Episode of the micro-network reported on July 6 (Reporter Zhang Yiqun) After Jinhua and UMC issued a ruling on the case of Meiguang’s alleged patent infringement on July 3, today, Micron issued a statement saying that it is banned in China. The related products are unfair, and it is said that the sales of the products prohibited by the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court's 'banned sale' ruling only affects about 1% of annual income, and will not harm its profit.
Micron confirmed that it had received a civil ruling from the Fujian Intermediate People's Court, requesting it to temporarily suspend some of the allegedly infringing products sold in China.
In a statement issued by Jinhua on the 3rd, the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court ruled that Micron Semiconductor Sales (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. immediately stopped selling, imported more than ten Crucial SSDs, memory modules and related chips, and deleted its website. Promotional advertisements for the above products, purchase links and other information. At the same time, it was ruled that Micron Semiconductor (Xi'an) Co., Ltd. immediately stopped manufacturing, selling and importing several memory products.
UMC said in a statement on the 3rd that the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court asked Micron to stop selling 26 DRAM and NAND related products including SSDs and memory.
In an interview with Ji Wei.com, many legal professionals pointed out that from the current ruling, Micron’s possibility of lifting the 'ban' through reconsideration is very small, which means that for a period of time, its allegedly infringing related products will Unable to sell in the Chinese market. At the same time, in the context of Sino-US trade war, in a short period of time, the negotiation and settlement of Jinhua and UMC with Micron is also difficult.
'Temporary ban' is actually 'behavior preservation'
In the English statement issued by UMC on the 3rd and the report of Bloomberg, the term "preliminary injunction" was used, and some domestic media expressed it as 'prosecution ban'.
According to the collection micro-network, the expression "temporary ban" is mainly used in the Anglo-American legal system, focusing on the effectiveness of the ban. The "indictment ban" focuses on the procedure of the trial.
In China's relevant laws and judicial interpretations, the terms of 'temporary prohibition' and 'indictment of injunction' are generally not used, but expressions such as 'preservation', 'stop the infringement before the complaint', and 'stop the infringement in the litigation'. The ruling made by the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court is a 'behavior preservation' in the 'preservation' measure.
In a broad sense, litigation preservation includes property preservation, evidence preservation and behavior preservation.
According to Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's court may decide the case for the case that the judgment may be difficult to enforce or cause other damages to the party due to the behavior of the party or other reasons. To carry out preservation, order them to make certain acts or prohibit them from making certain acts; if the parties have not filed an application, the people's court may also decide to take precautionary measures when necessary.
If the people's court adopts the preservation measures, it may order the applicant to provide the guarantee. If the applicant does not provide the guarantee, the ruling shall reject the application. After the people's court accepts the application, if the situation is urgent, it must make a ruling within forty-eight hours. If the ruling adopts preservation measures, it shall Start execution immediately.
According to the laws of our country, once the ruling on preservation is effective immediately, the parties may not appeal, but may apply for reconsideration. The execution of the ruling shall not be suspended during the reconsideration.
In the ruling issued by Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, Jinhua and UMC's application for behavior preservation in the lawsuit is in compliance with the law and should be supported.
An industry lawyer told reporters that from the current ruling made by the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, the case is still at a procedural stage, and has not entered the stage of substantive litigation. At this stage, such a ruling is slightly harsh.
However, the lawyer said that such a ruling may be because the evidence provided by Jinhua and UMC is strong enough to make the court tend to identify the existence of the infringement fact. Second, during the trial, the product involved in the infringement Will bring irreparable losses to the patent holders Jinhua and UMC.
The lawyer also pointed out that there is no problem in the ruling of the court from the perspective of legitimacy, but from the perspective of rationality, especially considering the trade tension between China and the United States and the protection of intellectual property rights of Chinese enterprises. Factors such as legal rights and interests will affect the court's ruling tendency.
'Now, Micron is still suing Jinhua and UMC in the United States. It is aimed at Trump’s slamming of theft of American technology. The United States is also consciously suppressing Chinese companies through various means. Therefore, our courts will also be legal. Under the protection of the interests of Chinese companies is not damaged. 'The lawyer said.
Can Micron Reconsideration lift the 'ban'?
According to the ruling of the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, the ban on the related products of Micron will be implemented immediately after the ruling is delivered. The validity of the ruling will continue until the day when the judgment of the case comes into effect. If Meiguang is not satisfied, he can receive the ruling. Apply for reconsideration once during the day, and do not stop the ruling during the reconsideration period.
In theory, Micron still has the opportunity to resolve the ruling made by the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court through reconsideration.
First, by providing new and strong evidence to prove that the technology involved in its products did not infringe the patents of Jinhua and UMC or the invalidity of the patents of the two companies.
According to the latest announcement issued by Micron, Micron has submitted strong evidence to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China, proving that the technology has already been applied for by other companies in non-Chinese areas, thereby demonstrating that the patents claimed by UMC and Jinhua are invalid. This means that Micron has initiated the process of invalidating patents in the substantive procedures. The ruling made by the Patent Reexamination Board will affect the final judgment of the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court.
The second is to issue relevant sales evidence that the products suspected of patent infringement have not caused irreparable losses and impacts as Jinhua UMC said.
