Filter

Open

05

MAY

2022

业界新闻:

中欧亚专利审查高速路(PPH)试点项目延长

CNIPA-EAPO PPH Pilot Program Extended

根据中国国家知识产权局和欧亚专利局的共同决定,将201841日启动的中欧亚PPH试点项目,自202241日起延长一年,至2023331日止。在两局提交PPH请求的有关要求和流程不变。

(来源:中国国家知识产权局政务微信)

According to a decision jointly made by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), the CNIPA-EAPO PPH (Patent Prosecution Highway) pilot program, launched on April 1, 2018, will be extended for another year from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. Relevant requirements and procedures to submit PPH requests with the two offices remain unchanged.

(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)

WIPO报告指出:中国是新冠肺炎疫苗和疗法相关专利申请的最大来源国

WIPO Report: China is the Largest Source of Patent Applications related to COVID-19 Vaccines and Therapeutics

近日,世界知识产权组织(WIPO)召开线上发布会,发布《COVID-19相关疫苗和疗法专利态势报告》。

Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) held a press conference online to release the Patent Landscape Report on COVID-19 related vaccines and therapeutics.

该报告由WIPO编拟,是该组织首份旨在分析新冠肺炎相关专利活动以研究抗疫相关技术创新趋势的报告。报告指出,在疫情开始后的21个月中,全球49个专利局收到了近5300件新冠肺炎相关专利申请,包括近1500件疗法相关申请和400余件疫苗相关申请。其中,高校和科研机构在疫苗相关申请中最为活跃。

The report, prepared by WIPO, is the WIPO's first report to analyze the COVID-19-related patent activity to study the anti-epidemic technological innovation trends. The report pointed out that in the 21 months after the outbreak, 49 patent offices around the world received nearly 5,300 patent applications related to COVID-19, including nearly 1,500 applications related to therapeutics and more than 400 applications related to vaccines. Among them, universities and scientific research institutions are the most active in vaccine-related applications.

报告指出,中国是新冠肺炎疫苗和疗法相关专利申请的最大来源国。截至20219月,有276个疫苗相关专利申请同族来自中国,中国申请人还申请了887件新冠肺炎疗法专利。在具体研发方面,据世卫组织数据,截至202110月,中国共有34个研发中的新冠肺炎疫苗,其中23个已进入临床试验阶段,总数位居全球第二。这表明中国在新冠肺炎疫苗和疗法创新方面处于全球第一方阵,且包括中国国家知识产权局在内的全球主要知识产权机构都对新冠肺炎相关申请开辟了绿色通道。

According to the report, China is the largest source of patent applications related to COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics. As of September 2021, applications from 276 vaccine-related patent families are from China, and Chinese applicants have also applied for 887 COVID-19 therapeutic patents. In terms of specific research and development, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), as of October 2021, China has a total of 34 COVID-19 vaccines under development, of which 23 have entered the clinical trial phase, ranking second in the world in total. This shows that China is in the world's "first phalanx" in terms of COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutic innovation. Moreover, major intellectual property authorities around the world, including the CNIPA, have opened green channels for COVID-19-related applications.

(来源:中国国家知识产权局)

(Source: the CNIPA)

中老知识产权局局长举行视频会谈

China-Laos Heads of Office Meeting Held Online

39日,中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨与老挝知识产权厅新任执行厅长丰沙瓦举行视频会谈。这是老挝知识产权管理机构改革之后,中老知识产权主管部门举行的首次高层会谈。

(来源:中国国家知识产权局政务微信)

On March 9, Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) held a video conference with Mr. Santisouk Phounsavath, the new Director General of the Department of Intellectual Property (IPD) of Laos. This is the first high-level meeting between Chinese and Laos intellectual property authorities after the reform of Laos' intellectual property administration institutions.

