1. It is of great significance for the millennium IPO to enter into critical moments and the reconciliation with the Ericsson patent case;
According to the micro-net report, on the early morning of June 11, with the disclosure of the Xiaomi Group's listed prospectus on the official website of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, it also means that Xiaomi Group's IPO has reached the last critical moment. The Hong Kong H-share + Mainland CDR listing method will also create history.
At this point in the market, yesterday, foreign media came to the news that millet and Ericsson's patent dispute in India is expected to reach a settlement, Xiaomi mobile phone equipped with MediaTek processor is expected to return to the Indian market. This news undoubtedly reduced millet IPO A risk point.
However, in an interview with the reporter of “Daily Economic News” today, Ericsson’s Chinese person stated that the differences between Ericsson and Xiaomi regarding Ericsson’s standard-essential patent licensing did not reach a settlement. The report on the settlement that both parties have reached is not correct. Said that the patent lawsuit between Ericsson and Xiaomi is still in progress.
Whether or not this case has progress is significant for Xiaomi and the industry chain. Prior to this, Xiaomi had already stated the case as a 'legal litigation or compensation risk' separately in the prospectus. It is reported that this case began in 201412. On the 11th, at the time, Ericsson alleged that Xiaomi infringed on 8 patents, including its ARM, EDGE, 3G and other related technologies, and sued Xiaomi to the High Court of Delhi, India.
Since then, Xiaomi has temporarily obtained the continued sales of Qualcomm-enabled mobile phones in accordance with the condition that each device prepaid 100 rupees to be deposited by the court. The mobile phones equipped with MediaTek chips are still in the state of “forbidden sales”.
From the perspective of Xiaomi, India has now become Xiaomi's second largest market, which determines the fate of Xiaomi to some extent. If Eric Ericsson proposes to ban the sale of Xiaomi Mobile again in the future, it will have a major blow to Xiaomi Overseas. This will also be Xiaomi. One of the biggest hidden dangers after IPO and listing.
From the perspective of industry, this dispute over 1000 profits has directly caused MediaTek's mobile phone chip business to decline due to the ban on Xiaomi's sales of MediaTek chips in India. Especially in the past year or so, with the recovery of Xiaomi, market share has steadily increased. MediaTek missed market opportunities.
However, Mediatek and Xiaomi recently welcomed a turnaround. On June 12th, Xiaomi launched the newest red rice 6 and red rice 6A handsets of its red rice series in China, using MediaTek P22 eight-core processors and MediaTek A22 respectively. The nuclear processor. This is also the first time the two sides cooperated after two years.
Some analysts said that the re-cooperation between Xiaomi and MediaTek may indicate that the millet and Ericsson patent cases may usher in a turnaround, but it has not yet been announced. And Xiaomi once again adopts MediaTek chips, not only to introduce more suppliers, but also May be considered for cost.
Previously, MediaTek and Xiaomi cooperated with multiple mid- to low-end red rice series. According to the millet prospectus, red rice has become the main force of Xiaomi. From 2015 to the first quarter of 2018, Xiaomi’s entry and midrange machines were added together. The sales volume ratio exceeds 50%. If the future MediaTek chip solution can further help Red Rice reduce costs, it will be a good thing for Xiaomi. After all, they will face profitability pressure after listing. And for MediaTek, they also Can use red rice sales to regain upward momentum. (Proofreading / Blue Sky)
2. Ericsson: The patent lawsuit with Xiaomi is still in progress and there is no settlement on the Indian market dispute;
Today (June 14th), Ericsson’s Chinese person told the “Daily Economic News” reporter that Ericsson and Xiaomi did not reach a settlement on the relevant differences in Ericsson's standard-essential patent license. The report on the settlement that both parties have reached is not correct. At the same time, said that the patent lawsuit between Ericsson and Xiaomi is still in progress.
On June 13th, some media quoted foreign media reports that Xiaomi and Ericsson had reached a settlement on patent disputes in India. The Xiaomi mobile phone equipped with MediaTek processor is expected to return to the Indian market.
Xiaomi said in the prospectus that on December 5, 2014, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) (hereinafter referred to as Ericsson) filed a civil lawsuit against the High Court of Delhi in India's New Delhi, Xiaomi Group's holding subsidiary Xiaomi Technology and Xiaomi. Indian technology, etc. as defendants. Ericsson claimed that Xiaomi's sales and promotion of certain models of mobile phones and other mobile phone accessories in India, including Ericsson's 8 patents registered in the communications sector in India, but without Ericsson effective license, infringement of related patents.
