1. After three years, we finally ushered in the first instance judgment! Xiaomi has won the first SEP lawsuit;
For micro-mesh news, today is undoubtedly a very meaningful day. From the application of IPO in early May to today, in just two months, Xiaomi has finally officially listed in Hong Kong stocks! In addition, according to According to the micro-network, Xiaomi also ushered in another good news today, that is, Xiaomi has won the first SEP (standard essential patent) lawsuit.
Today, the WeChat public account 'Win in IP' released the news that recently, the Royal Dutch KPN Company (hereinafter referred to as 'KPN') v. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Xiami') infringed the invention patent dispute case ushered in the first trial In the verdict, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court finally made a first-instance judgment dismissing the plaintiff's KPN all claims.
It is understood that 'Win in IP' is a WeChat public account created by Dacheng Law Firm Yang Universe, and in the patent litigation between Xiaomi and KPN, Yang Universe is a representative lawyer of Xiaomi Company.
It lasted for three years and finally ushered in the first instance judgment.
The patent litigation between KPN and Xiaomi has to be traced back to 2015. In 2015, KPN Company confirmed that Xiaomi infringed its SEP patent, so the latter appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Among them, the patent number of the patent involved was 'ZL94194872. 2', the name is 'method and equipment for converting a series of data packets using data compression', and the patent term expires from December 29, 1994 to December 28, 2014.
Since the patent right of the patent in question was terminated when the lawsuit was filed in 2015, KPN only filed a claim in this case, and the amount of the claim has been raised from 9.3 million yuan to 18.6 million yuan. The basis for the calculation is based on Xiaomi Company since 2012. Manufactured and sold all mobile phones that comply with the GSM/GPRS standard.
On February 6, 2018, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a public hearing on the appeal infringement case. In this case, KPN Company claimed that the patent in question was a standard necessary patent in the communication field, and the standard advocated was the 2004 version of the 3GPP standard, which claimed the Xiaomi patent. The basis of the right to infringement is the patent claim in question 23.
KPN claims that the company had issued a SEP patent statement for the patent in question as early as 2010. Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. has not authorized or agreed by the patentee. Since 2012, it has been producing, selling, and promising sales infringement of the royal KPN patent. Products, including infringing mobile phone terminals complying with the GSM/GPRS standard. In the past few years, Xiaomi Technology has produced and sold as many as 76.4 million mobile phones, occupying a large market share and suing the court.
During the trial, Xiaomi argued that the patent claim 23 concerned is an optional technical solution. It is not a standard essential patent in the strict sense. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the model of the allegedly infringing mobile phone. The Xiaomi mobile phone does not. Use the technical solution protected by claim 23. Even if it constitutes infringement, it only involves the chip of Xiaomi mobile phone, and the chip is from Qualcomm, and has nothing to do with the defendant.
In the end, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court examined the consistency of the patent claim 23 and the standard in the case, and found that the patent in question was not the same as the standard involved. Therefore, the first-instance judgment was made: All the claims of KPN were rejected.
Xiaomi lawyer said that the standards and techniques involved in this case are complicated, and the patents involved are still valid after repeated invalidation. Therefore, the court finally made the first-instance judgment for three years.
In addition to Xiaomi, KPN also sued these four companies.
Royal KPN is the largest telecom operator in the Netherlands. According to the micro-network, in addition to Xiaomi Technology, KPN has also pointed the 'spearhead' to Yulong Computer Communication Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huizhou TCL Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. Datong Communication Co., Ltd., Motorola (Wuhan) Mobile Technology Communication Co., Ltd., based on the same case as Xiaomi Technology, sued the above four companies to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd., TCL Mobile Communications, Yulong Communications successively filed a patent invalidation declaration for the patent in question. On March 22, 2016, the Patent Reexamination Board made the invalid review decision of No. 28586, No. 28567, No. 28562, and maintained the case. The patent is valid.
On July 25, 2016, Motorola (Wuhan) Mobile Technology Communication Co., Ltd. also initiated an invalidation request for the patent in question. On March 10, 2017, the Patent Reexamination Board made a decision on invalidation of Patent No. 32386, maintaining the claim of Royal KPN Company. The patent rights involved in the case are valid.
Xiaomi wins the first SEP lawsuit
According to industry sources, although the KPN case was not the first SEP lawsuit suffered by Xiaomi, it was the first SEP lawsuit won by Xiaomi.
The first SEP lawsuit suffered by Xiaomi was a patent lawsuit with Ericsson, which is still in progress.
On December 5, 2014, Ericsson filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi, India, alleging that Xiaomi Technology infringed on its eight communications technology patents, including 2G and 3G communications patents.