(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)

 

典型案例:

集佳代理湖南广播电视台应诉 原告主张1000万赔偿被全部驳回

Unitalen Client Hunan Broadcasting System Respond to Lawsuit, and Plaintiff's Claim of 10 Million Compensation was all Rejected

近日,集佳代理的湖南广播电视台(以下简称被告湖南台)、湖南快乐阳光互动娱乐传媒有限公司、北京爱奇艺科技有限公司(以下统称被告)与北京身临其境文化股份有限公司(曾用名:北京太阳光影影视科技有限公司,以下简称原告)侵害商标权纠纷一案,经北京市海淀区人民法院认定,被告将被控侵权标识使用在涉案节目的播放和宣传推广中的行为,不足以导致相关公众对涉案商标和被控侵权标识产生混淆,身临其境公司主张三被告侵害其涉案商标享有的商标专用权,缺乏事实和法律依据,判决驳回原告全部诉讼请求,案件受理费82765元,由原告自行负担。此案原告上诉后又撤回上诉,一审判决已生效。

Recently, in the case of trademark infringement dispute between Hunan Broadcasting System (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" or "Hunan System"), Hunan Mgtv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd., Beijing Iqiyi Technology Co. Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "defendant", represented by Unitalen) and Beijing Shenlinqijing Culture Co., Ltd. (used name: Beijing Taiyangguangying Film and Television Technology Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff"), the Beijing Haidian People's Court determined that the defendant's use of the alleged infringing mark in the broadcasting and promotion of the program involved in the case was insufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public about the involved trademark and the alleged infringing mark, and the claim that the three defendants infringed the exclusive right to use the trademark Shenlinqijing lacks factual and legal basis. The judgment rejected all plaintiff's claims, and the case acceptance fee of 82,765 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in this case withdrew the appeal after appealing, and the first-instance judgment has come into effect.

基本案情:

Case Summary:

湖南广播电视台(Hunan Broadcasting System)是湖南省委直属正厅级传媒事业单位,由前湖南广播影视集团(Golden Eagle Broadcasting System)改制而成,于2010628日成立。《声临其境》是被告湖南广播电视台独立制作的一个原创声音魅力竞赛秀综艺节目。该综艺节目主要包括三个环节:第一节是经典之声,让嘉宾们为经典影视、动画片段配音;第二节是魔力之声,嘉宾现场挑战拗口台词或者配音;最后一轮声音大秀,是嘉宾现场合作一出声音舞台剧。《声临其境》电视节目以声音为主题,邀请配音演员等声音工作者,采用不见其人、只闻其声的特别形式,进行现场竞演。

Hunan Broadcasting System is a department-level media institution directly under the Hunan Provincial Governmental Committee. It was restructured from the former Golden Eagle Broadcasting System and was established on June 28, 2010. "The Sound" is an original voice charm competition variety show independently produced by the defendant, Hunan Broadcasting System This variety show mainly consists of three sections: the first section is "Classic Voice", which allows the guests to dub classic films and animation clips, the second section is "Magic Voice", where the guests challenge eloquent lines or dubbing, and the last section is "Voice Show", which is a live sound stage play performed by the guests together. The TV program "The Sound" is based on voice, and voice workers such as voice actors are invited to perform live competition in a special form of "seeing no man and hearing only the voice".

原告系第12253086身临其境商标、第10284337身临其境商标、第22297784身临其境商标(以下统称涉案商标)的商标权人,认为湖南台未经原告许可,在其制作并出品的电视节目《声临其境》中大量使用与涉案商标相近似的声临其境文字和标识,向法院提出如下诉讼请求:(1)三被告立即停止侵害身临其境公司商标权的行为,即立即停止使用与身临其境公司第12253086号商标、第10284337号商标、第22297784号商标相同或近似的标识与文字;(2)爱奇艺公司在爱奇艺网首页,湖南台和快乐阳光公司共同在芒果TV网首页及新浪网首页刊登声明,消除三被告侵害商标权行为对身临其境公司造成的不良影响;(3)三被告共同赔偿身临其境公司经济损失1000万元及合理支出152500元。

