1. Patent Reexamination Board on “thermostable glucoamylase” invalidation case & Novozymes V. Jiangsu Boli Biological Products Co., Ltd. on patent invalidation dispute [Supreme People’s Court (2016) Administrative Litigation Judgment No. 85]
Significance: the Supreme Court holds that in accordance with paragraph 4, Article 26 of Patent Law, the technical solution that the Cliams seeks to protect shall be obtained or summed up by a person skilled in the art based on sufficiently disclosed Description, and it shall not go beyond the scope of the Description. For SEQIDNO: 7 that contains 591 amino acids, though there exists 5 or 6 different amino acids positions in the sequence that shares 99% homology with it, claims 10 and 11 further defines that said enzyme originates from T. emersonii strain and particular bacterial strain T.emersoniiCBS793.97. A person skilled in the art normally believes that species is the basic unit based on which organisms are classified. In certain basic features, individuals in the same species exhibit high similarity. The gene sequence of the same fungus or the same fungus strain code is definite; though there exist some very few variant sequences with high homology. Likewise, enzyme that is coded by such gene is also definite. In this case, the double definition of 99% homology and the source of bacteria or bacterial strain have narrowed the protection scope of claims 10 and 11 down to extremely limited enzymes. Therefore, the protection scopes of claims 10 and 11 could be supported by the Description. The technical solution of claim 12(a)(b) as referred by claims 13 and 14 is also supported by the Description. The Supreme Court’s judgement is conductive to the innovation and development of biology technologies.
2. “Beauty Product” design patent infringement case
Panasonic V. Zhuhai Jindao Electric Appliance Company Limited & Beijing Likang Fuya Commercial and Trading Co.,Ltd on design patent infringement dispute [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2016) Jing Civil Final Judgement No. 245]
Significance: the involved beauty product design patent has high market value, and the high compensation amount in this case reflects the notion that the infringing damage shall live up to the market value of involved IPR. The decision of second instance holds that: in view of the difficulty in providing evidence on the loss of patent right and the fact that account records of infringing revenues are in the hands of infringers, if patentee could provide as much evidence as possible on the illegal gain of the infringer and full explanation on the economic loss of patentee, the court shall determine the amount of illegal gain of the infringer based on the patentee’s claim, provided that the infringer fails to provide any evidence to overturn the patentee’s claim.
3. Infringement case concerning the design of “Pen”
M&G Chenguang Stationery co.,Ltd. V. Deli Group & Jinan Kunsen Commercial and Trading Co.,Ltd on design patent infringement dispute [Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2016) Hu First Civil Judgement No. 113]
Significance: the plaintiff and defendants of this case are stationery producers that enjoy certain fame in China, and the products involved in this case are pens that are commonly seen in daily life, which makes the determination of design patent infringement prone to subjective factors. This case explores the objective standards for determining design patent infringement, by considering both the similarity and difference of the alleged infringing product and the granted patent. The court made its decision by analyzing the effect of identical designs and different designs on the visual effect respectively. The court also sets an example in deciding the amount of compensation and the lawyer fee of the plaintiff that the defendant shall pay. After the trail, both sides accepted the decision and the defendant fulfilled the court’s sentence