#本文仅代表作者观点, it does not represent the position of IPRdaily, and reprinting is prohibited without the permission of the author#
"In the field of rail transit, the sensor is the core component of the rail locomotive fault detection and diagnosis system, and the products involved in this case are all components of the railway locomotive sensor. ”
来源:IPRdaily中文网(iprdaily.cn)
Author: Shi Yuan
On November 9, 2023 and November 22, 2023, the Beijing Higher People's Court rendered judgments on the appeals of Chengdu Yunda Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yunda Technology") against three design patents: rejecting the appeals and upholding the original judgment. The plaintiff in the case, Beijing Tangzhi Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tangzhi Technology"), won again, and the patent lawsuit on railway locomotive sensors was finally heard.
It is understood that in the field of rail transit, the sensor is the core component of the rail locomotive fault detection and diagnosis system, and the products involved in the case are all components of the railway locomotive sensor.
1. Accidentally found that the patent was infringed, and filed a lawsuit to claim 5 million yuan
According to the civil judgment, in July 2021, due to the need for technical transformation of the Huaihua Locomotive Depot of Guangzhou Railway Group, Tangzhi Hunan Branch replaced the fault detection and diagnosis system of the locomotive running part of the Harmony HXD11418 train of Huaihua Locomotive Depot with the product of Tangzhi Technology.
In this process, Tangzhi Technology accidentally discovered that the "original product" installed on the above-mentioned train was suspected of infringing the appearance patent right of Tangzhi Technology, so it applied to the Changsha Notary Office for notarization of evidence preservation evidence for the entire dismantling process and results. This so-called "original product" is the sensor of Yunda Technology.
Under the supervision of the notary office, Tangzhi Technology conducted a series of comparative analyses and further confirmed that Yunda Technology's sensor products were suspected of infringing its "gland" design patent (patent number: ZL201230642661.6), "wire protection sleeve" design patent (patent number: ZL201230642658.4), and "flexible PCB board" design patent (patent number: ZL201230643092.7).
Tangzhi Technology immediately filed three lawsuits against the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the three design patents, and submitted the "Analysis Report on the Infringement of the Design Patent "Gland" No. 201230642661.6, the Analysis Report on the Infringement of the Design Patent "Wire Jacket" No. 201230642658.4, and the Analysis Report on the Infringement of the Design Patent "Flexible PCB Board" No. 201230643092.7 to prove the "Infringement Analysis Report of the Design Patent "Flexible PCB Board" of Yunda Technology. YZ-FCQ composite sensor" falls within the scope of protection of the patent in question.
As a result, Tangzhi Technology requested the court to decide:
1. Yunda Technology immediately ceased to manufacture, sell, and promise to sell sensor products containing infringing patent rights involved in the case, and destroyed all inventory infringing products.
2. Yunda Technology compensated for economic losses of 2 million yuan, 1 million yuan and 2 million yuan.
Source: (2023) Jing Min Zhong No. 732 Judgment
Source: (2023) Jing Min Zhong No. 829 Judgment
Source: (2023) Jing Min Zhong No. 830 Judgment
2. Tangzhi Technology won one after another, and three patents were compensated 105,000 yuan
In the face of Tang Zhi Technology's accusations, Yunda Technology argued that the above products were never sold separately as products, but were welded and fixed inside the sensor products, and sold with the sensor products, and their appearance was invisible, which did not constitute an infringement of the patent involved in the case, and did not need to bear civil liability.
After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the evidence on record showed that the alleged infringing product and the patented design product in question belonged to the same type of product, and the overall visual effect of the two was similar from the perspective of ordinary consumers. In summary, it is believed that the alleged infringing product falls within the scope of protection of the patent in question and constitutes infringement.
Therefore, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the civil judgments (2021) Jing 79 Min Chu No. 1433, (2021) Jing 79 Min Chu No. 1437 and (2021) Jing 79 Min Chu No. 1434, determining that Yunda Technology should compensate Tangzhi Technology for 35,000 yuan, 35,000 yuan and 35,000 yuan, totaling 105,000 yuan.
Subsequently, Yunda Technology was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court on the grounds that the evidence collection process was improper and the products involved in the case were not sold separately.
The Beijing Supreme People's Court issued a judgment in November 2023, rejecting Yunda Technology's appeal requests and upholding the original judgments in all three cases. At the same time, it is explained that this judgment is a final judgment, and the final judgment of the patent litigation between Tangzhi Technology and Yunda Technology regarding railway locomotive sensors has come to an end, ending with the victory of Tangzhi Technology.
3. Innovation: the way for enterprises to survive in the fierce competition
In recent years, the construction speed of domestic rail transit has been accelerating, and the application of sensors in the field of rail transit has led rail transit to the door of the intelligent era. Industry competition has entered the fast lane, and with it, intellectual property litigation between enterprises.
It is understood that the intellectual property dispute between the two parties has not yet ended, and the relevant cases of Tang Zhi Company suing Yunda Company on the grounds of infringement of invention patent rights and utility model patent rights are still ongoing.
Tangzhi Technology is a state-level specialized and new little giant, the technology originates from the military enterprise China Aviation Engine Research Institute (608 Institute), specializing in high-end equipment fault diagnosis, health management and intelligent operation and maintenance of science and technology enterprises, including sensors, instrumentation, software and algorithm development and engineering applications, in the field of rail transit, aero engines and other fields, technology and products at home and abroad at the leading level. The company's core R&D personnel, Director Tang Deyao, has developed equipment fault diagnosis technologies such as "generalized resonance and resonance demodulation", which have been widely recognized.
Yunda Technology originated from the school-run enterprise of Southwest Jiaotong University, listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in April 2015, and is committed to providing intelligent solutions and services for the rail transit business field, and is one of the leading few high-tech enterprises with core independent intellectual property rights and production capacity in China.
As influential enterprises in the field of rail transit, the intellectual property dispute between the two companies truly reflects the competition in the industry. Although China's rail transit has begun to enter the era of intelligent sensing, more advanced intelligent research and development is still on the way, and intellectual property rights are particularly important in it. Tangzhi Technology's victory in this lawsuit ensures that the intellectual property rights of the right holder are effectively protected, maintains the core competitiveness of the enterprise, and is also conducive to maintaining a fair competitive environment and promoting the innovation and development of the entire industry.
Although patent litigation is common in various industries, it is only a way to protect intellectual property rights, not an end in itself. In this ever-evolving business environment, the word "innovation" is even more important, because only through continuous innovation can enterprises form unique core competitiveness and occupy a place in the market.
Copy the link below to view the details of the judgment:
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/aAP0BjDSKIJQbQyuzoS22A
(Original title: The plaintiff won again! The final judgment of the 5 million yuan patent lawsuit for railway locomotive sensor fell to the hammer)
来源:IPRdaily中文网(iprdaily.cn)
Author: Shi Yuan
编辑:IPRdaily辛夷 校对:IPRdaily纵横君