On December 8 of the same year, the Delhi High Court ruled that Xiaomi infringed Ericsson's eight standard essential patents and issued a pre-sale ban. Subsequently, Xiaomi Company took the initiative to 'bleed blood', in accordance with the condition of 'prepayment of 100 rupees per machine for court deposit'. Temporary access to Qualcomm chip phones continued to sell. For mobile phones equipped with MediaTek chips, it is still in a 'banned sale' state.
According to foreign media BGR report, Xiaomi and Ericsson's patent dispute in India is about to be resolved. Ericsson has made an official reply to this. Ericsson and Xiaomi have not reached a settlement on the relevant differences of Ericsson's standard essential patent license. Ericsson and Xiaomi's patent lawsuit Still in progress. 2. The US International Trade Commission ruled that Hainengda infringed the Motorola system patent;
Motorola Systems announced US International Trade Commission (ITC) Administrative Judge Mary Joan McNamara, issued a favorable preliminary ruling on Motorola's investigation into the infringement case of Henergy Communications Co., Ltd. on March 29, 2017 Notice.
In the lawsuit, the Motorola system accused Henderson of illegally importing and selling two-way radio equipment systems, related software and components, infringing four patents of Motorola Systems. These patents cover the core technologies of Hyundai's current professional and commercial radio product operations. .
The judge conducted a long-term investigation and heard the evidence from the Motorola system and the Hainda witness at a one-week hearing, and after hundreds of pages of briefing materials and thousands of exhibits, the ruling was made. As part of the preliminary ruling, Judge McNamara stated that all four patents of the Motorola system were valid, and Hytera infringed on its patents; and that Motorola Systems demonstrated 'domestic technology industry' in three of the four patents, in compliance with legal requirements Judge McNamara also recommended that the Motorola System US Patent Nos. 7,369,869, 7,729,701 and 8,279,991 issue an exclusion order to prevent Haineng from importing infringing products into the United States, and issue a stop and terminate order to prevent Hynone from continuing to supply and sell it. Infringing products in the United States. ITC's final ruling will be promulgated on November 6, 2018.
Mark Hacker, General Counsel and Chief Executive Officer of Motorola Systems, said: 'Judge McNamara's ruling confirms our allegations, maintains the integrity of our intellectual property rights, and makes Unidentified and unlawful acts of Hyundai's intentional infringement of Motorola's patents. Condemnation. We regard the preliminary ruling as an important step. This is part of our global efforts to address the systematic, shameless, serious theft and violation of our intellectual property rights.
Mark Hacker continues: 'The Motorola system has a long and distinguished track record of innovative technology. The large patent pool contains approximately 5,000 patents. We continue to drive innovation to our customers while defending our valuable intellectual property. We appreciate it. The efforts of Judge McNamara and ITC staff during the investigation, we are convinced that the entire ITC will adhere to this decision and make a final decision based on today's findings. ' Ctimes 3. Gree's competition for upgrading technology patent battles started again;
Traditional price war marketing is a thing of the past
Because of a 'cool feeling, no wind feeling' slogan, Gree and the United States two air-conditioning giants once again on the court.
At the end of last month, Midea Air Conditioning in Foshan, Guangdong, where the company's headquarters is located, sued the old rival Gree for infringement when selling air conditioners, and claimed 4.9 million yuan. Gree responded by saying, 'No need to resort to any domestic and foreign products of any size home appliance company. Improve the strong competitiveness that you already have.'
Since the two sides disagree with the court mediation, the court will pronounce the case on the day of the case.
In the past two years, the technical disputes and patent disputes in the home appliance industry have become the norm. Sharp and Hisense, Gree and Oaks, Gree and the United States have had mutual technology patent tug-of-war.
Under the background of intelligent concept heating and consumption upgrading, the war of home appliance enterprises entered the second half, and has evolved from the initial price war, marketing war, channel warfare to the current technical warfare, patent warfare, and innovation warfare.
■New Express reporter Chen Xuedong
Six-word slogan
Gree and Midea’s lawsuit involving millions of dollars was derived from a six-character slogan 'There is a sense of coolness and no wind'.
In November last year, Midea filed this lawsuit, claiming that it has spent huge sums of money from 2015, through television, newspapers, radio and other media, publicly promoting the beauty of the comfort star series air conditioner with the 'cool sense of windless' technology, and Make 'cool and windless' an unregistered trademark in the form of advertising, which plays a role in distinguishing the logos from other air-conditioners. Gree does not have the technology and function of 'cool and wind-free' in air-conditioning products. Under the slogan, the company’s highly advertised slogan is used to promote its products and gain a competitive advantage that should not be attributed to it. For this reason, the United States demands that Gree immediately stop using the 'cool feeling without wind' slogan. , to compensate for various economic losses of 4.9 million yuan, and apologize in the official website of Gree and the media public.
