May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Li Gang v. Shougang Heavy Machinery Company (Case of Dispute over Patent Infringement)
李光訴首鋼重型機械公司專利侵權糾紛上訴案
【法寶引證碼】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->IPR Ownership & Infringement
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 03-24-1995
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
 
  

Li Gang v. Shougang Heavy Machinery Company
(Case of Dispute over Patent Infringement)
BASIC FACTS
Appellant (Plaintiff in the Original Instance): Li Guang, male, 47 years old, assistant engineer of No.2 Yaohua Glass Factory of Qinhuangdao City, Hebei Province.
Attorney: Hu Jinguo, lawyer from Tianping Law Firm of Qinhuangdao City.
Appellee (Defendant in the Original Instance): Beijing Shougang Heavy Machinery Company.
Legal Representative: Xie Yourun, manager of the company.
Attorney: Liu Ruihua, lawyer from Beijing Huaxia Law Firm.
Attorney: Zhao Yi, legal counsel of Beijing Shougang Heavy Machinery Company.
With regard to the dispute over patent infringement, Li Guang refused to accept the civil judgment No.807 [1993] of the Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
......

 

李光訴首鋼重型機械公司專利侵權糾紛上訴案

上訴人(原審原告):李光。
委托代理人:胡進國,秦皇島市天平律師事務所律師。
被上訴人(原審被告):北京首鋼總公司重型機械公司。
法定代表人:謝有潤,經理。
委托代理人:劉瑞華,北京市華夏律師事務所律師。
委托代理人:趙益,首鋼總公司重型機械公司法律顧問。
上訴人李光因被上訴人首鋼總公司重型機械公司專利侵權案,不服北京市中級人民法院(1993)中經知初字第807號民事判決,向北京市高級人民法院提起上訴。

北京市中級人民法院經審理後,于1994年11月14日判決認為:《中華人民共和國專利法》第五十九條第一款規定:“發明或者實用新型專利權的保護範圍,以其權利要求的內容為准”。這就是說,當行為人所實施的技術方案與專利技術方案存在實質等同時,才能判斷行為人實施的行為已落入專利權的保護範圍,繼而認定侵犯專利權成立。原告李光在權利要求書、說明書及附圖中所載明的技術方案與被告重型機械公司(以下簡稱機械公司)的旗幟吹飄裝置存有兩點不同:1、中空的旗杆內部結構不同;2、杆體兩側排氣孔分布不同,上述兩項區別是實質不相等同的,被告的旗幟吹飄裝置並未落入原告的專利範圍,原告訴被告侵犯其專利權缺乏事實與法律依據。據此,判決駁回原告李光的訴訟請求。
上訴人李光上訴稱,被上訴人機械公司的旗幟吹飄裝置所采用的技術方案與上訴人的專利技術方案案全一致,一審法院認定二者實質不相等同是錯誤的。其理由:上訴人專利技術方案的旗杆杆體內有上、中、下氣室,其目的是為了節省氣源,這與被上訴人的旗幟吹飄裝置中的杆體中空毫無質的區別,被上訴人的旗幟吹飄裝置比上訴人的專利技術方案要落後,不但沒有實質性的技術突破,而且浪費氣源。上訴人在杆體一側留有排氣孔的目的是為了吹動旗幟,使旗幟飄揚,目的不可能再有第二個。無論排氣孔怎樣留,其實質都是一樣的,但是一審法院在比較兩項技術方案的必要技術特征時,卻拋開共同點,硬是找出兩項技術的不同點,進而認定二者實質不相等同,在重要事實的認定上犯了錯誤。被上訴人的旗幟吹飄裝置已經完全落入了上訴人的專利保護範圍,侵犯了上訴人的專利權,請求二審法院依法改判。
......




Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您現在要進入的是北大法律英文網會員專區,如您是我們英文用戶可直接 登錄,進入會員專區查詢您所需要的信息;如您還不是我們 的英文用戶,請注冊並交納相應費用成為我們的英文會員 。如有問題請來電咨詢;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法寶引證碼】        北大法寶www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP證010230-8