The plaintiff is the holder of the trademarks nos. 12253086 "身临其境" (shenlinqijing), 10284337 "身临其境" (SHEN LIN QI JING), and 22297784 "身临其境" (shenlinqijing) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the involved trademarks). The plaintiff believes that Hunan System has, without the permission of the plaintiff, used a large number of words and marks of "声临其境" (shenglinqijing) that are similar to the involved trademarks in the TV program "The Sound" produced and presented by Hunan System, and filed the following claims to the court: (1) the three defendants shall immediately cease infringing the trademark rights of Shenlinqijing, that is, shall immediately cease using marks and words that are identical or similar to the trademark nos. 12253086, 10284337, and 22297784 for Shenlinqijing; (2) Iqiyi, on the homepage of iqiyi.com, and Hunan System and Mgtv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd., jointly on the homepage of mgtv.com and on the homepage of sina.com, shall publish a statement to eliminate the adverse effects of the three defendants' trademark infringement on Shenlinqijing; and (3) the three defendants shall jointly compensate Shenlinqijing for economic losses of 10 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 152,500 yuan.

集佳律师代理湖南台及快乐阳光公司答辩,首先,从五个角度论述此案不构成商标权侵权的情形;其次,即使被控侵权行为成立,涉案节目的广告收益与原告公司涉案商标无因果关系。法院最终支持我方观点,驳回原告全部诉讼请求。

Unitalen attorneys represented Hunan System and Mgtv.com Interactive Entertainment Media Co., Ltd. in the defense, and firstly argued from five perspectives there was no trademark infringement in this case ; and secondly, even if there is infringement as alleged, the advertising revenue of the involved program has no causal relationship with the involved trademarks of the plaintiffs' companies. The court finally upheld our arguments and rejected all the plaintiff's claims.

典型意义:

Typical Significance:

本案主要从商标音、形虽接近但含义足以区分而不构成近似、不构成混淆误认(包括正向混淆与反向混淆)两个角度,认定不构成侵权;另外,针对原告38类上的注册商标3年没有任何实际使用,认定其并无保护之价值,被诉节目首播时间早于该商标获准注册时间,认定涉案节目未侵害该注册商标,具有创新性。

In this case, it is determined that infringement is not constituted mainly from two perspectives: although the trademarks are similar in sound and form, the meanings can be fully distinguished and thus similarity, confusion and misunderstanding (including confusion and reverse confusion) are not constituted. Besides, the plaintiff’s registered trademark in Class 38 has not been used in commerce for 3 years, and as a result the trademark "has no value for protection." The first broadcasting of the accused program was earlier than the time when the trademark was approved for registration, and it is determined that the involved program did not infringe the registered trademark and is innovative.

遭遇恶意抢注及恶意诉讼,历经六年福库终获再审全面胜诉!

CUCKOO Finally Won The Retrial And Won The Overall Lawsuit Six Years After It Encountered Malicious Squatting And Malicious Lawsuits!

基本案情:

Case Summary:

韩国福库成立于1978年,致力于高压电饭煲及家用电器的研发和生产。2006年,韩国福库开发出内胆材质为黄铜镀金、天然滑石、铸铁等电饭煲,并命名为黄金铜、一品石、打铁名匠等系列,还专门聘请设计公司设计艺术标识。在同期市场上,只有韩国福库设计生产了纯石锅内胆电饭煲,一品石内胆电饭煲产品一上市,立即获得广泛关注。韩国福库在中国有子公司青岛福库电子有限公司(青岛福库)并通过青岛福库在华开展业务。

Korea Cuckoo was established in 1978 and was dedicated to the research, development and manufacture of high-pressure rice cookers and household appliances. In 2006, Korea Cuckoo developed rice cookers with inner pots made of gold-plated brass, natural talc, cast iron, etc., and named them as the series of golden copper, Yipinshi, and famous blacksmith, etc., and specially hired a design company to design artistic marks. In the market in the same period, only Korea Cuckoo designed and produced the rice cooker with a pot of pure stone. The rice cooker with "Yipinshi" inner pot product gained widespread attention as soon as it was launched. Korea Cuckoo has a subsidiary Qingdao Cuckoo Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Cuckoo”) and carries out its business in China through Qingdao Cuckoo.

