DeHeng Secured a Reversal Victory in a Patent Infringement Appeal at the Supreme People’s Court
2024-07-05
Recently, the Supreme People’s Court delivered a final judgment in a patent infringement case between a state-owned group company and a Jinan-based new building materials company. The ruling overturned the first-instance judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the state-owned enterprise group.
The state-owned group company is a large comprehensive enterprise group that encompasses general contracting of engineering projects, steel structure and prefabricated construction, real estate development, and project investment. The Jinan-based new building materials company filed a lawsuit for infringement of invention patent rights against it. The first-instance court ruled that the state-owned group company had infringed upon the patent rights in question and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. After the first-instance judgment was issued, the state-owned group company engaged lawyers Gui Lei and Lyu Yamei from DeHeng to represent them in the second-instance proceedings.
DeHeng lawyers conducted a comprehensive review of the case and identified significant errors in the interpretation and application of Article 66 (1) of the Patent Law in the first-instance judgment. The application of Article 66 (1) in judicial practice has certain ambiguities. Drawing on the provision’s origins in the TRIPS Agreement, existing judicial interpretations, relevant precedents, and authoritative commentary, the DeHeng team crafted a detailed and compelling appellate argument.
Additionally, since the case involved polymer technology, DeHeng lawyers thoroughly conducted a non-infringement defense from a technological perspective by consulting technical materials, verifying data parameters, and understanding the evolution of the technology.
The Supreme People’s Court ultimately accepted the arguments presented by DeHeng’s legal team, ruling that the first-instance court had made factual errors and misapplied the law. The judgment safeguarded the client’s legal rights and ensured the smooth progression of the associated construction project.
