Sanyou Client: Zhejiang Dixsen Electrical Co., Ltd.

Sanyou Attorneys: Jian Chen/Yunfeng Geng

Trial Organ: Supreme People's Court

Trial Result: The court affirmed that patent infringement occurred and ordered compensation of RMB 650,000. 

Case Facts

Zhejiang Dixsen Electrical Co., Ltd. was founded in 1995 and mainly engages in the production of high and low voltage transformers, electrical instruments and other products. It enjoys a high reputation in the industry, with strong technical strength, insist on independent innovation and a number of patents in related technical fields.

The invention patent involved in this case is a pioneering current transformer technology independently developed by Dixsen Corporation. Due to the open-close structure, it is not necessary to dismantle the measured circuit during the maintenance and replacement of the transformer, which is easy to disassemble and has high efficiency. In addition, the wiring terminal is convenient for wiring, and can meet the requirements of various wiring modes of customers. This patent has very high market value and technological advancement. The competitors have made many requests for invalidation to Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration, and the patent for invention has been maintained in force.

After finding infringers in the market, Dixsen has entrusted our lawyer team to develop strategies for rights protection and put them into practice. The lawyer team succeeded in buying the controlled infringing products and cooperated closely in infringement litigation and patent invalidation procedures. The court considers that our client's patent for invention is now within the validity period, and that the patent right is legally protected. Therefore, the main points of dispute in this case are: 1. Whether the accused infringing technical solution falls within the scope of Sanyou’s patent protection, and 2. Whether the plaintiff's request for cessation of infringement and compensation for losses is reasonable and legal.

1. According to legal provisions, the protection scope of the patent right for invention shall be determined by the content of the claims, and the description and drawings can be used to explain the content of the claims. Therefore, to determine whether the alleged infringing technical solution falls within the protection scope of the patent right, all technical features recorded in the claims claimed by the right holder should be examined. If the accused infringing technical solution contains the same or equivalent technical features as all the technical features recorded in the claims, the people's court shall determine that it falls within the scope of protection of the patent right. Sanyou provided evidence and successfully proved that the infringing technical solution under dispute contains technical features similar to all the technical features recorded in our client’s claims, and therefore has fallen within the protection scope of the patent right.

2. Without the permission of Sanyou’s client, the infringing party produced, sold and offered to sell infringing products for business purposes in 2013, 2019, and 2020 even after compensation was awarded, which constitutes repeated infringement with obvious bad faith. Its unauthorized manufacture and sale of infringing products without permission or control may endanger public safety. The court accepted and supported Sanyou’s claim.

In the end, the court ruled that patent infringement was established and ordered compensation of RMB 650,000 to be paid.

Typical Significance

With the strengthening of national intellectual property protection, a patentee is expected to receive higher compensation for damages. However, the patentee needs to provide evidence in order to obtain higher damages. In this case, Sanyou attorneys collected and organized evidence based on the following five aspects:

1) The plaintiff's invention patent has strong stability and high market value.

2) The financial data submitted by the defendant showed that it had gained large profits through its infringement of the plaintiff’s patent.

3) The defendant's infringement is serious.

4) The defendant had obvious malicious intentions.

5) Personal safety and public interest may be endangered through the infringement.

This case provides a positive reference for how to increase the amount of damages.