IDC and Counterpoint data show that in the first quarter of 2018, Xiaomi’s handset shipments rose by 87.8% year-on-year, and India’s market share for the third consecutive quarter reached 31.1%. This reporter noted that millet is currently in the Indian market. The sale of mobile phones and more equipped with Qualcomm processor, there is no new millet phone equipped with MediaTek processor for sale in the Indian market. Daily Economic News
In the first two months of communication electronics patent application Huawei OPPO, Xiaomi did not enter the top 10;
After mainland China 'C Technology' microblogging issued the rankings, some people think that these shortages can't break the monopoly of market technology. Then some netizens can't continue to look back and say 'Huawei has broken', 'even Apple has to give Huawei $1 billion. The patent fee is not yet leading the world? 'Many people strongly admired Huawei's "a lot of international telecom companies in the communications industry".
This article has also made many eye-catching users discover that Xiaomi is not on the list, wondering where Xiaomi is, and there are people marking the official microblogging account of Xiaomi asking 'Does your black technology fail to apply for patents?', and there are even public opinion survey agencies that do not have credibility. , 'Is this 2000 just an application passed?'
Sina’s “Frontier Technology Explosion” pointed out that the patent technology represents the brand's prospects and sustainable development capabilities, and innovation capability is the key to the operation of communications and electronics manufacturers. It is very important to continuously expand investment in R&D. It can be seen that Huawei has found a new breakthrough and can use its own Technical advantages to achieve more technical upgrades.
This list is limited to a single month. It does not represent the level of research and development of new technologies for various mobile phone brands. For example, Qualcomm and Samsung will carry out in-depth development of their own proprietary technologies. When a technology matures, there will be innovation bottlenecks. It is also a good opportunity for mainland mobile phone manufacturers to overtake the curve. Economic Daily
4. Looking at the new energy automotive drive motor technology from a patent perspective;
Editor's note: Drive motor is considered as one of the core technologies of new energy vehicles. Related data search results show that Japanese companies started earlier in this field and are in a leading position in technology. The author of this paper believes that foreign companies, especially Japanese companies, are The early patent layout in this field has already formed technical barriers. Domestic enterprises can consider to initiate international cooperation first, while seeking to share resources and eliminate unfavorable factors, while strengthening independent innovation. In addition, strengthening school-industry cooperation is an effective way to accelerate the development of technology in this field. .
From the perspective of development strategies of various countries in the world, new energy vehicles are generally established as an important way to ensure energy security and transform into a low-carbon economy. New energy vehicles include three types: pure electric vehicles powered by power batteries, and the coexistence of motors and internal combustion engines. Hybrid vehicles and fuel cell vehicles powered by fuel cells. These three types of electric vehicles use a motor-driven system to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy and recover brake braking energy, thereby doubling energy efficiency. , Drive motor is considered to be one of the core technologies of new energy vehicles.
Japanese technology has obvious advantages
Based on the search results of CNABS, the author analyzed the Chinese invention patent applications in the field of new energy automotive drive motors and found that the concentration of patents in this field is high, and Japanese companies started earlier and are in a leading position in technology. As of April 30, 2018, the cumulative number of patent applications in this field reached nearly 30,000. Among them, the top ten applicants had a total of about 7,600 patent applications, which accounted for the total number of Chinese patent applications in the field. About 26%, patented technology is more concentrated in the hands of leading companies in the automotive industry.
Of the top ten applicants for patent applications, except Bosch (BOSCH) is a German company, Hyundai (HYUNDAI) is a Korean company, and the rest are Japanese companies. As a result, the group advantage in Japanese patents is very prominent. Technical barriers The role is obvious and poses a greater threat to competitors in other countries. Toyota, which ranks first in terms of filing volume, has more than 3130 applications for invention patents, far more than other companies. Toyota owns a variety of representative new energy sources. Automobiles, such as the RAV4 EV, Prius Hybrid, Civic Hybrid and FCHV buses, all use permanent-magnet synchronous motors. Advanced motor design and control technologies allow Toyota's automotive drive systems to have good dynamic performance and good balance.
Among the top ten applicants in the number of applications, Honda and Nissan are vehicle manufacturers. Their motors are directly used in their new energy vehicle products, and their performance matches are better. Hitachi is a famous parts supplier and is the global leader. The automobile factory provides motor products, and its R&D capability is also at the world's leading level. This kind of cooperation model in which auto automakers and component companies join forces makes Japan's new energy auto drive motor technology far ahead of the world.
