Taking “this first gaveled case” as a model, the IP Court summarized its experiences from individual cases to try similar cases based on the characteristics of intellectual property in different technical fields, and established a number of model cases. For example, in the field of machinery, the invention patent infringement case of Wuxi Hisky Medical Technologies Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Echosens (Respondent) and China-Japan Friendship Hospital (Defendant in the first instance) was tried by the IP Court. The patent involved was that of a “non-invasive diagnostic instrument for liver disease.” The case established the rules for claim construction in patent infringement litigation, the distribution of burden of proof and the determination of the literal and equivalent infringement. In the field of pharmaceuticals, an administrative reexamination dispute over invention patent of the National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC (Appellant) v. Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam and Roger Kingdon Craig (Respondents) was tried by the IP Court. The IP Court clarified the relationship between the patent inventiveness examination and the full disclosure of the specification and other legal standards, promoted the inventiveness examination standards to return to the core and essence in patent examination, and gave clear guidance on how to avoid "hindsight" in the inventiveness examination. In the field of telecommunications, the invention patent infringement case of Shenzhen Jixiang Tenda Technology Co., Ltd. (Appellant) v. Shenzhen Dunjun Technology Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved the patent for “a method for easy access to a portal website of a network operator”. This case, taking the technical characteristics of the network telecommunication field as an important consideration, set up a new adjudication rule on multi-actor method patent infringement, that is, if the alleged infringer, without the patentee’s permission, realizes the substance of the patented method of the allegedly infringing product for the purpose of production and operation, and plays an irreplaceable and substantial role in the comprehensive coverage of the technical features of the patent claims; then in such a case, it should be held as an infringement on the method patent. In the field of new plant varieties, the case of dispute over new plant variety rights of Cai Zinguang (Appellant) v. Guangzhou Runping Commercial Co., Ltd. (Respondent) involved a “three red pomelo” new plant variety. The case established the adjudication rules on the scope of protection of new plant variety rights and the determination of an infringement. It established that where the plant is both propagating and harvested material, the true intention of the allegedly infringing seller to sell it as a propagating material or harvested material should be examined.
In 2019, technology-related IP cases tried by the IP Court share the following characteristics: they involve a wide range of technologies; they have a large social impact; many of them involve interconnected procedures; the trial period is short; the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties are equally protected; and the direction for increasing the judicial protection is clear.
第一，以权利要求解释与等同侵权判定为主要争议的案件较多。权利要求解释关系到专利权保护范围的确定与侵权比对的结果，法庭通过个案裁判在功能性特征的认定标准、主题名称对权利要求保护范围的限定作用、捐献原则的适用等方面进行了深入探索。多起案件涉及等同侵权判断问题，如何在维护权利要求公示作用的同时，给予专利权人以公平保护，成为案件审理的难点。
在法庭审结的142件行政二审案件中，以维持原审裁判方式结案的为126件，以撤诉方式结案的为11件，以改判方式结案的为5件，改判率为3.5%。
3. Implement a systemization project to unify judicial standards
③ Statistical analysis of judgment results
Ⅰ. Focus on the function of trial to strengthen typical exemplary effect of model cases and further unify the standards for adjudicating technology-related IP cases
（二）推动构建保护共同体，形成保护合力
（二）树立标杆案例，发挥示范作用
除非注明，迷失传奇私服文章均为原创，转载请以链接形式标明本文地址
本文地址：http://rrc.org.cn/sf/5840.html