展，也得到了全球各界的一致肯定。
摘自：中国知识产权报
2021年11月10日
专利等同侵权适用之限制——（2021）最高法知民终192号
近日，最高人民法院知识产权法庭审结了徐州中森智能装备有限公司（以下简称中森公司）与常州格瑞德园林机械有限公司（以下简称格瑞德公司）、宁波昂霖智能装备有限公司（以下简称昂霖公司）侵害发明专利权纠纷案，判决撤销原判，驳回专利权人中森公司的诉讼请求。
该案涉及专利侵权判定中等同原则的适用，二审判决指出，如果专利权人在撰写专利申请文件时已明确知晓相关技术方案，但并未将其纳入权利要求保护范围之内的，则在侵权诉讼中不得再适用等同理论将该技术方案纳入保护范围。
中森公司一审诉称：其是“电动绿篱机”发明专利（专利号201610201500.0）的专利权人，格瑞德公司未经其许可，擅自生产、销售侵害其发明专利权利要求1的被诉侵权产品“宽带修剪机”，构成侵权；昂霖公司为格瑞德公司生产、销售的被诉侵权产品提供零部件，同样侵害其发明专利权。一审法院经审理认定被诉侵权产品落入中森公司涉案专利权利要求1的保护范围，判令格瑞德公司、昂霖公司停止侵害、赔偿损失。
格瑞德公司、昂霖公司均不服，向最高人民法院提起上诉。
格瑞德公司、昂霖公司均主张被诉侵权产品未落入涉案专利权利要求保护范围，一审法院错误认定被诉侵权产品相关技术特征与涉案专利驱动方式构成等同。昂霖公司另主张其销售零部件的行为不构成帮助侵权。
最高人民法院认为，专利权保护范围的确定，既要严格保护专利权人的利益，又要维护权利要求书的公示作用和社会公众对专利文件的信赖，平衡专利权人与社会公众之间的利益。
如果专利权人在撰写专利申请文件时已明确地知晓相关技术方案，但并未将其纳入权利要求保护范围之内的，则在侵权诉讼中不得再主张适用等同理论将该技术方案纳入保护范围。
确定专利权人在专利申请时是否明确知晓并将特定技术方案纳入专利权保护范围，可结合说明书及附图内容予以认定，并应将说明书及附图作为整体看待，判断的标准是本领域普通技术人员阅读权利要求书与说明书及附图之后的理解。
同时，专利主题名称一般而言具有限定作用，其限定了技术方案所适用的技术领域。
本案涉案专利主题名称为“一种电动绿篱机”，权利要求前序部分亦有关于“电机”驱动的明确记载。
通过说明书及权利要求记载可知，专利权人在撰写涉案专利权利要求和说明书时，即已明确知晓现有技术中存在电机驱动和燃油发动机驱动两种方式，且“环保无污染”是本专利相较于现有技术新增的一个技术效果，但专利权人在涉案专利权利要求中仅记载电机驱动，即明确表示涉案专利技术方案中的驱动方式仅限于电机驱动，而不包括燃油发动机驱动。
从说明书的相关内容可以看出，专利申请人在撰写涉案专利权利要求时，基于对环保效果的追求，专利申请人并不寻求保护以燃油发动机作为动力源的绿篱机技术方案
换言之，本领域普通技术人员基于对权利要求所限定的“电动绿篱机”、说明书背景技术部分对绿篱机存在电机驱动和燃油发动机驱动两种驱动方式的介绍，以及说明书发明目的部分关于“环保无污染”效果的强调等，完全可以理解为专利申请人明确不寻求保护以燃油发动机作为动力源的绿篱机技术方案。
在此情况下，若在判断被诉侵权产品是否落入涉案专利权保护范围时，将燃油发动机驱动与电机驱动认定构成技术特征等同，则不利于专利权利要求公示作用的发挥和社会公众信赖利益的保护。
摘自：最高人民法院知识产权法庭
2021年11月17日
《商标审查审理指南》将于明年1月1日起施行
近日，国家知识产权局发布《商标审查审理指南》（以下简称《指南》），自2022年1月1日起施行，原《商标审查及审理标准》同时废止。
《指南》分“形式审查和事务工作编”与“商标审查审理编”上下两编。“形式审查和事务工作编”共有25章，对商标审查审理的形式审查和事务工作进行了系统、全面的梳理，规定了形式审查一般性要求，细化了商标各项业务形式审查工作标准，规定了商品服务分类、商标文字检索要素分类、图形要素分类以及其他检索要素分类，明确了商标续展、变更、转让等程序的审查标准，说明了马德里商标国际注册申请、异议以及后续业务等各项业务审查标准，对商标费用、文件送达、商标档案、商标公告等内容进行了规范。“商标审查审理编”共有19章，完善了商标审查审理实体性标准，落实法律法规修改配套要求，规定了商标审查审理原则、范围和基本概念，增强实体性审查标准对应法律条款立法意图的说理性和指导性，明确了标准执行一致和个案审查相结合的实践要求，为增强标准指导性嵌入了指导案例并增加图例辅以相关注释说明。
据悉，《指南》由知识产权出版社出版，将于2022年1月公开发行。
摘自：最高人民法院知识产权法庭
2021年11月24日
关于以人民币标准收取PCT申请国际阶段费用相关事项的通知
根据国家知识产权局与世界知识产权组织签订的《关于〈专利合作条约〉（PCT）费用汇交的谅解备忘录》，自2021年12月1日起，国家知识产权局将按世界知识产权组织公布的人民币标准代世界知识产权组织国际局收取PCT申请国际阶段费用，不再以瑞士法郎标准进行折算。现将相关事项通知如下：
一、即将执行的人民币标准
根据世界知识产权组织2021年11月公布的最新费用标准，国家知识产权局将按以下标准收取PCT申请国际阶段费用。
根据协议，世界知识产权组织每年公布下一年度PCT申请国际阶段费用的人民币标准，原则上维持一年有效，如因汇率波动过大等原因需调整标准将另行公布。
二、适用范围
向国家知识产权局提交且收到日在2021年12月1日（含当日）之后的PCT申请的国际申请费，以及收到日在2021年12月1日（含当日）之后的PCT国际初步审查要求的手续费，适用本通知公布的人民币标准。收到日在2021年12月1日之前的PCT申请以及PCT国际初步审查要求，按照既有方式以瑞士法郎标准折算收取相关费用。
除代国际局收取的费用之外，检索费等国家知识产权局收取的费用标准保持不变，具体见国家知识产权局网站发布的《专利收费、集成电路布图设计收费标准》。
特此通知。
摘自：国家知识产权局
2021年11月26日