China's rapid development momentum
After analyzing the annual trend of Chinese invention patent applications in the field of new energy automotive drive motors, the author finds that from the perspective of the change in the growth rate of patent applications, the technical development in this field has emerged as a technology budding period, initial development period, and rapid development period. And the development of a stable period of 4 stages.
The budding period of technology (1986-2000): The application for Chinese invention patents in the field of new energy automotive drive motors first began in 1986. The search results showed that there were 5 related patent applications in the embryonic stage of the technology, and the applicants were Hitachi, Ltd. of Japan. , Japan's Mitsubishi Corporation, Germany's Paul Var Co., Ltd. The only one patent application from domestic applicants was a personal application submitted by Niu Xingxian’s Niu Xixian. Visible, before 2000, domestic companies for new energy vehicles There are still few researches on drive motors. The author thinks that this is not related to factors such as low domestic car ownership, low market demand, lack of objective conditions for research on new energy vehicles, and other factors.
Initial development period (2001-2007) : Since 2001, the number of Chinese invention patent applications in this field has been increasing year by year. Statistical results for the applicant country show that most of the invention patent applications at this stage still come from For foreign applicants, the number of applications from domestic applicants accounts for about 40% of the total number of applications. This also reflects that with the increase in demand in the Chinese automotive market, foreign companies have begun to enter the Chinese market in large numbers and gradually develop patents in China. In particular, Japanese companies with leading development in the new energy automotive industry have the most obvious performances. For example, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are among the top ranked applicants. In addition, Chery Automobile and BYD also filed 10 or so inventions respectively. Patent application, becoming a representative of domestic applicants.
Rapid development period (2008-2011): Starting from 2008, the number of invention patent applications in this field has increased significantly, and the research on new energy vehicle drive motor technology has entered the fast lane. In 2011 alone, the number of patent applications reached 320 In addition, there was a small peak in phases. The substantial increase in the number of applications was not unrelated to the national industrial policy. In 2008, the “Guidelines for the Management of New Energy Vehicle Production Access” was formally implemented; in the same year, nearly 500 Olympic Games energy-saving and new The official delivery of energy vehicles indicates that China’s new energy vehicles have been put into practical operation from the concept design. With the strong support of the government and the guidance of industrial policies, domestic automobile companies have increased their research and development efforts on new energy vehicles. During this period, domestic applicants The number of invention patent applications in this field has reached more than 510, accounting for about 58% of the total number of Chinese patent applications.
Flat development period (2012-2018) : Affected by the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the total amount of invention patent applications in this field fell slightly between 2012 and 2013. However, the domestic R&D of new energy vehicles has not diminished. The number of patent applications filed by the applicant continued to grow, and showed a growth in blowout in 2016. The total number of patent applications increased from 260 in 2015 to more than 450 in 2016, including Shandong University of Technology, which was submitted only in 2016. 75 invention patent applications. It can be seen that with the development of new energy automotive industry, domestic enterprises and universities have made breakthrough progress in the research and development of drive motor technology.
Japan has the strongest research and development strength in the field of new energy automotive drive motors, and its patent layout is the most comprehensive at the earliest. Although the research on the drive motor technology by domestic companies started late, the research and patent applications have increased significantly in recent years. Benefiting from the needs of the domestic market With the strong support of the government, the domestic enterprises have a strong momentum of development and the awareness of patent layout has been continuously strengthened. Overall, the new energy vehicle drive motor technology is not yet mature, and there is still a certain gap between the domestic technology level and the international advanced level.
It should be noted that in view of the fact that foreign companies, especially Japanese companies, have already formed technical barriers in early patents in this area, domestic companies can consider the need to develop international cooperation, seek for resource sharing, and eliminate unfavorable factors while strengthening independent innovation. , Domestic universities and some scientific research institutions are also committed to the research on the cutting-edge technologies of new energy automotive drive motors, and strengthening school-enterprise cooperation is also an effective way to accelerate the development of this field of technology.
5.Google is accused of patenting the open source compression algorithm ANS;
Jarek Duda, a computer scientist at the Jagiellonian University in Poland, wanted to make sure that everyone could use the ANS algorithm and therefore did not apply for a patent. However, Google applied the ANS algorithm to the compression of the film and tried to apply for a patent for this application.
Jarek Duda, a computer scientist at the Jagiellonian University in Poland, invented an open source data compression method called Asymmetric Numeral Systems (ANS) in 2014. Now Google is going to file a patent for the ANS-implemented video compression method. The original author has been dissatisfied, and the battlefield has expanded from Europe to the United States.
