This case involved a patent infringement dispute of a large engraving machine. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had infringed a utility model patent for a large engraving machine held by it, and filed a lawsuit to request the court to find the defendant infringed and claim compensation. The defendant also filed invalidation of the invention patent in a timely manner, and submitted some public evidence of use, but it was not recognized by the Patent Office's Reexamination and Invalidation Trial Department in the end. At the same time, most of the evidence submitted by the defendant for the non-infringement defense in the court was not recognized, resulting in the defendant losing the judgment. In this case, there was a lot of relevant evidence. The author tried to obtain some infringement and invalid evidence from these evidences. Inspiration.

　　Brief introduction to the case

　　This case involves a utility model patent with the patent number of ZL201720309126.6 and the name of the invention as "large vertical three-dimensional engraving machine". , including a frame, an engraving tool head device erected on the frame and capable of moving in a three-dimensional direction relative to a large workpiece for engraving, and a workpiece clamping mechanism erected on the frame for holding the large workpiece for rotation. The workpiece clamping mechanism includes an upper clamping part and a lower clamping part. The upper clamping part is arranged on the beam; Through the rotation of the beam, the upper clamping part and the lower clamping part are corresponding or staggered. The above-mentioned setting of the upper clamping part on the rotatable beam can make the upper clamping part and the lower clamping part staggered by the rotation of the beam, providing a larger and more convenient space for the hoisting of large workpieces, and this structure can also clamp Hold it firmly to avoid affecting the engraving accuracy.

　　The claims of this patent are:

　　1. Large-scale vertical three-dimensional engraving machine, including a frame, an engraving cutter head device that can be erected on the frame and can move in a three-dimensional direction relative to a large workpiece for engraving, and a workpiece clamp that is erected on the frame to hold the large workpiece for rotation The workpiece clamping mechanism includes an upper clamping part and a lower clamping part, and is characterized in that: the upper clamping part is arranged on the beam, the frame includes a column for the beam to be erected, and the beam An up-down sliding mechanism is arranged between the vertical column and the horizontal beam, and the horizontal beam is rotatably arranged.

　　2. The large-scale vertical three-dimensional engraving machine according to claim 1, wherein the engraving cutter head device comprises a drill bit and a saw blade arranged in different directions, and the engraving cutter head device can be rotatably arranged, according to the The drill or saw blade needs to be turned towards the large workpiece by the rotation of the engraving head unit.

　　3. The large-scale vertical three-dimensional engraving machine according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: the beam is formed by connecting two separable sections, the outer ends of the two sections of the beam are respectively hinged, and the two sections of the beam are respectively hinged. connected by locking.

　　4. The large-scale vertical three-dimensional engraving machine according to claim 3, characterized in that: the workpiece clamping mechanism and the engraving tool head device are respectively provided with two groups that can simultaneously clamp two large workpieces for simultaneous engraving, and the The upper clamping parts of the two workpiece clamping mechanisms are respectively arranged on the two beams.

　　5. The large-scale vertical three-dimensional engraving machine according to claim 4, wherein the outer end of the beam is hinged with a connecting piece, and the connecting piece is connected with the up and down sliding mechanism.

　　The accompanying drawings of this patent are:

　　Litigation process

　　On March 8, 2018, the plaintiff told the defendant that the above-mentioned patent infringement case was filed in the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for losses of 300,000 yuan.

　　The plaintiff, Xingronghui Machinery Factory, submitted the following evidential materials to the court:

　　1. The basic information of the defendant's enterprise registration;

　　2. The plaintiff's "large vertical three-dimensional engraving machine" utility model patent certificate;

　　3. The plaintiff's "large vertical three-dimensional engraving machine" utility model patent annual fee payment receipt;

　　4. The plaintiff's "large vertical three-dimensional engraving machine" utility model patent evaluation report;

　　5. Photos of the allegedly infringing products produced and sold by the defendant;

　　6. The defendant company's product advertisement booklet;

　　7. (2018) Notarized Certificate of Xia Si Zheng Nei Zi No. 734;

　　8. Notary fee invoice;

　　9. Invoices for attorney fees.

　　The defendant Chaosheng CNC Company submitted the following evidential materials to the court:

　　1. The utility model patent certificate No. ZL201720692891.0, the name of the invention is "Vertical CNC Engraving Machine";

　　2. Invention patent document No. 201510229771.2, utility model patent document No. 201620400879.3, and invention patent document No. 201110322405.3;

　　3. (2018) Minquan Hai Zheng Nei Zi No. 284 "Notarization Certificate", exhibition materials, booth fee invoice;

　　4. (2018) Minquan Hai Zheng Nei Zi No. 285 "Notarization", booth rental contract and exhibition fee invoice;

　　5. (2018) Minquan Haizheng Nei Zi No. 286 "Notary Certificate";

