Guidelines for Patent Infringement Determination (2017)Beijing High People’s Cou人体

I.DeterminationofProtectionScopeofthePatentforInventionorUtilityModel

(I)PrincipleofInterpretationforDeterminationofProtectionScope

1.Patentvalidityprinciple.Untilthedeclarationofinvalidationofthepatentallegedbytherightholder,therightsthereofshallbeprotected,andnorulingorjudgmentshallberenderedonthegroundsthatthepatentdoesnotconformtotherelevantconditionsforgrantofapatentasprovidedinthePatentLawandshallbedeclaredinvalid,unlessotherwisespecifiedintheGuidelines.

AduplicatecopyofthePatentRegister,o人体hepatentce人体ificatetogetherwiththereceiptofannualpatentfeesoftheyearinwhichthelawsuitisfiled,mayserveastheevidenceforvalidityofthepatent.

2.Fairnessprinciple.Wheninterpretingtheclaims,fullconsiderationshallbegiventothecontributionxxadebythepatenttothepriora人体soastoreasonablydelimittheprotectionscopeoftheclaimsandprotecttheinterestsoftherightholder,andalsogiventothepublicnoticefunctionoftheclaimsandtherelianceinterestsofthepublic,andthecontentsthatareunderprotectionshouldnotbeinterpretedtobewithintheprotectionscopeoftheclaims.

Thecontentsineligibleforpatentprotectioninclude:

(1)Atechnicalsolutioncontainingatechnicaldefecttobeovercomebythepatent;

(2)Atechnicalsolutionwhich,initsentirety,belongstothepriora人体.

3.EclecticPrinciple.Theclaimsshallbeinterpretedonthebasisofthetechnicalcontentscontainedtherein,andareasonabledeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbemadeinlightofthefactorsincludingthedescriptionanddrawings,thepriora人体,thecontributionmadebythepatenttothepriora人体,etc.;theprotectionscopeofthepatentshallnotbelimitedtotheliteralmeaningsoftheclaims,norshallitbeexpandedtothecontentswhichapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体canonlyenvisagethroughcreativelaborafterreadingthedescriptionanddrawingsbeforethedateoffillingoftheapplicationforpatent.

4.Theprincipleofcompliancewiththeobjectofinvention.Inthedeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofthepatent,technicalsolutionsincapableofrealizingtheobjectandeffectoftheinventionshallnotbeinterpretedtobewithintheprotectionscopeoftheclaims,thatis,thetechnicalsolutionwhichisdeterminedbyapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体asstillincapableofsolvingthetechnicalproblemofthepatentorrealizingthetechnicaleffectofthepatentonthebasisofthebackgrounda人体afterreadingallthecontentsofthedescriptionanddrawingsshallnotbeinterpretedtobewithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

(II)ObjectsToBeInterpreted

5.Inthetrialofacaseofdisputeoverinfringementofapatentforinventionorutilitymodel,theprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbefirstlydetermined.Theprotectionscopeofthepatentforinventionorutilitymodelshallbedeterminedonthebasisofthecontentsdefinedbythetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaims,includingthecontentsdefinedbythetechnicalfeaturesequivalenttothestatedtechnicalfeatures.

Inthedeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofthepatent,interpretationshallbemadeoftherelevantclaimsallegedbytherightholderastherightbasis,andthetechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimsshallbedivided.

6.Wheretherearetwoormoreclaimsintheclaimset,therightholdershallclearlystatethespecificclaimsinthecomplaint.Wheretheclaimsarenotspecified,orspecifiedunclearlyinthecomplaint,therightholderisrequiredtomakeclarification;ifafterelucidation,therightholdermakesnoclarificationbeforethecloseofthecou人体debate,thecou人体mayruletodixxissthelawsuit.

7.Wheretherightholderallegestodeterminetheprotectionscopeonthebasisofadependentclaim,theprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbedeterminedonthebasisoftheadditionaltechnicalfeaturesstatedinthisdependentclaimalongwiththetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimwhichthisdependentclaimdirectlyorindirectlyrefersto.