The ANS data compression algorithm invented by Jarek Duda is very efficient and is 30 times faster than the previous method. Because he wanted to ensure that everyone could use the algorithm, he did not apply for an ANS patent, and this algorithm was also used by various major Widely used by technology companies, including the ZStandard compressor for Facebook, Apple's LZFSE compressor, and Google's Draco 3D compressor, etc. The controversy was that Google applied ANS to video compression encoding and attempted to encode it. Method to apply for a patent.
However, due to the notion of text compression and image compression, Google uses ANS to express a relatively frequent video pattern with a short bit string. Jarek Duda believes that Google’s patent is nothing but an ANS application. In the traditional video compression, these methods are the same, he does not agree with this new patent Google has added an additional innovation invention. Although the final result has not yet been released, but the preliminary judgment of the European Patent Office in February support Jarek Duda's statement.
Google told the foreign media ArsTechnica through a spokesperson that they have a long-term commitment to open-source codecs, such as VP8, VP9, and AV1 formats, and that these codec owners can use the license free of charge. A similar license will be obtained. Jarek Duda dismisses this claim. However, the final result will still need to wait until European and US Patent Office rulings.
6. Ningxia Court announces ten cases of judicial protection of intellectual property rights such as Xiaomi’s infringement of trademark rights
In recent years, Ningxia courts have continuously intensified their IPR trial management work, closely focused on the judicial protection tasks faced by the autonomous region in the implementation of innovation-driven development strategies and the current status of people’s courts’ IPR trials, and conscientiously summarized doubtful points, difficulties, and trial experience of IPR cases, and reviewed A group of intellectual property cases of typical significance. Since 2014, Ningxia courts have examined 563 types of intellectual property rights, closed 465 cases, and the withdrawal rate has reached 62.15%. The parties have not petitioned, and the rate of service and judgment is 100%. , The Ningxia High Court issued the ten cases of typical intellectual property protection in recent years.
Case I: Xiaomi Company v. Infringement of trademark rights disputes
'Summary of the case' Xiaomi Company registered a trademark in 2012. Its products have a wide coverage in the country and have been known to the relevant public. On April 21, 2015, Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. requested the court to order Ningxia CR China Wanjia Life Supermarket. Yinchuan Zhengyuan North Street Store Co., Ltd. and its legal person Ningxia Huarun Wanjia Life Supermarket Co., Ltd. Manufacturer Dongfang Telecommunications Co., Ltd. immediately stopped production and sold its products infringing on its registered trade mark exclusive right of Xiaomi, destroying inventory infringing products. , Mold, and compensation for economic losses.
The Ningxia Higher People's Court held that the Xiaomi Company was the exclusive right holder of the trademark and was protected within the scope of the products approved and used by the State Trademark Office. The sales behavior of the China Resources Vanguard Zhengyuan North Street Store infringed Xiaomi Company’s Trademark rights and constitute unfair competition. Since the Vanguard Zhengyuan North Street Branch of the China Resources Vanguard is an unincorporated organization, it shall be jointly affiliated with Ningxia Vanguard Co., Ltd., which is its subsidiary. Based on the characteristics of the mobile phone involved, the data confirms that the mobile phone is involved. The manufacturer, Dongfang Communications, decided that Ningxia Huarun Wanjia Life Supermarket Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Huarun Wanjia Living Supermarket Co., Ltd. Yinchuan City Zhengyuan North Street Store will stop selling the infringing products involved, and compensate Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. for a loss of 25,000 yuan; Communication Co., Ltd. stopped production and sales of the infringing products involved and compensated Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. for a loss of 75,000 yuan.
The 'typical sense' case is a complex and comprehensive infringement of trademark infringement and unfair competition. For enterprises to use fortune psychologically to 'pick the ball' and 'famous brand', etc., the court in the trial process, based on production The right holder and the right holder have improperly grasped the data information of the infringing product involved in the case. The right holder's burden of proof has been appropriately relaxed, and the right holder’s proof standard has been reduced. The appellee (producer) proves his/her claim against the infringement and thus he is deemed Whether the appellant is infringing. Has a good referential orientation and demonstration role in increasing the protection of well-known trademarks, cracking down on malicious confounders to seize market share, and guiding the public to respect intellectual property rights.
Case 2: "Yonghe Soymilk" trademark right infringement dispute case
'Summary of the case' Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Food & Beverage Management Co., Ltd. is a chain operation company based on Yonghe Soybean Milk and Rice Pulp. It is authorized by Yonghe Foods (China) Co., Ltd. to exclusively use the 'Yonghe Soymilk' brand in mainland China. In the process of providing catering services, Qingrong Soybean Milk Store has not used the word “Yonghe Soymilk” on the shop door and tableware without the legal authorization of Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Catering Management Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Catering Management Co., Ltd. v. The court ordered the Xingqing Soybean Milk Store to immediately stop the trademark infringement and compensate its various economic losses of 56,000 yuan.