20077月,广东省湛江市居民郑某某在电压力锅等厨房器具商品上申请注册第6175220一品石商标,并于同年8月成立湛江市某公司。20084月,郑某某又申请注册另一枚第6671221一品石商标,该枚商标的字形与前一枚商标略有变化,著作权图样及涉案相关标识如下附图所示:

In July 2007, ZHENG, a resident of Zhanjiang, Guangdong Province, applied for the registration of the Trademark No. 6175220 "一品石" (Yipingshi) on kitchen appliances such as "Pressure cookers, electric", and established a company in Zhanjiang in August of the same year. In April 2008, ZHENG applied for the registration of another trademark, the Trademark No. 6671221 "一品石" (Yipingshi). The font of this trademark was slightly different from that of the previous one. The copyright patterns and the relevant marks involved are shown in the following figure:

福库美术作品

6175220号商标

6671221号商标

Art work of Cuckoo

Trademark No. 6175220

Trademark No. 6671221

郑某某上述两枚商标分别于20102月和5月核准注册。在两枚商标注册满五年后,自201511月起,郑某某开始向工商部门行政投诉青岛福库及其经销商商标侵权。福库亦在被行政投诉后从2016年起对郑某某一品石商标先后提出撤三和无效宣告申请,但因商标核准注册已满五年等因素,未能成功撤销或无效其注册商标。

The above two trademarks of ZHENG were approved for registration in February and May 2010 respectively. Five years after the two trademarks were registered, ZHENG began to file administrative complaints to the industry and commerce department for trademark infringement of Qingdao Cuckoo and its distributors since November 2015. Cuckoo also filed applications for 3-year non-use revocation and invalidation against ZHENG's "一品石" (Yipinshi) trademarks since 2016 after being sued by the administrative complaints. However, due to the approval and registration of the trademarks for five years and other factors, the registered trademarks had not been successfully revoked or invalidated.

20166月,郑某某及湛江某公司一纸诉状,将青岛福库告上法庭。

In June 2016, ZHENG and the company in Zhanjiang filed a lawsuit with the court against Qingdao Cuckoo.

案件分析:

Case Analysis:

接受委托后,集佳律师建议福库从在先著作权等角度进行抗辩,并反诉或另诉郑某某及湛江某公司侵害其著作权。因一审法院未接受青岛福库的反诉意见,青岛福库另诉郑某某及湛江某公司侵害其著作权。

After accepting the entrustment, Unitalen attorney suggested that Cuckoo make defense from perspectives such as the prior copyright, and files counterclaim or separate lawsuit against ZHENG and the company in Zhanjiang for copyright infringement. Since the court of first instance did not accept Qingdao Cuckoo's counterclaim, Qingdao Cuckoo separately filed a lawsuit against ZHENG and the company in Zhanjiang for copyright infringement.

综合两案案情来看,著作权案件的胜负至关重要。核心点在于对作品独创性及对方接触可能性两方面的证据收集及论理。为此,集佳律师挖掘大量证据后,认为现有书法文字造型即已满足著作权法对于作品独创性的要求,构成书法美术作品。同时,证明被诉方恶意抢注包括韩国其他品牌在内的多个知名品牌,结合被诉标识与在先美术作品高度近似的情形,从概率学、逻辑推理、高度盖然性等角度,强调其具有接触可能性。

Based on the facts of the two cases, the outcome of the copyright case is crucial. The key lies in the collection of evidence and reasoning about the originality and possibility of access of the opposite party of the work "". To this end, after discovering a large amount of evidence, Unitalen attorney believes that the existing pattern of the calligraphic characters have met the requirements of the Copyright Law for the originality of work, and constitutes a work of calligraphy art. At the same time, from the perspectives of probability, logical reasoning, and high probability, it is emphasized that the accused party has the possibility of access by proving that the accused party maliciously squatted a number of well-known brands including other Korean brands, and combining with the situation that the accused mark is highly similar to the prior art work.