In the court, Gree did not agree with the accusation of the United States. First of all, the air conditioner involved in Gree was only sold online in Jingdong Mall. Jingdong’s shopping process determined that consumers would not be confused with the brand during the shopping process.
Gree responded, 'Grely does not need to resort to any commodity of any domestic and foreign home appliance company, and does not need to implement any confusing behavior that can lead to misunderstanding of other people's goods or specific connection with others, to improve Gree's own goods. Has long been a strong competitive. '
Gree believes that the 'windless sense' effect of air conditioners is not the first of its kind. This kind of function and the propaganda word of 'no wind' is now one of the popular propaganda contents of home appliance air conditioner industry at home and abroad.
Gree air-conditioning for the United States does not have the theory of 'cool and wind-free' technology and function, Gree said that after the Gree test, the air conditioning and wind-free effect detection contrast, Gree is as good as or better than the net The beauty of the comfortable star series, the company of the United States claims that Gree is not cool and has no wind effect. There is no factual basis.
Competition enters the white-hot stage
In the rivers and lakes of the home appliance industry, Midea and Gree have been vying to be called the 'one brother' or 'one sister' of the industry.
From the mutual prosecution of the 'National Science and Technology Progress Awards for fraud', the dispute between talents and technology to the 'Olympic orders', Ge Li and Mei's 'matching' can be described as ubiquitous.
In the process of Greemei's 'multi-years of killing', the two companies 'joined' to win more than half of the Chinese air-conditioning market.
Liang Zhenpeng, an analyst in the home appliance industry, said that Gree has a market share of over 30% in China's air-conditioning market, and the US accounts for more than 20%. The two companies together account for 60% of the Chinese air-conditioning market. As a competitor of 'you and me', two Enterprises often upgrade themselves through technical warfare, patent warfare, and advertising warfare to suppress opponents.
Gree and Midea's 'opposition' on air-conditioning patents is also considered by the outside world to be a landmark event in which home appliance enterprises have increased their competition to new heights. In June 2017, Gree sued the US-known 'Refrigeration King' series of air conditioners for infringement of their patent rights. Compensation for economic losses of 50 million yuan.
In the past year, Midea filed three patent infringement lawsuits against Gree Air Conditioning in Suzhou and Guangzhou. The total amount of litigation claims was nearly 40 million yuan. At present, the cases filed by both parties have been accepted but not yet pronounced.
Time to push forward, in January 2016, Gree employees Weibo issued a document accusing the US of academic fraud, requesting the cancellation of the US National Science and Technology Second Prize in 2014; followed by the US employees in the real name of Weibo reported Gree 2011 National Science and Technology Progress Award Many key data frauds in the project. This employee microblog report finally evolved into a mutual complaint between the two companies on the other party's employees. Prior to this, the two parties also violated the exclusive right to use trademarks, infringement of patent rights, false propaganda, etc. The reason is 'see the court' many times.
Industrial observer Hong Shibin also believes that in the initial stage, the competition between the two companies was mainly concentrated on channels and prices, and later extended to talents. In the past five years, the competition between the two sides has gradually evolved into higher-level intellectual property rights, and patent competition. Explain that the competition between the United States and Gree has entered a stage of heating up.
With the upgrading of consumption and technology upgrades, the competition in the air-conditioning industry is upgraded from low-level competition represented by price wars, channel wars, and marketing warfare to high-level competition of competition technology, patents, and value. However, it is similar to 'one night, one power', ' There is a sense of cool and windless, and the advertising language that is suspected of false propaganda is still emerging.
Industry observation
Patent dispute will become a competitive weapon
In fact, the patent dispute is a commonplace. But why do home appliance companies show the new characteristics of patent warfare under the fierce competition? 'Initiating patent litigation is just a means of competing for enterprises. From the past cases, although the amount of litigation claims They are all very high, but the compensation is minimal, even if the amount of compensation is small. 'Hong Shibin said.
Li Shunde, vice president of the China Intellectual Property Law Research Association, also pointed out that all walks of life are developing rapidly and the competition is fierce. With the emphasis on intellectual property, companies also use intellectual property to participate in corporate competition. On the surface, property rights litigation is an intellectual property litigation. In fact, it is essentially the result of market competition. It uses intellectual property as a means of competition to participate in market competition.