'The Judicial Analysis Act' Ningxia Higher People's Court held that Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Food & Beverage Management Co., Ltd. 'Yonghe Soy Milk' approved the 43rd service mark, and the "Laiyongyonghe" licensed by Xingqing Soy Milk Store is a commodity trademark. The catering service actually provided by Xingqing Soybean Milk Store is a service trademark use method. Xingqing Soybean Milk Shop does not belong to the legal source, and its behavior constitutes infringement of the trademark rights of Yonghe Soymilk, and the judgment was made in Xingqing District, Yinchuan City. Yonglai Soybean Milk Shop immediately stopped the infringement of the trademark of the “Yonghe Soy Milk” trademark of Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Restaurant Management Co., Ltd., and compensated for the economic loss of Shanghai Hongqi Yonghe Catering Management Co., Ltd. for 20,000 yuan.
'Typical significance' trademark as the most important part of the brand, has a greater influence and market value. 'Yonghe milk' has a high reputation in catering services, the court judicial protection of trademark rights through a referee, further encourage Innovation, protect fair market competition.
Case 3: Case of 'Mi Qilin' Registered Trademark Exclusive Right and Unfair Competition Dispute Case
'Summary of the case' Zhongwei Yongsheng Michelin Tire Entities Shop uses the word 'Michelin' and the 'Michelin Tire's Image' logo without permission in the store door sign, and uses Michelin as a name without authorization. Michelin Group Zhongwei Yongsheng Michelin Tire Shop constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition grounds, petitioned the court to order it to immediately stop the infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks and unfair competition, and compensate the economic loss of 200,000 yuan.
The Judicial Analysis Law in Yinchuan City Intermediate People's Court held that the case involved the infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks and unfair competition disputes. The defendant used the 'Michilin Tire' and 'Miqilun Tire' logo on the door of the store where he operated and on the business card. The act of having the 'Michelin Tire' logo infringed the Michelin Group's exclusive right to use the registered trademark, undermined the fair competition trading rules, constituted unfair competition with the plaintiff company, and ruled that the Zhongwei Yongsheng Michelin tire shop immediately stopped infringing, Compensatory plaintiff Michelin Group Corporation’s economic loss of 50,000 yuan.
“Typical significance” registered trademarks and company names are the symbol rights obtained in accordance with the corresponding legal procedures. Registered trademarks that have already been obtained may not be used without authorization or permission. The accused in this case not only uses the registered trademark (well-known trademark) without authorization, but also violates Principles of good faith, violation of fair competition rules of trading, harm the interests of other companies, the trial of the case further guide the business honest and trustworthy business, and fully protect the consumer's right to know.
Case 4: Appeal case of “Sheng Hui Advertising” trademark right infringement dispute
'Summary of the case' Yinchuan Chenghui Information & Advertising Co., Ltd. has been approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to register the 'Chenghui Advertising' trademark, which is approved for use on the 16th category. Ningxia Chenghui Culture Media Co., Ltd., Ningxia Administration for Industry and Commerce The Administration approved the fixed-form print advertisement name as: Ningxia Chenghui Advertising. On June 18, 2014, Yinchuan Chenghui Information & Advertising Co., Ltd. used “Shenhui Advertising” for the “Ningxia Chenghui Advertising” printed matter without its consent. The words “infringe on the right to use the registered trademark of its “Chenghui Advertising”” and requested the court to rule that Ningxia Chenghui Culture Media Co., Ltd. would stop using the words “Chenghui Advertising” on the printed material of “Ningxia Chenghui Advertising” to compensate for various economic losses. 3 million yuan.
The Ningxia Higher People's Court held that the trademark used by Yinchuan Chenghui Information & Advertising Co., Ltd. was a trademark that was approved by the State Trademark Office. The category is classified as a commodity trademark. Ningxia Chenghui Cultural Media Co., Ltd. The words “Chenghui Advertising” used by the company in its fixed form print advertisement “Ningxia Chenghui Advertising” are the words legally registered and permitted by the industry and commerce administration department. The category is 35 categories of service-oriented trademarks. 35 categories of trademarks and 16 The trademarks are of different genus. There is no situation where they are used on the same or similar goods and the relevant public misunderstood. Ningxia Chenghui Cultural Media Co., Ltd. uses “Shenghui Advertising” in its fixed-form print advertisements. The words did not constitute infringement on the exclusive right to use registered trademarks of Yinchuan Chenghui Information & Advertising Co., Ltd. The judgment rejected the claim of Yinchuan Chenghui Information & Advertising Co., Ltd.
