It is reported that the invalid request was Beijing Beat Beat Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the headlines today), the patent owner is Youshi Technology Co., Ltd. The dispute stems from a patent litigation in 2017. March 2017, Guangzhou City Dynamic King Computer Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as moving King) to Beijing Byte Technology Co., Ltd. beating infringement of patent infringement, to sue Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.
King Motion claims that it is the exclusive licensee involved in the patent, and patent technology involved in the UC browser, the right in its own name for the infringement of the patent rights involved in the proceedings.
The patent in question is a patented technology that saves memory and enhances the user's reading experience.In a word, the client does not present all of the pictures in one go when browsing the graphic information or the group diagram, When a picture is created, it is created in advance, which ensures that when the user browses to any screen, the picture can be created in time, and the pressure on the memory of the phone is greatly alleviated.
Today's top clients are tagged as 'Recommended', 'Hot', 'Video', 'Guangzhou', 'Social', 'Entertainment', 'Q & A', 'Technology', 'Automotive' 'Financial' 'military' 'international' 'segment' 'fun map' 'beauty' 'health' 'positive energy' '' sale '' real estate 'and other sections of today's headlines in the above sections are used in the patents involved in the technical program , Fell into the scope of protection of the patent claims, allegedly infringed its patent rights.Accordingly, moving King Company request the court to order today's headlines compensation for economic losses and a reasonable cost of 12.5 million yuan.
August 1, 2017, the top headlines today filed a patent invalid claim for the patents in question, and today we have submitted a total of 9 pieces of evidence in the opinion that the patent infringement claims 1-8 do not have the creative features and are not supported by the manuals or the claims The scope of protection is not clear.
Recently, the Patent Reexamination Board made a decision on invalidation request review after hearing the case, and found that the invalid reasons claimed by the petitioner were not substantiated and that the patent right for the invention involved was valid.
At present, the above-mentioned patent infringement dispute case is under further examination. As the headlines today say it is inconvenient to express its views on this case, the review decision made by the Patent Reexamination Board has yet to decide whether to institute an administrative lawsuit.