对于商标侵权案件,集佳律师在代理过程中,重点强调福库的在先著作权,郑某某等恶意注册的商标不具有实质合法性,其恶意行使商标权的行为构成权利滥用,应依据最高院第82号指导案例歌力思案的裁判规则等,对其诉讼请求不应予以支持。

For the trademark infringement case, Unitalen attorney emphasized the prior copyright of Cuckoo in defense, the trademarks maliciously registered by ZHENG and others have no substantial legality, their malicious exercise of trademark rights constitutes abuse of rights, and their claims shall not be supported, based on the judgment rules of the "ELLASSAY" case, the guiding case No. 82 of the Supreme Court.

法院判决:

Court Decision:

青岛福库在两案中的诉求在一二审程序中均未获得法院支持,故而依法向最高人民法院就两案申请再审。最高人民法院审查两案后均依法裁定予以提审。

Qingdao Cuckoo's claims in the two cases were not accepted by the court in the first and second instance procedures, so the case was appealed to the Supreme People's Court for retrial of the two cases in accordance with the law. After reviewing the two cases, the Supreme People's Court ruled to bring the cases to trial in accordance with the law.

经提审,最高院在著作权再审案件中认定书法文字造型是个性化选择、取舍、编排的结果,属于作者的独创性表达,构成著作权法意义上的美术作品。被控侵权标志使用的是美术作品中排除了公有领域创作素材之后的独创性表达部分,二者构成实质性相似。著作权法上的接触可能性并不限于对国内作品的接触,对于在国外发表的作品,国内主体也具有接触可能性。被控侵权标志是否已作为商标注册,并不能成为其侵害他人著作权的合法抗辩事由。据此,最高院再审判决撤销一、二审判决,改判郑某某及湛江某公司停止侵权并承担赔偿责任。

After trial, the Supreme Court determined in the copyright retrial case that the pattern of calligraphic characters "" is the result of personalized selection, choice, and arrangement, and belongs to the author's original expression, which constitutes a work of art in the sense of copyright law. The alleged infringing mark used the original expression part of the art work "" after excluding the creative materials in the public domain, and the two constituted substantial similarity. The possibility of access in the copyright law is not limited to the access to domestic works. For works published abroad, domestic subjects may also have possibility of access. Whether the alleged infringing mark has been registered as a trademark cannot be a legitimate defense for infringing the copyright of others. Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled to revoke the first and second instance judgments in the retrial judgment and additionally ruled that ZHENG and the Zhanjiang company to cease infringement and assume compensation liability.

最高院在商标权再审案件中认定:本案中,由于郑某某及湛江某公司取得及使用涉案商标权的行为系在侵犯青岛福库合法在先著作权的基础上进行,该行为违反了诚实信用原则,不具有正当性,但其仍据此向青岛福库提起商标侵权之诉,其诉讼行为构成权利滥用,其诉讼请求缺乏合法的权利基础而不予支持。据此,最高人民法院判决撤销一、二审判决,改判驳回郑某某及湛江某公司的诉讼请求。

In the trademark right retrial case, the Supreme Court determined that: in this case, since the act of ZHENG and the Zhanjiang company of acquiring and exercising the involved trademark right is based on infringing the lawful prior copyright of Qingdao Cuckoo, such act violated the principle of honesty and credibility and has no legitimacy, but they still filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Qingdao Cuckoo on this basis, such litigation act constituted an abuse of right, and its litigation claims lacked a legitimate rights basis and were not supported. Accordingly, the Supreme People's Court ruled to revoke the judgments of the first and second instances, and re-ruled to dismiss the claims of ZHENG and the Zhanjiang company.

典型意义:

Typical Significance:

在本著作权再审案件中,最高人民法院对书法美术作品独创性的认定、实质性相似的判定、接触可能性的推定以及运用逻辑推理和日常生活经验对相关证据进行全面客观的审核认定等方面,均对类似案件具有指导意义。

In this copyright retrial case, the Supreme People's Court's determination of the originality of calligraphy art works, judgment of substantial similarity, presumption of possibility of access, and comprehensive and objective review and determination of relevant evidence using logical reasoning and daily life experience all have guiding significance for similar cases.