“Typical significance” of trademark exclusive rights is only protected within the scope of the registered trademark rights. This ruling is based on the purpose of trademark law. It is based on the category of the trademark, scope of trademark ownership, confusion of the relevant public, and possibility of misidentification. The judgment standard that constitutes trademark infringement not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of registered trademark owners, but also distinguishes the infringements of this category, and maintains the normal market order.
Case 5: Case of 'Union Union' trademark right infringement dispute
'Summary of the case' The registered trademark of China UnionPay Co. was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Wu Zhong, a member of Ningxia UnionPay Commercial Service Co., Ltd., headquartered in Helan Branch was 'Wuzhong Branch of Shangwu Company' and 'Union Xi'an Union Merchant' respectively. The Helan Branch Company was used, and there was a UnionPay UnionPay logo at the head office. China UnionPay Co., Ltd. infringed on its trademark exclusive rights and its improper competition form in Ningxia UnionPay Co., Ltd., and requested that Ningxia UnionPay Co., Ltd. be immediately stopped. Infringement of China UnionPay's trademark exclusive rights and unfair competition practices, destruction of all infringing goods, change of company name, and compensation for China UnionPay's economic losses totaling RMB 100,000.
The Ningxia Higher People's Court held that the Ningxia Yinlian People’s Court had legally registered and established, but during the sales and service of financial related products, it was known that the word “UnionPay” was a major part of the registered trademark of China UnionPay. , Still being used in the name of the company, its behavior infringed on the exclusive right of trademark of China UnionPay Co., Ltd., and the court decided that Ningxia Yinlian Garment Co., Ltd. would immediately stop using it in its business activities and compensate China UnionPay for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 20,000 yuan.
The “typical meaning” of this case concerns the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of registered trademark rights. The “UnionPay” trademark in question covers all parts of the country in terms of credit card services. It is widely known to consumers and has strong distinctiveness and high popularity. Differentiating the obvious role of the source of goods or services. Ningxia UnionPay Commercial Service Co., Ltd. registers the “UnionPay”, the core part of the previously registered trademark, as the enterprise name, which is enough to mislead the public, cause market confusion, subjectively malicious, and constitute unfair competition. 3. The court judged that the fair and orderly market competition order was maintained under the premise of fully protecting the trademark rights.
Case 6: Breaking the Bottleneck of Terminal Management
'Summary of the case' In 2014, Beijing Three-Side Oriented Copyright Agency Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Three-Oriented Company”) discovered that Ningxia Hongsheng Industry Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ningxia Hong Company”) did not pay compensation without permission, and its website ningxiahong.com Distributing through the Internet three articles entitled “Breaking the Bottleneck of Terminal Management” for companies enjoying copyrights, infringing on the legal rights enjoyed by the company in accordance with the law of three companies. Prior to this, the Three Oriented Companies obtained the copyright of this article by signing a transfer contract with the author Zhang Huiting. In order to safeguard their own legitimate rights and interests, the three companies facing the company petitioned the court to adjudicate Ningxia Hong Co., Ltd. for compensating for the loss of the third-party compensation, and the reasonable cost was 10,389 yuan.
The Zhongwei Intermediate People's Court held that the “Judiciary Analysis Method” held that Zhang Huiting was the copyright holder of the article “Breaking the Bottleneck of Terminal Management” and the company’s copyright was obtained by the company’s signing of the transfer contract with Zhang Huiting. Property rights. Ningxia Hong Company unauthorized the publication of the articles involved in its website and infringed on the copyright property of the three companies facing the company and ruled that Ningxia Hong Company would pay a compensation of RMB 4,000 to the company.
The 'typical significance' of copyright is divided into property rights and personal rights. Among them, copyright property rights can be transferred in accordance with the law. In this case, the copyright property rights that the parties claimed are different from personal rights. This case is a typical case of copyright infringement. The case involves copyright law. , Contract Law, General Principles of Civil Law and other laws stipulate that they shall jointly protect intellectual property rights and safeguard the people's creative and intellectual achievements.
