Judicial Enforcement of China’s New Patent Law: Doctrine of Equivalent

Judicial Enforcement of China’s New Patent Law:

Doctrine of Equivalent

Prof. Zhang NaigenFudan University

Putting a Protective Shield Around your IP 1

Fudan IP Project

• Fudan IP Center conducted the project on judicial enforcement of China’s new patent law since its entry into force in 2009 and until 2012. It has researched 2556 settled cases by the courts of Shanghai, Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Guangdong as well as the Supreme Court, including 453 judgments to apply new laws and judicial interpretation.


The Publication of Project is coming

• Co-editors: Zhang Naigen and Zhu Dan (Chief Judge of Shanghai Higher People’s Court, IP Tribunal) by Shanghai Jiaotong Uni. Press

• Study on Judicial Enforcement of China’s New Patent Law

• More information is available at Fudan IP web http://www.ipcenter.fudan.edu.cn/


http://www.ipcenter.fudan.edu.cn/

Shanghai as an example: patent cases applying the new law


Doctrine of Equivalent: Analysis of Two Cases


Case I

• Ningbo Yuexiang Machine Manufactory v. Shanghai Yongyi Machine Manufactory

• 宁波悦祥机械制造有限公司诉上海昶意机械制造有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案

• (2012) Shanghai Higher Court IP Final No. 10 沪高民三 ( 知 ) 终字第 10 号


First instance • (2011) Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People’s Courts’

judgment IP No. 106 • (2011) 沪二中民五 ( 知 ) 初字第 106 号• Under Art. 59 of new patent law to determine

infringement of patent for invention and utility model, which remains unchanged since 1984, and Art 17 of 2001 judicial interpretation on Doctrine of Equivalents (triple E of means/function and results) , Art. 7 of 2010 judicial interpretation, the Court ruled that the technical character 4’ of accused product was equivalent of that one of the claim 1.


The Final Ruling of Appellate Court

• Shanghai Higher People’s Court• (2012) Shanghai Higher Court IP Final No. 10• (2012) 沪高民三 ( 知 ) 终字第 10 号• The final ruling reversed the judgment of the first

instance.• The Art. 17 of 2001 interpretation shall be

applicable, but Art. 7 of 2010 interpretation shall be more preferred.


Legal Reasoning• The facts are unchallenged. • But, legal reasoning is different.• The Higher Court emphasized that “the technical

character 4’ of accused product is the spring-block by push of air pressure, and the claimed technical character 4 of patented product is the spring-block by push of mechanical moving , which are not equivalents ” .

• One element is missed. No equivalent. • The stricter application of Doctrine of Equivalents

is preferred under art.7 of 2010 interpretation.


Chinese for your reference本院认为，经比对，首先，被控侵权产品的技术特征 4'气弹簧的结构与涉

案专利权利要求 1中技术特征 4的具体实施方式 A1 、 A4不相同。其次，涉案

专利权利要求 1中技术特征 4的具体实施方式 A1 、 A4采用的是机械弹簧式的

锁定装置，通过拉动插销拉手体而使插销插入或者抽出插销孔从而使伸缩

杆在伸缩杆套管中的轴向滑动来实现‘控制前车架和后车架间夹角变化’；

被控侵权产品采用的是气弹簧式的锁定装置，通过开启、关闭控制阀门来

控制气缸桶内的压力平衡从而使活塞杆在气缸桶中的轴向滑动来实现‘控

制前车架和后车架间夹角变化’。技术特征 4'使用的气弹簧与技术特征 4的

具体实施方式 A1 、 A4的工作原理不相同，两者的技术手段并不相同，也非

基本相同。由于技术特征 4'与技术特征 4两者使用的手段并不基本相同，因

此，被控侵权产品的技术特征 4'与涉案发明专利权利要求 1的技术特征 4既

不相同，也不等同。


General Observation

• In practice, it has been customary to apply both Art. 7 of 2010 interpretation (element by element) and Art. 17 of 2001 interpretation (triple equivalents of means/function/results).

• The case I is a good example.


Case II • Jiangsu Provisional Higher People’s Court:

Hubeier Co., Ltd v. Chanzhou Wujingfen Communication Equipment Co., Ltd

• 胡贝尔和茹纳股份公司诉常州市武进风市通信设备有限公司侵犯发明专利权纠纷案

• (2012) Jiangsu Higher Court IP No.0021 苏知民终字第 0021 号


Patent Product and Accused Product


Circulated block

Spring block

Jiangsu Higher Court’s Opinion


• The technical characters of patent claim 1 shall be regarded as a whole to play the function of block- pressure, therefore it shall not be separated to compare all necessary technical characters with the accused product one by one. No equivalent.

• 由于涉案专利权利要求 1 的紧固套设置技术特征内容中所有的必需技术特征是作为一个整体来实现卡锁—压紧这一独立功能的，因此在进行等同比对时，不应将实现该功能的所有必需技术特征再进行分解，而是应当将紧固套设置技术特征的内容作为一个总的技术特征与被控侵权产品的相应实施方式进行整体比对。不构成侵权。

Different Legal Reasoning

• Same conclusions and legal bases The new law (Art. 59.1), the both interpretations of 2010 (Art.

7)and 2001 (Art.17). • Different legal reasoning Case I: element by element Case II: as a whole• Doctrine of equivalents: died in China as in US ? • Shall we have a CAFC-style national patent court in

China to harmonize jurisprudence of patent litigation ?


Thank for your attention


Judicial Enforcement of China’s New Patent Law: Doctrine of Equivalent

Documents

Transcript of Judicial Enforcement of China’s New Patent Law: Doctrine of Equivalent