　　6. (2018) Minquan Haizheng Nei Zi No. 287 "Notary Certificate";

　　7. Sales contract;

　　8. Mobile phone screenshots, photo print materials;

　　9. Youku video and online promotional materials screenshots and print materials;

　　The court determined the evidence submitted by the defendant as follows:

　　1. The utility model patent certificate (ZL201720692891.0) submitted by the defendant, the patent certificate is verified with the original, and the court confirms its authenticity, but the application date of the utility model patent right is June 15, 2017, which is later than the case involved The patent application date was March 28, 2017. According to Article 23 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (II), the defendant cannot use the patent authorization as a non-infringement. The defense grounds for the patent right in question.

　　2. Invention patent document No. 201510229771.2, utility model patent document No. 201620400879.3, and invention patent document No. 201110322405.3 submitted by the defendant are consistent with the information found on the website of the State Intellectual Property Office, and the filing date is earlier than the patent application involved It can be used as a comparison document of the prior art, has authenticity, legitimacy, and relevance, and is accepted by the court.

　　3. The court confirmed the authenticity of the (2018) Minquan Haizheng Nei Zi No. 284 "Notarization Certificate" submitted by the defendant, but the pictures displayed in the notarization certificate were not sufficient to reflect all the technical features of the plaintiff's claim. It cannot be proved that the defendant has implemented the alleged infringing technology before the patent application date of the plaintiff; the exhibition materials and booth fee invoices are not relevant to this case, and the court will not accept it.

　　4. (2018) Minquan Haizheng Nei Zi No. 285 "Notarization Certificate", booth rental contract and exhibition fee invoice, the court confirms the authenticity, combined with the statement of the plaintiff and the defendant, it can be proved that the defendant exhibited at the exhibition The alleged infringing products are produced, but the exhibition date is after the filing date of the involved patent, which cannot be used as a defense for the defendant not to infringe the plaintiff's patent right.

　　5. (2018) Minquan Haizheng Nei Zi No. 286 "Notarization", according to Article 12 of "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation", "A party shall provide foreign document evidence or foreign language explanatory materials to the people's court. A Chinese translation is attached.” The attachment to the Notarial Certificate is a foreign language material, but it has not been translated, and the court will not accept it.

　　6. (2018) Min Quan Hai Zheng Nei Zi No. 287 "Notarization Certificate" to confirm the authenticity, but it cannot prove that the photos shown in the "Notarization Certificate" are the alleged infringing products, which are not related to this case. be accepted.

　　7. The sales contract, the contract signing time is March 2, 2017, and the agreed delivery time is before October 5, 2016, which is not logical, and there is no other evidence to prove that the contract has been performed, the authenticity cannot be confirmed, and the court will not. be accepted.

　　8. The authenticity of mobile phone screenshots and photo prints cannot be confirmed, and the court will not accept them.

　　9. The authenticity of Youku videos and online promotional materials cannot be confirmed, and the court will not accept them.

　　According to the analysis, for point 1, the content of Article 23 of "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases (2)" is: "The accused infringing technical solution or design falls into The people's court shall not uphold the protection scope of the prior patent involved in the case, and the accused infringer defends that the patent right in question is not infringed on the grounds that the patent right is granted for its technical solution or design." Therefore, in fact, the defendant believes that the infringing product enjoys the protection of other patents, no matter whether the filing date of the other patent is earlier than the filing date of the patent in question, the defendant's defense that the patent in question is authorized and the defense does not infringe the patent right will not be supported by the court.

　　Regarding point 3, for the notarized prior use certificate, it is also necessary to fully prove that all the technical features within the protection scope of the patent claims involved can be embodied. If it cannot be fully embodied, the fact of prior use cannot be proved.

　　For point 4, prior use must ensure that the time of use is earlier than the filing date of the patent in question.

　　For point 5, the foreign language evidence will not be accepted if the translation is not submitted.

　　Regarding point 6, the photos in the notarial evidence cannot be proved to be the alleged infringing products and shall not be accepted.

　　Regarding point 7, the authenticity of the contradictory evidence is doubtful and will not be accepted.

　　For points 8 and 9, the authenticity of mobile phone screenshots, photo print materials, and website video print materials cannot be confirmed and will not be accepted.