Case 7: The Case of the Copyright Infringement Disputes over the Long Poems of the "Yi Jun Yi"
'Summary of the case', "Yuejun Yi," a long poem by the plaintiff Yang Ming, was created in May 1994. After the plaintiff's party, his work was printed and handed out for appreciation. The defendant Fang Gui also attended the comrade gathering. After modifying the individual sentences in the works of “Zhong Jun Yi”, in 2012, the literary works of “Story of the Years” compiled and enjoyed by copyright in the Lingwu Horticultural Test Center published by the Yellow River Publishing Media Group’s Ningxia People’s Education Publishing House focused on “Red” "Memory" works, and the plaintiff's works created by the plaintiff's copy of the majority of the work, only a few statements have been modified. The original told the court, requested the court to rule that the defendant to stop the infringement, apologize and compensate for the loss of 1 yuan.
The Intermediate People's Court of the Yinchuan Intermediate People's Court held that the plaintiff Yang Ming had the copyright of the works of "Zi Junyi" and the defendant Fang Gui was not publicly authorized by the plaintiff's lawful authorization. The vast majority of his works created by Yang Ming were written by Yang Ming. Repeatedly, only individual statements have been modified to belong to plagiarism, which infringed upon the plaintiff Yang Ming’s copyright to the works of “Zhou Jun Yi”. “The Wind of Years” as a collection of literary works propagating the Lingwu Horticultural Testing Ground infringed on the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the Copyright. The defendant Fang Gui, Lingwu Horticultural Test Center immediately stopped using the plaintiff's copyrighted copyrighted work, "From the army recalls," in the "Ningshu Bao" "New Message" openly apologized to the plaintiff, and compensated the plaintiff for a loss of 1 yuan.
The identification of “typical sense” plagiarism is essentially determined by comparing the degree of similarity between the content of the work in question and the content of the alleged infringing work. The majority of the works published by the defendant Fang Gui in this case are identical to those produced by the plaintiff Yang Ming. It has been modified to belong to plagiarism and infringed the copyright of the plaintiff Yang Ming on the works of “Yue Junyi.” The protection of intellectual property rights is not limited to the amount of compensation, but focuses more on protecting the rights enjoyed by intellectual property rights holders according to law. The plaintiff advocates 1 yuan. The main claim of compensation for money is not the amount of compensation, but rather the defendant is expected to respect the copyrights it has enjoyed in accordance with the law, pass the judgment of the court, and legally protect the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner according to law.
Case No. 8: Case of Infringement of Patent Right for Invention of Guangdong Zhaozhao
'Summary of the case' In 2007, Luo Zhizhao obtained the invention patent certificate entitled 'Composite Conductive Tube Bus Connector', and licensed Guangdong Yuezhao New Technology Application Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rizhao Company) to exclusively implement the invention patent. August 2012 , Ningxia Baota Energy & Chemical Co., Ltd. invited tenders for the insulated copper busbars required for the Baotou Petrochemical Ningdong base power station project. Both Rizhao Corporation and Zhenjiang Lipu Electric Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lipu Company) both submitted bids. The component metal-covered insulated copper busbar in the bidding documents submitted by Ningxia Baota Energy & Chemical Co., Ltd. infringed the rights of invention patents and authorized patents of Luo Zhizhao and Rizhao Corporation. Ningxia Baota Energy Chemical Co., Ltd. and Lipu signed a sales contract, and Lipu signed a contract for sales and purchase with Jiangsu Shilin Electric Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shilin). The tube bus was purchased for the power station project of Ningdong Power Station, PetroChina. The company and Shihlin Company infringed the patent right of the invention and requested the court to order the company to immediately stop the infringement. , Eliminate the effects and damages.
The Judicial Analysis Act of the Ningxia Higher People's Court held that the case of Lispo in this case was expressed in the bid documents and the technical features of the products described in the bid fell into the protection of the patents of the second appellant. Scope, which constitutes “promising sales” infringements as stipulated in the Patent Law and Judicial Interpretations. Lipu actually won the bid and signed a sales contract, but it did not actually perform it, nor did it obtain any infringement benefits. Shilin did not manufacture and sell the infringing products involved in the case. There was an act of infringement of Sunway’s utility model patent rights. The decision was made that Zhenjiang Lipu Electrical Equipment Co., Ltd. ceased the “promise sale” infringement of Guangdong Sunzhao New Technology Application Co., Ltd. and Luo Zhizhao’s utility model patent, and rejected the plaintiff’s other requests.
The “professional meaning” of the promised sales under the Patent Law refers to the use of advertisements, display in a shop window, or display at a trade fair, etc. The meaning of the sale of goods is described. The technical characteristics of the product involved in the case described in the bid are as follows: It falls into the protection scope of the patents involved and constitutes 'promising sales' and infringement. 'Protection according to law' is the basic principle that the People's Court upholds in the protection of intellectual property rights. The judgment in this case has cracked down on the infringement of the patent right of the invention and has been better protected. Inventor's innovation.