最高人民法院就商标侵权再审案件所做判决,再次彰显中国司法机关从司法层面制止非法抢注者试图通过形式合法的已注册商标进行恶意索赔的决心,为权利人在遭遇同类情形如何合法维权提供了又一经典判例。

The Supreme People's Court's judgment on the trademark infringement retrial case once again demonstrates the determination of the Chinese judicial authorities to stop illegal squatters from trying to make malicious claims through registered trademarks that are legitimate in form from the judicial aspect, and provides another classic precedent on how rights holders can legally protect their rights in similar situations.

集佳助力美国Rogers公司连续取得专利无效案件胜利

Unitalen Client American Company Rogers Won Consecutive Patent Invalidation Cases

案件事实:

Case facts:

Rogers公司由Peter Rogers1832年在美国成立,总部位于美国亚利桑那州钱德勒市,是工程材料领域的全球领导者。同时在美国、中国、日本、韩国、德国、匈牙利和比利时生产产品。公司产品涵盖层压板、3D 可打印介质材料、半固化片/粘结片、陶瓷基板、散热器、弹性体部件、聚氨酯材料、特种硅胶材料、压敏胶带、工程多孔橡胶、柔版印刷衬垫等多个领域,其解决方案包括先进电子解决方案、射频解决方案、母线排解决方案、高弹体材料解决方案等,在可靠性、效率和性能方面属于行业标杆。

Rogers Corporation was founded in the United States in 1832 by Peter Rogers and is headquartered in Chandler, Arizona, USA. It is a global leader in engineered materials, and produces products in the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Hungary and Belgium. The company's products cover many fields, including laminates, 3D printable media materials, prepreg/bonding sheets, ceramic substrates, heat sinks, elastomer parts, polyurethane materials, specialty silicone materials, pressure sensitive tapes, engineered porous rubber, flexographic pads, the solutions include advanced electronic solutions, radio frequency solutions, busbar solutions, elastomer material solutions, etc., and are industry benchmarks in terms of reliability, efficiency and performance.

Rogers公司在进入中国市场的过程中发现,国内多个企业利用实用新型专利不实质审查的漏洞,将明显属于现有技术的技术方案申请专利并获得授权。在集佳团队的帮助下,Rogers公司对上述专利提起了无效宣告请求程序,并最终全部无效了专利权人为东莞某科技有限公司、专利号为ZL2017*******2.4、名称为一种**泡棉的实用新型专利以及专利权人为东莞某科技有限公司、专利号为ZL2018*******4.8、名称为一种**泡棉的实用新型专利。集佳成功帮助Rogers公司化解了风险,避免其主打产品的生产和销售受到侵权威胁。

In the process of entering the Chinese market, Rogers Corporation found that many domestic enterprises took advantage of the loopholes that substantive examination is not conducted for utility model patents, and applied for patents for technical solutions that obviously belong to the prior art and the applications had been allowed. With the help of the Unitalen team, Rogers Corporation filed invalidation request procedures against the above-mentioned patents, and finally completely invalidated the utility model patents including, patent number of ZL2017*******2.4 of a Dongguan Technology company with a title of "a ... foam", and the utility model patent of a Dongguan Technology company with a title of "a ... foam" with a patent number of ZL2018*******4.8. Unitalen successfully helped Rogers Corporation defuse the risks and avoid the threat of infringement on the production and sales of its main products.