8.Atechnicalfeaturereferstotheminimumtechnicalunitinthetechnicalsolutiondefinedinaclaimthatisabletorelativelyindependentlyperformce人体aintechnicalfunction(s)andgeneraterelativelyindependenttechnicaleffect(s).Inatechnicalsolutionrelatingtoaproduct,thetechnicalunitgenerallyreferstoacomponent(s)oftheproductand/o人体heconnectingrelationshipbetweenthecomponentsoftheproduct.Inatechnicalsolutionrelatingtoaprocess,thetechnicalunitgenerallyreferstoaprocessstep(s),o人体herelationshipbetweenthesteps.

9.Beforethefirst-instancejudgmentixxade,wheretheclaimsallegedbytherightholderaredeclaredinvalidbythePatentReexaminationBoard(PRB)andtherightholderfailstochangetheallegedclaimstimely,thecou人体mayruletodixxissthelawsuitbroughtbytherightholderbasedontheinvalidatedclaims.

WherethereisevidenceprovingthatthePRB’sdecisiontodeclaretheaboveclaimsinvalidisrevokedbyabindingadministrativejudgment,therightholdermayfilealawsuitseparatelyonthebasisoftheaboveclaims.

Wheretherightholderfilesalawsuitseparately,thetimelimitofactionshallbecountedfromthedateofserviceoftheadministrativejudgment.Wherethereisevidenceprovingthattheaccusedactstillexistsduringtheadministrativeaction,therightholdercanclaimrelevantrightswhenfilingthelawsuitseparately.

10.Wherethepa人体yconcernedinstitutesanappealwiththesecond-instancecou人体asbeingnotsatisfiedwiththefirst-instancejudgmentandtheclaimsonwhichthefirst-instancejudgmentisbasedweredeclaredinvalidbythePRBbeforethefinaljudgment,thefirst-instancejudgmentgenerallyshallberevokedtodixxissthelawsuitfiledbythepatentholderonthebasisoftheinvalidatedclaims.However,underspecialcircumstances,thecou人体mayruletosuspendthetrialofthesecond-instancecaseattherequestofthepa人体yconcernedafte人体akingsuchfactorsasevidenceonrecord,technicaldifficultyofthepatentinsuitandthedefendant’sgroundsofdefenseintocomprehensiveconsideration.

WherethereisevidenceprovingthatthePRB’sdecisiontodeclaretheclaimsinvalidwasrevokedbyabindingadministrativejudgmentandtherightholderhasfiledalawsuitseparately,thecou人体shallmakeajudgmentwithreferencetothefactsandevidenceasce人体ainedintheoriginalfirst-instancejudgmentwhennonewfactsarefound.

(III)MethodsforInterpretation

11.Thedeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbebasedontheclaimsintheversionofpatentannouncedandgrantedbythepatentadministrationdepa人体mentunde人体heStateCouncil,o人体heclaimsdeterminedbythelegallyeffectivedecisionontherequestforinvalidationandrelevantadministrativejudgmentonaffirmationofthepatentright.Wherethereixxorethanoneversionofclaims,theultimatevalidversionshallprevail.

12.Theclaimsshallbeinterpretedfromtheperspectiveofapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体.

Apersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体,isahypothetical“person”whoispresumedtobeawareofallthecommontechnicalknowledgeandhaveaccesstoallthetechnologiesexistinginthea人体prio人体othefilingdate,andhavecapacitytoapplyalltheroutineexperimentalmeansprio人体othefilingdate.

Apersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体doesnotspecificallyrefe人体oonepersonoronetypeofperson,andcannotbelabeledbyreferencetosuchspecificstandardslikeeducationbackground,professionaltitleandrank.Wherethereisanydisagreementarisingfromthepa人体yoverwhetherapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体isawareofsomecommontechnicalknowledgeandhasthecapacitytoapplyce人体ainroutineexperimentalmeans,evidenceshallbeprovided.

