Bayer Health Care Company sued Shenzhen Ante High-Tech Industrial Company, Beijing Bangshengdel Trading Company for invention patent infringement. Recently, Beijing High People's Court made a final judgment on the case, ordering Ante to immediately stop manufacturing, offering to sell, selling the alleged infringing products and to destroy the drawings and molds for the manufacture of the alleged infringing products and indemnify 1.31 million yuan in damages and reasonable costs and ordering Bangshengdel to immediately ceased selling the alleged infringing products.

Bayer is the patent right holder of "front-loading medical injectors and syringes, syringe interfaces, syringe adapters and syringe plungers for their use" (Patent Number: ZL00817905.0). The company found the products called "one- time use of high- pressure contrast syringes and accessories" (alleged infringing products) produced by Ante and sold by Bangshengdel fell within the scope of the claimed patent right at issue and filed a lawsuit with Beijing IP Court, requesting the Court to order Bangshengdel to stop selling the alleged infringing products; Ante to cease manufacturing and offering to sell and selling alleged infringing products, to destroy the drawings and molds used in the making of the alleged infringing products and all the infringing products and to indemnify 1.63 million yuan in damages.

After hearing, the Court found that the alleged infringing products fell within the protection scope of the patent claims 1- 9 and 12- 14. In addition, the acts of Ante in manufacturing, offering to sell and selling the alleged infringing products and the acts of Bangshengdel in selling the alleged infringing products infringed on Bayer's invention patent. In this connection, Beijing IP Court made the above- mentioned first-instance judgment favoring Bayer. Both Bayer and Bangshengdel accepted the first-instance judgment. The disgruntled Ante refused to call it a day and appealed to Beijing High People's Court, claiming that alleged infringing products lack relevant technical features of the patent claims 1- 3 and 5, and the protection scope of claim 1 is not clear, so those products doesn't fell within the protection scope of the patent right involved. Beijing High rejected the appeal and upheld the trial Court's decision then.