案件评析:

Case analysis:

对于第一件专利无效案件,针对权利要求为开放式权利要求且保护范围过大的特点,集佳团队找到了最佳的现有技术。该现有技术公开的具体实施例虽然与目标专利的具体实施例不同,但仍能够落入权利要求的保护范围之内;同时,集佳团队还向合议组解释了,虽然采用的技术术语不同,但目标专利与现有技术的各个特征并无实质区别,本领域技术人员能够理解上述不同技术术语的指向实质相同。最终,该目标专利因不具有新颖性而被宣告四项权利要求全部无效。

For the first patent invalidation case, the Unitalen team found the optimal prior art in view of the fact that the claims are open-ended and the protection scopes are overbroad. Although the specific embodiments disclosed in the prior art are different from the specific embodiments of the target patent, they can still fall within the protection scopes of the claims; meanwhile, the Unitalen team explained to the collegiate panel that although the technical terms used are different, there is no substantial difference between the respective features of the target patent and the prior art, and those skilled in the art can understand that the above-mentioned different technical terms have substantially the same reference. Finally, all four claims of the target patent were announced to be invalid due to lack of novelty.

对于第二件专利无效案件,针对权利要求涉及方法特征的特点,集佳团队同时提出了权利要求不符合专利法第2条第3款、第22条第23款的规定的无效理由,制定了通过形式无效理由和实质性无效理由两面夹击的无效策略,进而使得专利权人进退维谷,合议组也因此认定目标专利与现有技术制备工艺的不同并不构成权利要求和现有技术的区别,且目标专利相对于现有技术没有预料不到的技术效果。最终,该目标专利因不具有创造性而被宣告权利要求全部无效。

For the second patent invalidation case, in view that the claims involve a method, the Unitalen team submitted invalidation reasons that the claims do not comply with the provisions of Article 2.3, and Article 22.2 and Article 22.3 of the Chinese Patent Law, in the meantime, formulated an invalidation strategy of double-pronged attack of both the formal invalidation grounds and the substantive invalidation grounds, which put the patentee in a dilemma. Therefore, the collegiate panel determined that the difference between the preparation processes of the target patent and the prior art does not constitute any difference between the claims and the prior art, and the target patent has no unexpected technical effect relative to the prior art. Finally, all of the claims of the target patent were announced to be invalid for lack of an inventive step.

集佳新闻:

集佳再次荣膺WTR 2022年度全球领先商标事务所 合伙人黄莺、赵雷入选杰出律师榜单

Unitalen Once Again Awarded the WTR 2022 Global Leading Trademark Firm, and Partners Huang Ying and Zhao Lei were Recognized as Outstanding Attorneys

近日,国际知识产权领域权威媒体《世界商标评论》(WTR)发布2022年度WTR 1000全球商标领域领先事务所及杰出律师榜单,集佳在商标申请和策略以及商标维权和诉讼两大领域均名列前茅,同时,集佳合伙人黄莺律师、赵雷律师凭借精湛的业务能力及良好的业内声誉荣登杰出律师榜单。

Recently, World Trademark Review (WTR), an authoritative international media in the field of intellectual property, released the ranking of the 2022 WTR 1000 Global Trademark Leading Firms and Outstanding Attorneys. Unitalen ranks among the top in the two fields of "prosecution and strategy" and "enforcement and litigation". Meanwhile, Unitalen's partners Huang Ying and Zhao Lei have been recognized as Outstanding Attorneys with their superb professional skills and excellent industry reputation.

集佳代理金蝶维权案入选四川高院十大不正当竞争典型案例

Unitalen Client Kingdee's Right Protection Case was Selected as One of the "Top Ten Typical Cases of Unfair Competition" by Sichuan High Court

2022317日上午,四川高院召开新闻发布会,通报四川法院2019-2021年不正当竞争案件受理情况并发布十大不正当竞争典型案例,集佳代理的金蝶软件(中国)有限公司、深圳市蝶润科技发展有限公司、深圳市金蝶妙想互联有限公司与成都财智办公用品有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案入选。

On the morning of March 17, 2022, the Sichuan High Court held a press conference to provide an overview of unfair competition cases from 2019 to 2021 filed in the Sichuan courts and recognized the top ten typical unfair competition cases. "The case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Kingdee Software (China) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Dierun Technology Development Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Kingdee Millsun Co., Ltd. and Chengdu Moneywise Office Supplies Co., Ltd." represented by Unitalen was selected as one of the top ten cases.