　　Therefore, most of the defenses put forward by the defendant are untenable, and only the three previously disclosed patents in point 2 can be recognized for the defense of the prior art. When determining whether the alleged infringing technical solution belongs to the prior art, if a complete prior art solution discloses all the technical features of the alleged technical solution falling within the scope of patent protection, the alleged infringing technology can be determined The solution belongs to the prior art, and the act of implementing the prior art does not constitute patent infringement. When the defendant compared the prior art, the technical features in different comparison documents were compared with the technical solutions of the accused infringing product, which did not conform to the comparison rules. Therefore, its existing defense reasons were not supported, so all the defendant's 9 defense reasons failed, and the court ordered a compensation of 300,000 yuan.

　　invalid process

　　Seven months after the case was filed by the court, the defendant, as the petitioner, submitted a request for invalidation to the State Intellectual Property Office on October 25, 2018, and submitted a supplementary statement of opinion within one month. In addition to complying with the provisions of Article 26, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, claims 1-5 do not comply with the provisions of Article 26, paragraph 4 of the Patent Law, and claim 1 does not comply with the provisions of Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, It also believes that claims 1 and 3 of this patent do not comply with the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, and claims 1, 3-5 do not comply with the provisions of Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, and submitted the following evidence:

　　Evidence 1: Chinese invention patent with application publication date of February 15, 2012 and application publication number CN102350740A;

　　Evidence 2: A copy of (2018) Min Quan Hai Zheng Nei Zi No. 5067 notary certificate issued by the Straits Notary Office of Quanzhou City, Fujian Province;

　　Evidence 3: A copy of the (2018) Minquan Hai Zheng Nei Zi No. 5513 notary certificate issued by the Straits Notary Office of Quanzhou City, Fujian Province;

　　Evidence 4: Chinese invention patent with application publication date of August 12, 2015 and application publication number CN104827812A.

　　Among them, the notarial certificate of Evidence 2 is for Hong Moumou to use his mobile phone (mobile phone number: xxxxxxxxxxx) to log in the WeChat account of "+86xxxxxxxxxxx" at the notary office, and for the name in his WeChat address book "Canon Machinery Chen Moumou xxxxxxxxxx" Part of the content in the WeChat Moments of ” was notarized. The petitioner believes that some pictures in the WeChat Moments involved in Evidence 2 disclose a vertical three-dimensional engraving machine, which can be used as the prior art for evaluating the novelty and inventiveness of this patent. The notarial certificate of Evidence 3 is a notarization of the video data in a certain website. The petitioner believes that the vertical three-dimensional engraving machine shown in the video can be used as the prior art for evaluating the novelty and creativity of this patent.

　　The reasons put forward by the petitioner that claims 1, 3-5 of the present patent are not novel or inventive are all based on the fact that the pictures related to the vertical three-dimensional engraving machine in Evidence 2 are the closest to the prior art or that the pictures in Evidence 3 involve the The picture of the type three-dimensional engraving machine is the closest to the prior art in this patent.

　　For Evidence 2, the information transmitted by WeChat users through Moments is usually only available to WeChat friends with corresponding permissions, so this information alone is not enough to determine that it can be obtained by the public. In addition, the WeChat Moments involved in Evidence 2 are information released by individuals, and the authenticity of the content released cannot be determined. Therefore, the contents shown in some pictures in the WeChat Moments involved in Evidence 2 cannot be regarded as the prior art for evaluating the novelty and inventiveness of this patent.

　　For Evidence 3, the petitioner did not state the authenticity and publicity of the video in the notary certificate and the relevance of the video content to the facts it certifies in its request and statement of opinion. The authenticity of the content of the video materials cannot be determined, so the claimant's claim that the vertical three-dimensional engraving machine shown in the video of Evidence 3 can be regarded as the prior art for evaluating the novelty and inventiveness of this patent is not supported.

　　Therefore, the invalidity evidence and reasons submitted by the petitioner are untenable, and the claims of this patent are maintained. Subsequently, the court also made a judgment that the infringement was established.

　　Summarize

　　The large-scale engraving machine in this case only involves the arrangement of the beams in the engraving machine and the fixing method of the raw materials. The technical solution is not complicated. The defendant will use the public evidence to put the non-infringement defense in the court or the invalid request in the review and invalidation trial department. In the core position, even in the invalidation, the patent document is not used as the prior art to evaluate the novelty and inventiveness of the patent involved, and the determination of using the disclosed evidence is very strict. It is not a simple disclosure, but to reveal The disclosure of sufficient technical details should still be disclosed in a credible place, not in a circle of friends that can be seen if one wants to see it. In the use of evidence, the defendant also committed mistakes such as not providing translations of foreign language evidence, denying the validity of the patent involved by using the patent of the infringing product, and using the combination method to defend the prior art, resulting in a lose-lose situation between the court and the reexamination and invalidation trial departments. situation.

　　For this case, the author believes that the appropriate way to deal with it is that, when the technical solution is not very complicated and the scope of protection is relatively large, while preparing to use public evidence, it is necessary to actively search for patent documents as prior art to evaluate the novelty of the patent involved. And creativity, you can't just walk with one leg, otherwise, in the case that the court and the patent office are both unfavorable, the loss of compensation is inevitable.