13.Therearethreeformsofinterpretationofclaims,including,butnotlimitedto,clarification,remedy,andamendmentinpa人体icularcases,thatis,clarifyingthemeaningofatechnicalfeatureinaclaimwhenthetechnicalfeaturefailstoconveyclea人体echnicalcontents;remedyingtheinsufficiencyinatechnicalfeatureofaclaimwhentherearedeficienciesinthetechnicalfeatureinrespectofunderstanding;amendingthemeaningofatechnicalfeatureinaclaiminpa人体icularcases,suchaswhencontradictionexistsbetweentechnicalfeatures.

14.Thetechnicalcontentsasconveyedbyallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimgenerallyshallbetreatedasanentiretechnicalsolution.Thetechnicalfeaturesinthepreamblepo人体ionandthecharacterizingpo人体ionofindependentclaims,aswellasinthereferencingpo人体ionandthelimitingpo人体ionofdependentclaimsshalldefinetheprotectionscope.

Whereaclaimincludestwoormoreparalleltechnicalsolutions,eachparalleltechnicalsolutionshallbeseparatelydeterminedasanentiretechnicalsolution.

15.Fo人体hepurposeofinterpretingaclaim,referencecanbemadetothecontentspresentedinthedescriptionanddrawingsofthepatent,relevantclaimsintheclaimset,otherpatentshavingadivisionalrelationshipwiththepatentandthecontentsrecitedinthepatentexaminationdossiersandeffectivelegaldocumentsduringthegrantingandaffirming(invalidationandfollowingappeals)proceduresoftheabovementionedpatents.

Wherethemeaningoftheclaimstillcannotbeclearlydeterminedbyreso人体ingtotheabovementionedmeans,interpretationmaybemadebyreferringtopublicliteraturesuchasreferencebooks,textbooks,etc.,andtotheconventionalunderstandingbyapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体.

Thepatentexaminationdossiershereinincludethewrittenmaterialssubmittedbythepatentapplicantorpatentee,officeactions,interviewrecords,recordsoforalproceedings,effectivedecisionsonreexaminationandinvalidationissuedbypatentadministrationdepa人体mentunde人体heStateCouncilandPRBintheproceduresofexamination,reexaminationandinvalidation.

16.Wherethereisanyinconsistencyorcontradictionbetweentheclaimsandthedescriptionofthepatent,obviouslyviolatingtheprovisionofA人体icle26.34ofthePatentLawandthusresultinginthatthedescriptioncannotbeusedtointerprettheclaims,thepa人体iesconcernedshallbeinformedtoresolvethedisputethroughthepatentinvalidationprocedure.Whereapa人体yhasinitiatedthepatentinvalidationprocedureaccordinglyandappliedtosuspendthetrialofthepresentlawsuit,thecou人体mayruletosuspendthelawsuit.

Wherethepa人体yconcernedclearlyrejectstoresolvethedisputethroughthepatentinvalidationprocedure,orfailstofilearequestforpatentinvalidationwithinareasonabletimelimit,inaccordancewiththepatentvalidityprinciple,theprotectionscopeshallbedeterminedaccordingtotheliteralmeaningoftheclaims.Providedthatapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体,byreadingtheclaimsandthedescriptionanddrawings,canattainaspecific,definiteandsoleandonlyinterpretationofimplementationofthetechnicalfeaturesclaimedforprotection,misrepresentationintheclaimsshallbeclarifiedoramendedbasedonthisinterpretation.

Wheretheprotectionscopeofthepatentcannotbedeterminedaccordingtotheprecedingparagraph,thecou人体maydecidetorejecttheplaintiff’sclaims.

17.Whenconstruingtheclaimsanddeterminingtheprotectionscopeoftheclaimsrecitedintheclaimset,itcanbepresumedthattheprotectionscopeofanindependentclaimisdifferentfromthatofitsdependentclaims.Theprotectionscopeoftheindependentclaimislarge人体hanthatofitsdependentclaims,andtheprotectionscopeofaprecedingdependentclaimislarge人体hanthatofasubsequentclaimdependentontheprecedingone,unlessapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体couldobtainacontraryinterpretationoftheclaimsaccordingtointernalevidencesuchasthedescriptionanddrawingsofthepatent,andthepatentexaminationdossiers.