In 2017, Micron's revenue was about US$23 billion, of which the Chinese market contributed half. Micron said in the statement that the case did not involve its core technology, and the product income involved only affected 1% of annual income, which has already indicated that for Micron. In terms of it, it does not constitute an irreparable loss.
According to Micron's assessment, the value of the products involved will be around 200 million US dollars. Whether this will cause irreparable losses to Jinhua and UMC will be further defined in the reconsideration of Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court.
Third, the preservation can be lifted by paying a considerable amount of guarantee money, but this method is uncertain. Because the preservation measures adopted in accordance with the intellectual property rights and competition dispute preservation decisions are generally not released due to the guarantee provided by the respondent.
However, if the applicant agrees, the applicant's request for preservation can be achieved through the payment of money, except for the special circumstances in which the legal rights and interests of the respondent will be irreparably damaged due to the preservation measures.
That is to say, under normal circumstances, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court made a ruling, it is difficult for Micron to lift the sales ban on its products by paying the guarantee. However, if Jinhua and UMC agree, or the court determines that Micron provides The amount of the guarantee can make up for the loss of Jinhua and UMC, or it will determine that it will cause irreparable damage to Micron. Micron can lift the ban by paying the guarantee.
However, Micron’s statement in the statement is intriguing. Micron said it will abide by the decision of the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court and ask the court to reconsider the ruling or maintain the ruling. It seems that there is no clear wording in the wording. If Meiguang believes that the current loss is not enough Then there is no question of reconsideration. Next, the case will enter the substantive litigation stage, including the interpretation of claims, the determination of the proportion of infringement, the invalid defense, the expert appraisal, etc. Maybe Miguang is more inclined to fight a long-term war.
In accordance with the laws of our country, the people's court shall examine and make a ruling within 10 days after the parties apply for reconsideration (another scheme: the people's court shall separately form a collegial panel to conduct the review and make a ruling within 10 days). If the ruling is correct, the notice shall be rejected. 1. If the ruling is improper, make a new ruling change or revoke the original ruling.
However, the aforementioned legal professionals admitted in an interview with Ji Wei.com that in practice, the ruling made by the court is generally difficult to overturn in the reconsideration. Unless Micron gives enough strong evidence, the court will not I'm 'face'.
At present, the lawsuit initiated by Micron in the United States against Jinhua and UMC suspected of leaking trade secrets is still under review. At the same time, Micron still has the behavior of suppressing competitors by restricting suppliers to supply Jinhua. Industry analysis said that Jinhua is currently The cooperation project with UMC is in the critical period before mass production. The Jinhua and UMC jointly launched a lawsuit against Micron, which is also a counter-attack. It hopes to get a bargaining chip with Micron and finally win a stable development environment for itself.
An industry insider told reporters that from the perspective of business-to-business, Jinhua and UMC have already obtained certain bargaining power in the judicial process and obtained potential opportunities to return to the negotiating table. But considering the Sino-US trade war The background, the process of reconciliation is likely to be interfered by the game between China and the United States, and the process of trials may be extended.
'At least it is impossible to judge whether the two sides can return to the negotiating table.' The person said.
Why did the Fujian court frequently show up?
In recent years, in the field of intellectual property, China's high-tech enterprises and foreign giants have been arguing constantly. In the trial of the case, the appearance of the Fujian court frequently appeared.
In April 2017, the first case of Huawei's rights defense case accepted by Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court was announced. Samsung (China) Investment Co., Ltd. and other three defendants were convicted of patent infringement against Huawei Terminal Co., Ltd., and required compensation of 80 million yuan. This is Huawei. The first case sentenced in the national series of rights defense cases.
In April of this year, the case of Samsung and Huawei patent disputes was settled. Samsung was sentenced to immediately stop manufacturing patents by selling, selling, and selling sales. In other words, some of Samsung's electronic products will be banned in China. According to the verdict, Samsung has 22 products banned, and it still needs to compensate Huawei for 80 million yuan in economic losses.
At the end of last year, the dispute between China Micro-Semiconductor and Veeco patent litigation was accepted by the Fujian Higher People's Court. After the trial, the Fujian Higher Court agreed to apply for a ban on Veeco's sales of products in China. Because Veeco sued the first, the two sides finally settled. .
The case was accepted as a case in the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court. In a report in the China Court News in May this year, the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court was especially deeply involved in the establishment of the Fuzhou Software Park, an important base for technological innovation. One-stop service platform - intellectual property service station, sending special intellectual property judges to station, providing normalized judicial services for high-tech enterprises, and promoting the transformation of enterprises' development model.
Industry insiders pointed out that Fujian is located on the southeast coast, and international trade is prosperous. Many enterprises have the characteristics of strong demand for intellectual property services. Fujian intellectual property judges are not limited to sitting in court and taking the initiative to enter the front line of intellectual property innovation and management. The IPR service station carried out a series of legal service activities, which strengthened the awareness of protection for high-tech enterprises, eliminated potential risks, solved difficult problems, and provided practical help to resolve contradictions and disputes from the source.
In addition, the choice to file a lawsuit in Fujian, some enterprises because of the large capacity of the Fujian market, easy for the court to collect evidence.