In response to the first-instance verdict of calling for technology to sued street-level patent infringement cases recently, Street Power finally responded on May 28th.
According to the verdict of the first instance verdict, the street power infringed on two patents for incoming and outgoing technology (Patent No. ZL201520847953.1, entitled “Mobile Power Rental Equipment and Charging Clamping Devices”); Patent No. ZL201520103318.2, entitled 'Acquired Charging' The device's utility model patent was established, ordered street power to stop the infringement, and compensate the caller for a total of 2 million yuan.
As for the outcome of the first-instance judgment, Street Power, in replying to the "Daily Economic News" reporter's statement, held that the facts found in the court of first instance were biased and that the above-mentioned erroneous determination was being corrected through judicial procedures. This incident will not affect the normal operation of street-electricity cooperative merchants. Business, will not harm the interests of cooperative merchants.
Regarding the infringing patents, Street Power stated that it had initiated a request for invalidation of seven controversial patents held by an incoming call to the State Intellectual Property Office, of which four had been found invalid and one was rejected by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The remaining two were One of the 'sink-in' patents is equivalent to VCD's ability to accept CD-ROMs and ATM cards, and Street View believes that this is not a core patent, and in the invalidation procedure, it is highly likely that the State Intellectual Property Office will invalidate the decision. It is highly probable that an item will be found invalid in administrative proceedings. Any request to call on these two patents will be rejected.
Calling Technology also sent a report to the reporter. Among the materials, some people in the industry believe that 'calling technology' has placed intellectual property protection at the forefront of the company's development since its inception, and the two patents involved are also share-taking. Basic patent for charging equipment. '
In the outside world, sharing charging treasure is a low threshold industry. So, what is the core competitiveness of shared charging treasure companies? The mainstream opinion in the industry believes that the focus is on financial power, supply force, scene power and technology, patents More is the moat. With the increasing awareness of intellectual property rights protection of domestic companies, enterprises pay more attention to the layout of patents and rights protection, and patents will become the 'nuclear weapons' of shared charging treasures.
In fact, the 'patent warfare' is not uncommon in the shared charging treasure industry. For example, call technology, one of the protagonists of this case, has filed charges against Yunchong Bar, Friends Power Technology and other shared charging treasure companies, including Yunchong Bar. The company was found to have infringed upon 2 patents of technology and stopped the infringement, and indemnified the calling technology by 400,000 yuan. Youdian Technology was ordered to immediately stop manufacturing, sales, promised sales, and used the infringing product that infringed the plaintiff's call technology and destroyed it. The use of infringing products, and compensation for the plaintiff's call for scientific and technological losses and reasonable rights protection costs total 400,000 yuan.
The sharing charging treasure is a heavy asset industry. Once the patent infringement case is found to be unsuccessful, the products invested in the previous period need to be removed from the market. This means that the loss of the patent case will not only result in a heavy investment in the previous period, but also a market share. Due to the further reduction of the product's shelves, it also gives competitors access to these blank businesses.
Judging from the current situation, the impact of patent litigation on companies is enormous. 'Yunjunba once belonged to the first camp, but due to previous patent infringement lawsuits, it missed a wave of winds in 2017 and eventually fell to The second echelon. ' Calling Technology Partners, CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) Ren Mu had previously said in an interview with the reporter of "Daily Economic News".
However, due to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's decision that the first-instance judgment was not yet effective, and given that Street Power has filed an appeal in the Beijing High People's Court, it will not be known whether this case will ultimately affect street power.