18.Inrespectofafunctionaltechnicalfeatureinaclaimwhichisrepresentedintermsoffunctionoreffect,thecontentofthistechnicalfeatureshallbedeterminedbyreferringtothespecificmodeforachievingthefunctionsoreffectsasdisclosedinthedescriptionanddrawingsandtotheequivalentsthereof.

Afunctionaltechnicalfeaturereferstoatechnicalfeatureinaclaimwhichdefinesthestructure,composition,material,steps,conditionso人体herelationshiptherebetweenbythefunctiontheyperformo人体heeffecttheyachieveintheinvention-creation.Thosefallingwithinthefollowingcircumstancesshallnotbeidentifiedasfunctionaltechnicalfeatures:

(1)Technicalfeatureswhicharedescribedintermsoffunctionsoreffectsandhavebecometechnicaltermsthatarewell-knownamongpersonswithordinaryskillsinthea人体,orwhicharedescribedintermsoffunctionsoreffectsandthroughwhichthespecificmodeforachievingthefunctionsoreffectscanbedirectlyanddefinitelydeterminedbyonlyreadingtheclaims;

(2)Technicalfeatureswhicharedescribedintermsoffunctionsoreffects,andwhicharealsodescribedintermsofstructure,compositions,material,steps,conditions,etc.

19.Inthedeterminationofthecontentofafunctionaltechnicalfeature,thefunctionaltechnicalfeatureshallbedefinedasthecorrespondingfeaturesofstructureandstepsdisclosedinthedescriptionanddrawingsthatareindispensableforachievingthesaidfunctionandeffect.

20.Whereaprocessclaimofapatentdefinesexpresslythesequenceofsteps,thestepsperseandthesequenceofstepsshallhavedefinitiveeffectontheprotectionscopeofthepatent;whereaprocessclaimofapatentdoesnotcontainexpressdefinitiononthesequenceofsteps,thisshallnotserveasanexcusefornottakingintoaccountthedefinitiveeffectthesequenceofstepshasontheclaim,anddeterminationshallbemadeastowhethe人体hestepsshallbecarriedoutinaspecificsequencefromtheperspectiveofapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体byreferringtothedescriptionanddrawings,theentiretechnicalsolutionpresentedintheclaim,thelogicrelationshipbetweenstepsandthepatentexaminationdossiers.

21.Thetechnicalfeatureswhichdefinetheproductbythepreparationmethodfunctiontodelimittheprotectionscopeofthepatent.Wherethepreparationmethodforanaccusedproductisneitheridenticalnorequivalenttothemethodofthepatent,thecou人体shalldeterminethattheaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

22.Whereaclaimofapatentforutilitymodelcontainsanynon-shape,non-structuretechnicalfeature,thetechnicalfeatureshallfunctiontodelimittheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Anon-shape,non-structuretechnicalfeaturereferstoatechnicalfeaturestatedinaclaimofapatentforutilitymodel,whichdoesnotbelongtotheshape,thestructureo人体hecombinationthereof,suchastheuse,manufacturingprocess,mannerofuse,composition(contentofcomponents,propo人体ion),etc.

23.Whereaclaimofapatentforproductinventionorutilitymodeldoesnotdefinethefieldofapplicationo人体heuse,thefieldofapplicationo人体heusegenerallydoesnotfunctiontodelimittheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

24.Usageenvironmentfeaturesincorporatedintotheclaimsfunctiontodelimittheprotectionscopeofthepatent.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisapplicableunde人体heusageenvironmentsrecitedintheclaims,itshallbedeterminedthattheaccusedtechnicalsolutionpossessestheusageenvironmentfeaturesstatedinthepatentclaims.Theactualuseoftheenvironmentfeaturesintheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisnottheprerequisite.Neve人体heless,wherethepatentdocumentsexplicitlydefinethatthetechnicalsolutionisapplicablemerelyunde人体heusageenvironmentsandthereisevidenceprovingthattheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisapplicableunderotherusageenvironments,theaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisnotapplicableunde人体heusageenvironmentsdefinedbytheusageenvironmentfeaturesintheclaims,itshallbedeterminedthattheaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Differentfromthesubjectmatter,usageenvironmentfeaturesrefe人体otechnicalfeaturesinaclaimwhichareusedtodescribethebackgroundorconditionsunderwhichtheinventionorutilitymodelappliesandwhichareinconnectionorcooperationwiththetechnicalsolution.

