Original title: In a patent administrative litigation with Samsung Corporation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled that Huawei’s patent rights are valid—
Big patent wars, Huawei goes further!
In the "Patent Wars" with Samsung (This report was published in the 9th edition on January 17, 2018), Huawei Terminal Co., Ltd. ("Huawei Company") made a breakthrough!
Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded the patents of the plaintiff Samsung and the defendant State Intellectual Property Office Patent Reexamination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Reexamination Committee), as well as third-party Huawei Technologies, Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Samsung Communications Technology Co., Ltd. Declared an administrative dispute case and maintained Huawei's patent rights (patent number: ZL201010104157.0) effective.
Regarding the outcome of the case, Tao Xinliang, dean of the Institute of Intellectual Property of Dalian University of Technology, said in an interview with a reporter from China Intellectual Property News: 'In the 'patent war' with Samsung, Huawei has won another round and is a cross-license for both parties. Negotiations increase important bargaining chips. In the future, in order to compete for market share, the two sides may temporarily settle the dispute, but the 'patent war' may also become the norm for both sides to carry out market competition.
The involved patents remain valid
The dispute between Huawei and Samsung originated from a patent litigation. On June 27, 2016, Huawei infringed five defendants, including Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which manufactures, sells, and promises to sell mobile terminal products, to Fujian. The Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as Quanzhou Intermediate Court) requested the court to order Samsung to stop the infringement and compensate economic loss and reasonable expenses of 80.5 million yuan.
Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court found at the first instance that more than 20 Samsung mobile terminal products infringed patent rights involved in the case and ruled that Samsung would stop infringement and compensate Huawei for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 80.5 million yuan. Subsequently, Huawei and Samsung both sent senior people to Fujian Province. The court (hereinafter referred to as the Fujian Higher Institute) filed an appeal. After the Fujian Higher People's Court made a judgment after trial, it maintained the first-instance ruling, except for some adjustments to stop the infringement.
On July 18, 2016, Samsung filed a patent invalidation request for the Patent Reexamination Board against the Patent Reexamination Committee. The Patent Reexamination Board made a review after the hearing and decided that the patent involved was in compliance with the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Patent Law of China. Article 22, paragraph 3 and Article 26, paragraph 4 of the relevant provisions, decided to maintain the patent rights involved in the case is valid. Samsung, dissatisfied, filed an appeal with the Beijing Intellectual Property Rights Court, which held that there was a procedural violation in the indicted decision, and There are serious mistakes in the ascertainment of facts and applicable laws, and the court is requested to revoke the decision of the respondent according to law and to order the Patent Reexamination Board to make a new decision.
Regarding procedural issues, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the Patent Agents Ordinance and the Guidelines for Patent Examination did not restrict the participation of non-patent agents in oral proceedings. Therefore, the Patent Re-examination Board permitted the agent of Huawei to act as a citizen. Participation in an oral hearing does not constitute a procedure violation.
Regarding the novelty of the patent involved, the Beijing Intellectual Property Rights Court held that claim 1 of the patent involved was in conformity with the evidence 3-7 and complied with the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of China; similarly, claim 9 is also In accordance with the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of China, in the case of claims 1, 9 have novelty, its dependent claims 4-6, 12-14 also have novelty.
Regarding whether the patent involved in the case is creative or not, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the patent claim 1 in the case involves the combination of evidence 3-2 and common knowledge or the combination of evidence 3-2 and evidence 3-4. Article 3 The inventiveness provided for in paragraph 3; The combination of claim 1 with respect to evidence 3-9 and common knowledge has the inventiveness provided for in Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Chinese Patent Law.
In summary, the Beijing Intellectual Property Rights Court held that the procedure for the review of the indicted decision was legal, the facts were clear, the applicable law was correct, and the Samsung company's lawsuit request lacked factual and legal basis. The judgment rejected the claim of the plaintiff Samsung.
After the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered a judgment, Samsung and Huawei were all dissatisfied and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court.
Patent litigation or normal
In the previous patent litigation, Samsung not only sold more than 20 intelligent terminal products for sale, but also faced high compensation. In the administrative litigation for the invalidation of patent rights claims, Samsung lost another game. What are the implications of the layout of the Chinese smart phone market?
Director of Guangxi Institute of Intellectual Property Development, Qi Aimin, director of Chongqing Collaborative Innovation Intellectual Property Center, said in an interview with this reporter: 'Samsung’s temporary defeat in this series of patent disputes with Huawei, its market layout must Will be affected, first, its share in the high-end market for smart phones will shrink, after the court made a product ban on the sale, Samsung's high-end products can not continue to produce and sell in the Chinese smart phone market; Second, Samsung The loss of the company's brand value, Samsung's loss of patent lawsuits in succession makes the user's impression of the Samsung mobile phone brand may not be as good as before, which also has a certain impact on its market share.
The verdict of the case not only may affect the Samsung's market layout in China, but also may affect its negotiations with Huawei. 'Huawei’s success in patent litigation and administrative litigation, and its patents with Samsung. Cross-licensing negotiations have added important bargaining chips; in addition, along with a series of unfavorable factors such as the failure of Samsung's mobile phone batteries, both sides have seen a shift in patent cross-licensing negotiations, said Tao Xinliang.
'One of the reasons that both parties have failed to sign a patent cross-licensing agreement is that Samsung has charged Huawei with excessive and unreasonable licensing fees, which violates the principle of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination (FRAND). Huawei in this series The success of the dispute will help it continue negotiations with Samsung and force Samsung to make certain concessions. If Samsung does not make concessions, the two sides may continue to fight in patent litigation. ' Qi Aimin analysis.
After the verdict in the case, both Huawei and Samsung have filed an appeal and the dispute continues. In this regard, Qi Aimin stated that the ultimate goal of both parties, whether Huawei or Samsung, is not to pursue compensation, but Is to suppress the other's market share. Huawei's and Samsung's 'patent war' under certain conditions, may temporarily shake hands and peace may also rekindle the war.
Patent litigation is an extension of the commercial competition between both companies. Both Huawei and Samsung are giants in the field of smartphones and patent giants. The patent warfare between the two parties may have temporary interest and disputes, but more often, In order to compete for market interests, the 'patent war' may become the norm. ' Tao Xinliang said.