In a case concerning the field of electric beds, the patentee (plaintiff in the first instance and appellant in the second instance) alleged that the products of Company A (defendant in the first instance and respondent in the second instance) infringed its patent rights and initiated legal proceedings. Company A entrusted IPRTOP to act as its agent. After accepting the commission of Company A, IPRTOP submitted an invalidation declaration request for the involved patent to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) while actively defending the lawsuit. Later, IPRTOP prepared evidence from multiple dimensions, and our client not only successfully invalidated part of the claims of the involved patent, but also won the lawsuit in the first and second instances. Through providing professional, comprehensive, high-quality, and efficient legal services, IPRTOP effectively safeguarded the client's legal rights and interests.

In this case, if the distinguishing features between the involved patent and the involved product are recognized as common knowledge, there would be a risk of the product being classified under the patent’s protection scope. it was crucial, following the declaration of invalidity of the patent claims, to promptly inform the court that these distinguishing technical features were not recognized as common knowledge. This step was vital in the overall legal strategy.

After the first-instance judgment was issued, CNIPA made an examination decision of the invalidation declaration request, declaring claims 1 and 3 of the involved patent invalid due to lack of inventiveness in combination with evidences 1 and 2, and maintaining the validity of the involved patent based on claim 2, where evidence 1 comprised patent literature and evidence 2 was an article published in a journal. The distinguishing feature between the disputed patent and the involved product was the technical feature recorded in claim 1 of the patent: “the fixed structure further includes a rubber ring, coaxially fixed at both ends of the connecting pin”. We promptly informed the Supreme People's Court that the invalidation decision did not classify this specific technical feature as common knowledge. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court, in line with the first-instance court, also determined that the involved product did not incorporate this particular technical feature of claim 1 and, as such, did not infringe upon the patent.

Leveraging evidence provided by the appellant to demonstrate structural differences between the patent in question and the product in dispute is more likely to gain the court's support. Specifically, concerning the term “fixed” in the distinguishing feature, our firm argued, based on common knowledge evidence submitted by the appellant during the first instance, that the plastic ring and the connecting pin in the involved product do not form a fixed connection. The common knowledge evidences provided by the appellant shows that the fixing method of the components on the shaft includes circumferential fixing and axial fixing. Upon detailed analysis, it was established that in the accused product, the plastic ring and the connecting pin are neither axially fixed nor circumferentially fixed. After the connecting pin is installed in the hole of the plastic ring, there is a gap between the two, so the plastic ring and the connecting pin in the involved product are not fixedly connected, and naturally they are not fixed at both ends of the connecting pin. Therefore, it is concluded that the technical solution of the involved product is different from that limited by claim 2 of the involved patent, and this argument was supported by the court.

In our detailed explanation of the roles played by the relevant components in the disputed product, we aimed to counter the appellant's claim of equivalent infringement. The appellant claimed that the large-diameter part of the plastic ring in the involved product is equivalent to the rubber ring in the involved patent. Our firm thoroughly demonstrated that the function of the large-diameter part of the plastic ring in the involved product was completely different from that of the rubber ring in the involved patent, which is of vital importance for the court to ultimately determine that the two are not equivalent.

Utilizing the relevant descriptions of the involved patent to clarify the meaning of the key terms in the claims was a strategy more likely to gain the court's support. Specifically, for the technical feature of “the fixed structure further includes a rubber ring, and the rubber ring is coaxially fixed at both ends of the connecting pin” in claim 1 of the involved patent, the appellant claims that “both ends” refer to the two sides or ends of the motor fixing bracket or hinge, rather than the midpoint or middle position of the connecting pin. In response, our agent argues that the scope of “both sides or ends” and “not the midpoint or middle position of the connecting pin” claimed by the appellant includes both ends, but the scope is far greater than both ends, which does not conform to the conventional understanding of “both ends”. To corroborate our stance, we referenced the descriptions of “both ends” in other technical features of the patent and conducted a detailed analysis based on the specific embodiments and illustrations of the patent. This interpretation, as presented by our firm, was ultimately upheld by the court.

To interpret key terms in the disputed patent, we utilized dictionaries and other auxiliary tools. The specification of the involved patent stated that “when the user needs to adjust the height of the bed board and start the push rod motor, due to the existence of the rubber ring 4, the axial clearance that the fixed structure may have is compensated, and the noise is greatly reduced”. Our agent provides evidence from the “Modern Chinese Dictionary”, “arguing that “compensate” means “fill” or “make up for”. Consequently, the patent's description of “the axial clearance that the fixed structure may have is compensated” should be interpreted as “the axial clearance between the components is eliminated by the rubber ring.” Specifically, as shown in FIG. 1 of the involved patent, by setting the rubber ring 4 at both ends of the connecting pin, the clearance between the limiting part of the metal connecting pin 6 and one side arm 11b of the metal motor fixing bracket 11, and the clearance between one side arm 11a of the metal motor fixing bracket 11 and the metal snap ring 5 are eliminated, so that the connecting pin 6 is axially locked and cannot move along the axial direction, thereby avoiding collisions between these metal components and the connecting pin in the axial direction and achieving the purpose of reducing axial noise. However, there are multiple clearances on the shaft of the involved product, so the technical effect of greatly reducing noise by compensating for the axial clearance on the shaft is not achieved.

In conclusion, our firm's success in this infringement lawsuit was key to meticulously presenting arguments from multiple perspectives and organizing our statement effectively, thereby robustly safeguarding our client's interests.