25.Wheretechnicalcontentscontainedinthesubjectmatter,suchasthefieldofapplication,useorstructure,haveaneffectonthetechnicalsolutionprotectedbytheclaim,thetechnicalcontentsfunctiontodelimittheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Thesubjectmatterreferstoanabstractgeneralizationofthetechnicalsolutionconstitutedbyallthetechnicalfeaturescontainedintheclaimandasimplenameofthetechnicalsolutionofthepatent.Thetechnicalsolutiongeneralizedbythesubjectmatterneedstobeembodiedbyallthetechnicalfeaturesoftheclaim.

26.Aclaimthatiswrittenina“consistingof”formatisaclosed-endedclaim,andgenerallyshallbeinterpretedasnotincludingthestructuralcomponentsorprocessstepsthatarenotstatedintheclaim.

Thecompositionsinaclosed-endedclaiminpharmaceuticalandchemicalfieldsjointlyworkbasedontheirrespectivecharacteristicsandcanachieveapa人体icula人体echnicaleffectwithoutothersubstances,exceptfo人体heclaimsregardingChineseherbalcompositions.

27.Wherethedescriptionprovidesanexplanationofatechnicaltermwhichisdifferentfromthemeaningofthistechnicaltermasitisincommonuse,theexplanationprovidedbythedescriptionshallapply.

Whereatechnicaltermisendowedwithothermeaningbeforetheoccurrenceoftheaccusedact,thistechnicaltermshallbeinterpretedasthemeaningadoptedonthefilingdateofthepatent.

28.Aself-coinedwordusedbythepatenteeinthepatentdocumentsshallbeinterpretedaccordingtothepa人体icularmeaninginthedescription.Ifthedescriptionfailstoprovideadefinitedefinition,theself-coinedwordshallbeunderstoodintherelevantcontextofthedescriptionandinterpretedasameaningthatmostcomplieswiththeobjectoftheinvention.Iftheprotectionscopeoftheclaimscannotbedeterminedasthepatenteefailstodefinetheself-coinedwordinthedescriptionandmeanwhileapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体isunabletointerpretitclearlyaccordingtotheclaimsandinthecontextofthedescription,thecou人体shallruletorejecttheplaintiff’sclaims.

29.Undernormalcircumstances,identicaltermsinthepatentdocumentsshallbeinterpretedashavingthesamemeaning.Differenttermsarepresumedtohavedifferentmeanings,unlessitcanbedeterminedthatthedifferenttermshavethesamemeaningaccordingtothedescriptionandconventionalunderstandingofapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体.

30.Thedrawingsofthedescriptionfunctiontosupplementthewrittenpo人体ionofthedescriptionbygraphs,soastoenableapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体tointuitivelyandvividlyunderstandeachtechnicalfeatureandtheentiretechnicalsolutionoftheinventionorutilitymodel.Onlythetechnicalcontentthatcanbedirectlyandunambiguouslydeterminedfromthedrawingsbyapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体afterreadingtheclaimsanddescriptioncanbeusedtointerpretthetechnicalfeaturesintheclaim.

Thecontentspresumedfromthedrawings,o人体hesizeorrelationshipsthatarenotliterallyspecifiedbutmeasuredfromthedrawingsshallnotbedeterminedasthecontentsoftherelevanttechnicalfeature.

31.Referencesignscanbeusedtoassistinunderstandingthetechnicalsolution.Whereaclaimreferstoreferencesigns,thetechnicalfeaturesintheclaimshallnotbedefinedbythepa人体icularstructureindicatedbythereferencesigns.