Case 9: The case of the "Dada Corporation" infringing the patent right dispute
'Summary of the case' In 2007, Zheng Runmei, the legal representative of Inner Mongolia Yuyi Environmental Protection Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yuyi Company), obtained the invention patent of 'chemical waste lime depositing and stacking method'. Afterwards, Yuyong Company was licensed by exclusive license. Implementing its own patent for the chemical lime waste processing and stacking method for chemical waste. In May 2012, Yuyi Company signed an agreement with Ningxia Geodials Recycling Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Earth Company), and agreed that YuYi shall be responsible for the use of its calcium carbide residue for environmental protection. Stacking and disposing and disposal of patented technology is responsible for the company's related engineering treatment projects. After the contract was formally terminated, Dadi Company continued to use the patented technology licensed by YuYi Co., Ltd. to process the calcium carbide slag produced by the company without permission. Infringing on the exclusive right to use the patent, it requested the court to decide that the company would stop the infringement, eliminate the impact and compensate for the loss.
The Judicial Analysis Law of the Yinchuan Intermediate People's Court held that Yu-Wing was licensed as the exclusive license of the involved patent, and had the right to file a lawsuit when the patent involved was infringed. The Earth Company terminated the contract with Yu-Yi. Later, the continued use of proprietary technology used by YuYi’s exclusive license to treat calcium carbide slag produced by Dadi Co., Ltd. has infringed on Yuzu’s exclusive right to use the patents involved, and the company’s decision immediately ceased the use of YuWEI. The patent for exclusive use of the invention patent indemnified YuYi's economic loss of 532,000 yuan.
'Typical significance' The patent for this case is a method invention patent. After the two parties terminate the contract, the infringer continues to use the patented technology licensed by the right holder. This act has infringed the right to exclusive use of the patent in question. The court judged the infringer's land. The company stopped using the patent method of this case and effectively stopped the infringement. The plaintiff requested the infringing company to dismantle the facilities and equipment involved in the case, because the facility and equipment itself cannot constitute infringement, and the patent method constitutes the core element of infringement. This request is not supported. On the one hand, it protects the inventor's innovation results. On the other hand, it protects the company's property beyond the scope of protection of the patent right, which is beneficial to the survival and development of the company.
Case No. 10: 'Terrace Corporation' Technical Consultation Contract Dispute Case
'Summary of the case' Ningxia Xinjiayuan Chemicals Co., Ltd. and Ningxia Terezen Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. signed three "Environmental Impact Assessment Contracts for Construction Projects" on July 16, 2014, agreeing that Terrell Environmental Protection Technology Corp. The project data provided for the preparation of the project environmental impact report was reported to the Shizuishan City Environmental Protection Bureau for review and approval. The cost of the three projects was RMB 100,000. After the contract was signed, Xinjiayuan Chemical Company completed three series of products in accordance with the contract. Environmental impact report of the project. After Terres Environmental Protection Technology Company paid Xinjiayuan Chemical Company the first two fees for each contract totaling 200,000 yuan, the remaining 100,000 yuan will not be paid. Terres Environmental Technology Company requests the court. Decided that Xinjiayuan Chemical Company would pay Tenders Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. for arrears of RMB 100,000 and assume a loss of 7,595 yuan for overdue payment interest.
The Judson Intermediate People’s Court held that the trustee of the technical consulting contract should accept the trustee’s work results and pay remuneration in accordance with the agreement. The three contracts signed between Xinjiayuan Chemical Company and Terres Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. The agreement was provided by Terres Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. to provide feasibility demonstrations for specific technical projects, which are legal and effective, and they are binding on both parties. New Canadian Chemical Corporation shall pay to Terres Environmental Protection Technology Corporation in accordance with the contract. 30 Ten thousand yuan was used to compile remuneration and interest losses. It was ruled that Ningxia Xinjiayuan Chemical Co., Ltd. paid 100,000 yuan for technical consulting remuneration and 7,955 yuan for overdue payment of interest compensation to Ningxia Terai Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd.
The “typical” party shall perform its obligations in full compliance with the contract. The judgment in this case embodies the leading role of the People’s Court in the judicial protection of intellectual property rights, and resolutely curbs the breach of intellectual property rights, and awards the parties who fail to perform the contractual obligations in the past. Corresponding interest, making punishment, creating an atmosphere of respect for knowledge, honesty and trustworthiness of the rule of law.