In the eyes of the industry, the launch of the patent warfare by home appliance companies is also the shift of the competition direction of the home appliance industry. 'In the early stage of the development of the home appliance industry, everyone is a rough operation. This strategy is characterized by price wars, marketing wars, channel warfare. Nowadays, the home appliance industry has matured and matured. With the upgrading of consumption, home appliance companies have begun to focus on product value, premium capability, product innovation and technology research and development, and the level of competition has also been upgraded to technical warfare, patent warfare, product warfare. ' Liang Zhenpeng said.
Hong Shibin also believes that the patent warfare of home appliance enterprises has entered a stage of deep development. To a certain extent, patents are the lifeblood of enterprises. In foreign countries, the use of patent warfare competitors is very mature, the protection of patents, turned over The patent fees are very high, and China is still in the enlightenment stage. I believe that the future protection of research and development results will be more and more important, and the competition of enterprises will be more favorable to the development of the industry.
link
There are precedents in industry patent infringement disputes
Oaks was sentenced in the first instance
Compensation Gree 46 million yuan
On April 24, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court publicly issued a first-instance judgment on Gree Electric Appliances v. Oaks three patent infringement disputes. Aux needs to compensate Gree Electric for 46 million yuan in economic losses, and this amount of judgment has refreshed the amount of patent infringement compensation in the home appliance industry. new record.
It is understood that Oaks and Gree have been complaining for a long time, Gree v. Oaks infringement of patent rights a total of six cases. It is worth mentioning that in June 2017, Gree believes that Oaks 2017 new Athena series air conditioner infringed Gree's name The patent for the upper and lower water trays and the bottom shell integration will be reported to the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province by a lawsuit, and the claim is 110 million yuan, which is the highest amount of patent claims in the domestic appliance industry. Subsequently, Oaks also targeted Gree. Air-conditioning motor installation, panels, air-guiding doors and other technical violations, filed a lawsuit with the Ningbo Intermediate People's Court, requiring Gree to compensate more than 50 million yuan.
The patent infringement case in the past has finally ushered in the first-instance judgment in April. In the case of Gree v. Oaks air-conditioning patent infringement series, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment on three of the cases, and the court ordered that: Oaks stopped. Sales were convicted of infringing products and destroyed stocks; Oaks compensated Gree for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection, and the three cases totaled 46 million yuan.
4. Another big move after folding the screen phone LG apply for the folding screen smart pen;
After leaking the patent for the folding screen mobile phone, the foreign media GSMArena once again sent an exciting news: LG is applying for a patent for the smart stylus, which is expected to replace the mobile phone.
Unlike the smart stylus we know so far, LG's smart stylus patent subverts the traditional consumer's impression of the stylus. In the stylus field, we know that the best done is Samsung's S Pen system. Apple's Apple Pencil, they all need to be paired with the specified equipment to use, but LG's patent this time completes the stylus into a device. The stylus is divided into two screens, a small screen for program shortcuts, Time, and information notifications; another screen is the essence of this smart stylus, it is a stretchable display, when you need to press the dedicated button to stretch it, you can use it As a traditional smartphone, it can run all regular applications, including browsing the web and sending messages.
In addition to the display, the traditional smart phone sensor is also absent: the screw, the electronic compass, the distance sensor, the pressure sensor, the camera, and even the most mature fingerprint recognition module in the pen has not fallen, but has a microphone and It became possible to make the handset a complete mobile phone.
In addition to complete mobile phone equipment, the machine can be paired with any other brand of smartphones and tablets. After the pairing is completed, traces of writing on any surface using the smart pen can appear on the screen of the paired device. 5. Subvert the previous paper and ink and the habit of writing on the screen.
As a traditional mobile phone and screen manufacturer, LG has a deep foundation in terms of technology accumulation. It has continuously developed into a folding screen, showing its confidence in returning to the mobile phone market to win a share. I believe LG can definitely find it by folding the screen. Back to your own Life 's Good. Pacific Computer 5. For no anti-preparation Canon announced the new 16-60mm lens patent;
Recently, Canon announced a new lens patent. The new lens patent is an APS-C format anti-zoom lens. The lens size is 16-60mm f/2.0-5.0. It is a very unique new lens design. .
Editor's comment: From the lens currently on the market, the closest thing to this lens is Sony's 16-70mm f/4.0ZA. But because the Sony sensor's conversion factor is 1.5, the lens has an equivalent approach. 24-105mm focal length, its specifications are for practicality after the equivalent. And the specifications of this Canon lens is very unique, and the aperture range of the lens is also very interesting, f / 2.0-5.0 specifications are quite rare. Of course The new lens is just a patent application. As for whether the product will be mass-produced, it has not yet been found. It is worth noting that Canon will introduce more practical lenses on the EF-M lens group. . ZOL