涉“房车”实用新型专利侵权纠纷案
Case Analysis
Andi Optical-Technology v. Yuanjing & Huisicheng & Juxincheng
涉“房车”实用新型专利侵权纠纷案
Docket number of the case in the first instance: 195, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2020) IP Court of Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court (川01)
一审案号：（2020）川01知民初195号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
The utility model patent right shall go into effect as of the date of announcement. After the utility model patent is granted, any act of producing or selling a patented product for production or business purposes without the authorization of the patentee constitutes an infringement. However, any act of third parties implementing the patented technology after the application date and before the authorization announcement date for the utility model patent is not prohibited by the Patent Law, and doesn’t constitute an infringement. After the utility model patent is granted, the act of implementing the technology that continues without the authorization of the patentee shall constitute an infringement upon the patent right. A product manufactured and sold after the application date and before the authorization date for the utility model patent doesn’t belong to the infringing product. The patentee has no right to prohibit the subsequent sales or use of the non-infringing product after the authorization announcement date.
实用新型专利权自公告之日起生效。实用新型专利被授予后，未经专利权人许可，为生产经营目的生产、销售专利产品的行为构成侵权。而他人在实用新型专利申请日后、授权公告日前实施该专利技术的行为，并不为专利法所禁止，不构成侵权。在实用新型专利权被授予后，实施该技术的行为若仍处于持续状态且未取得专利权人许可，则构成专利侵权。在实用新型专利申请日后、授权日前制造完成并售出的产品不属于侵权产品，专利权人亦无权在授权公告日后禁止非侵权产品的后续销售、使用等行为。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff: Chengdu Andi Optical-Technology Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Andi Optical-Technology)
Defendant: Qingdao Yuanjing Outdoor Supplies Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Yuanjing), Shiyan Huisicheng Special Purpose Vehicle Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Huisicheng), and Sichuan Juxincheng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Juxincheng)
原告：成都安的光电科技有限公司（简称安的光电公司）
被告：青岛原景户外用品有限公司（简称原景公司）、十堰汇斯诚专用汽车有限公司（简称汇斯诚公司）、四川聚信诚信息技术有限公司（简称聚信诚公司）
Andi Optical-Technology is the patentee of a utility model patent named "A Folding Structure, Multi-Purpose Bed and Recreational Vehicle", which still remains in effect. Andi Optical-Technology purchased from Juxincheng a "Huisicheng" brand caravan jointly manufactured by Yuanjing and Huisicheng on December 30, 2018. Holding that the parts of the caravan fall within the scope of protection of the patent involved and constitute an infringement upon its utility model patent right, Andi Optical-Technology filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, requesting Yuanjing, Huisicheng and Juxincheng to stop infringement and jointly compensate it for economic losses of RMB 95,000 and reasonable expenses of RMB 5,000.
安的光电公司是涉案名称为“一种折叠结构、多功能床以及房车”的实用新型专利的专利权人，该权利目前仍在有效期内。安的光电公司从聚信诚公司处购得一辆原景公司与汇斯诚公司于2018年12月30日共同生产的“汇斯诚”牌旅居挂车。安的光电公司认为，该旅居挂车上的部件落入涉案专利的保护范围，构成对其实用新型专利权的侵害，遂诉至四川省成都市中级人民法院，要求原景公司、汇斯诚公司、聚信诚公司停止涉案侵权行为，并共同赔偿其经济损失9.5万元及合理开支5000元。
The Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province ruled that the alleged infringing product is listed into the scope of protection of the patent right involved in the same way. However, if the alleged infringing product in this case is manufactured and sold after the application date and before the authorization date for the patent involved, then it doesn’t belong to the infringing product. Andi Optical-Technology has no right to claim liability for tort for the product, nor to prohibit subsequent sales and use of the non-infringing product. However, Yuanjing and Huisicheng continue to manufacture the alleged infringing product together after the authorization announcement date, constituting an infringement. Moreover, as there is no evidence to prove that Juxincheng has continued to distribute the alleged infringing product after the authorization announcement date, Juxincheng doesn’t constitute an infringement.
成都中院经审理认为，被诉侵权产品以相同的方式落入涉案专利权保护范围。但本案被诉侵权产品系涉案专利申请日后、授权日前被制造并售出，则该产品不属于侵权产品，安的光电公司亦无权就该产品主张侵权责任，亦无权禁止非侵权产品的后续销售、使用等行为。但原景公司与汇斯诚公司在专利授权公告日后仍共同持续制造被诉侵权产品，构成侵权。此外，并无证据证明聚信诚公司就被诉侵权产品还存在专利授权公告日以后持续的经销行为，故聚信诚公司不构成侵权。
Based on the above grounds, the court ruled in first instance that: Yuanjing and Huisicheng shall immediately stop manufacturing products that fall within the scope of protection of the utility model patent involved, and jointly compensate Andi Optical-Technology for an economic loss of RMB 15,000. Neither of the two sides filed an appeal against the first-instance judgment. The judgment of has gone into effect.
综上，法院一审判决：原景公司、汇斯诚公司立即停止制造落入涉案实用新型专利保护范围的产品，并连带赔偿安的光电公司经济损失15000元。一审判决后，双方均未上诉，判决现已生效。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case separates and identifies the acts of third parties that implement the patented technology after the application date and before the authorization announcement date for the utility model patent without the authorization of the patentee, from the acts of continuing to implement the patented technology after the authorization announcement date for the utility model patent, and makes it clear that the utility model patent is not subject to temporary protection. However, any act of third parties that implement the patented technology after the application date and before the authorization announcement date for the utility model patent is not prohibited by the Patent Law. The patentee has no right to claim that such acts of third parties at that time node constitute an infringement, nor to claim infringement on subsequent sales, use and other acts. However, if the act of third parties that implement the patented technology continues after the utility model patent is granted without the authorization of the patentee, such act shall constitute an infringement.
本案对他人未经专利权人许可在实用新型专利申请日之后、授权公告日之前实施该专利技术的行为，与在实用新型专利授权公告日之后持续实施该专利技术的行为进行分离与认定，明确实用新型专利并不享有临时保护。他人在实用新型专利申请日之后、授权公告日之前实施该专利技术的行为，并不为专利法所禁止，专利权人无权主张他人在该时间点的行为构成侵权，亦无权对其后续销售、使用等行为主张侵权。但是，如果他人实施该专利技术的行为在实用新型专利权被授予后仍处于持续状态，且未取得专利权人许可，那么该行为构成侵权。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐
The 12th China IP International Annual Forum was held on Sep 24
Trademark Dispute Dilemma of Bruce Lee Enterprises v. Zhengongfu