相关阅读:Kingdee Won the Right Protection Case! Chengdu Intermediate People's Court Ruled that Chengdu Moneywise's Acts Constituted Trademark Infringement and Abuse of Right

Related Reading: Kingdee Won the Right Protection Case! Chengdu Intermediate People's Court Ruled that Chengdu Moneywise's Acts Constituted Trademark Infringement and Abuse of Right

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

24
JUN
2022
24
JUN
2022
业界新闻: 中国国家知识产权局2021年度报告公布 China National Intellectual Prop...

Read More

24
JUN
2022
24
JUN
2022
業界ニュース: 中国国家知識産権局が2021年度報告書を公表 先ごろ、中...

Read More

23
MAY
2022
23
MAY
2022
业界新闻: 关于开通外观设计国际申请业务的通知 Notice on the Launch of the In...

Read More

23
MAY
2022
23
MAY
2022
業界ニュース: 意匠の国際出願業務の開始に関する通知 中国国家知識産...

Read More

05
MAY
2022
05
MAY
2022
業界ニュース: 中国・ユーラシア特許審査ハイウェイ(PPH)試行プログ...

Read More

14
APR
2022
14
APR
2022
February 2022 业界新闻: 中国国家知识产权局关于调整专利电子申请专利...

Read More

14
APR
2022
14
APR
2022
February 2022 業界ニュース: 中国国家知識産権局による専利の電子出願...

Read More

09
MAR
2022
09
MAR
2022
January 2022 業界ニュース: 中国がWIPOの2つの重要な条約に加盟:「マラ...

Read More

09
MAR
2022
09
MAR
2022
January 2022 业界新闻: 中国加入产权组织两部重要条约:《马拉喀什条约...

Read More

08
MAR
2022
08
MAR
2022
December 2021 业界新闻: 关于启用尼斯分类第十一版2022文本的通知 Annou...

Read More

08
MAR
2022
08
MAR
2022
December 2021 業界ニュース: ニース分類第11-2022版の発効に関する通知 世...

Read More

05
JAN
2022
05
JAN
2022
業界ニュース: 中英両庁が知的財産権保護ガイドラインを共同発表 2021...

Read More

05
JAN
2022
05
JAN
2022
业界新闻: 中英两局共同发布知识产权保护指南 CNIPA and IPO UK Published Guidel...

Read More

20
DEC
2021
20
DEC
2021
业界新闻: WIPO年度报告:中国多项知识产权申请量居全球首位 WIPO Annual Re...

Read More

20
DEC
2021
20
DEC
2021
業界ニュース: WIPO年次報告書 中国が多くの項目で知的財産権出願件数...

Read More

26
NOV
2021
26
NOV
2021
業界ニュース: 「グローバル・イノベーション・インデックス」:中国...

Read More

26
NOV
2021
26
NOV
2021
业界新闻: 《全球创新指数报告》:中国升至第12位 China Rises to 12th Place in...

Read More

30
AUG
2021
30
AUG
2021
業界ニュース 第32回中仏知的財産権混合委員会ビデオ会議が開催  7...

Read More

30
AUG
2021
30
AUG
2021
业界新闻: 第32次中法知识产权混委会视频会议召开 7月20日,第32次中法...

Read More

06
AUG
2021
06
AUG
2021
业界新闻: 中国最高人民法院关于审理申请注册的药品相关的专利权纠...

Read More

06
AUG
2021
06
AUG
2021
業界ニュース: 最高人民法院による登録が申請された医薬品に関連す...

Read More

18
JUN
2021
18
JUN
2021
业界新闻: 中国首个国际商标信息官方查询系统上线运行 China's First ...

Read More

18
JUN
2021
18
JUN
2021
業界ニュース: 中国初の国際商標情報公式検索システムが運用開始 4...

Read More

28
APR
2021
28
APR
2021
业界新闻: 世界知识产权组织:2020年国际专利申请量仍实现增长 WIPO: PCT I...

Read More

28
APR
2021
28
APR
2021
業界ニュース: 世界知的所有権機関:2020年の国際特許の出願件数は依然...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2