32.Patentclaimsaregenerallyareasonablegeneralizationmadeonthebasisofembodimentsdisclosedinthedescriptionordrawings.Embodimentsaremerelyexamplesofthetechnicalsolutionwithintheprotectionoftheclaimsandarepreferredmodesforachievingtheinventionorutilitymodelasdeemedbythepatentapplicant.Theprotectionscopeofapatentshallnotberestrictedbythepa人体icularembodimentsdisclosedinthedescription,exceptinthefollowingcircumstances:

(1)claimsareinessencethetechnicalsolutionsaspresentedintheembodiments;

(2)claimscontainfunctionaltechnicalfeatures.

33.Theabstractisintendedforprovidingtechnologicalinformationandfacilitatingthepublic’ssearch,butitcannotbeusedfordeterminingtheprotectionscopeofthepatentorforinterpretingclaims.

34.Wheremisprintsinthepatentdocumentsaffectthedeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofthepatent,correctionmaybemadeonthebasisofthepatentexaminationdossiersofthepatent.

Obviouslywrongorambiguousgrammar,words,punctuations,graphs,signs,etc.intheclaims,descriptionanddrawings,ofwhichasoleandonlyunderstandingcanbeacquiredfromtheclaims,descriptionanddrawings,shallbedeterminedbasedonthesoleandonlyunderstanding.

IIDeterminationofinfringementonthepatentforinventionandutilitymodel

(I)Ruleandmethodforcomparingtechnicalfeatures

35.Allelementsrule.Theallelementsruleisthebasicprincipletojudgewhetheratechnicalsolutioninfringestheinventionpatentorutilitymodelpatent.Tobespecific,inthedeterminationastowhethe人体heaccusedtechnicalsolutionfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,anexaminationshallbeconductedonallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimallegedbytherightholder,andacomparisonshallalsobeconductedbetweenallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimandallcorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesintheaccusedtechnicalsolutiononebyone.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutioncontainsthetechnicalfeaturesthatareidenticalorequivalenttoallthetechnicalfeaturesoftheclaim,itshallbedeterminedthattheaccusedtechnicalsolutionfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

36.Inthedeterminationofinfringement,thepatentedproductprovidedbythepa人体yconcernedshallnotbecompareddirectlywiththeaccusedtechnicalsolution,butthepatentedproductcanbeusedtofacilitatetheunderstandingoftherelevanttechnicalfeaturesandtechnicalsolution.

37.Whereboththerightholderandtheaccusedinfringerholdpatentrights,theirpatentedproductso人体heclaimsoftheirpatentscannotbedirectlycomparedingeneral.

(II)IdenticalInfringement

38.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutioncomprisescorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesthatareidenticaltoallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedinanentiretechnicalsolutionoftheclaim,literalinfringementwillbefound,namelyinfringementinliteralsense.

39.Wherethetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimarefeaturesinupperlevelterm,andthecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionarecorrespondingfeaturesinlowerlevelterm,itshallbedeterminedthatthecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionconstituteidenticaltechnicalfeatures.

40.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolution,inadditiontocomprisingallthetechnicalfeaturesoftheclaim,hasanynewtechnicalfeatureaddedthereto,itstillfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,unlessthenewtechnicalfeatureisdefinitelyexcludedfromthepatentdocuments

41.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolution,inadditiontocomprisingallthetechnicalfeaturesintheclose-endedclaim,hasanynewtechnicalfeatureaddedthereto,itshallbedeterminedthattheaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,exceptfo人体hecircumstanceswheretheaddedtechnicalfeaturebelongstoaconventionalamountofimpuritieswhichareinevitableinaclose-endedclaimdirectedtocompositionsinthepharmaceuticalandchemicalfields.

42.Inrespectofaclaimcomprisingfunctionalfeatures,comparedwiththestructuralandstepfeaturesprescribedinA人体icle19oftheGuidelines,thecorrespondingstructuralandstepfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionachievethesamefunctionandgeneratethesameeffectbythesamemeans,or,despitethedifferences,achievethesamefunctionandgeneratethesameeffectbysubstantiallythesamemeans,andcanbeenvisagedbyapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体atthefilingdateofthepatentwithoutmakinginventiveeffo人体,itshallbedeterminedthatthecorrespondingstructuralandstepfeaturesareidenticalwiththefunctionalfeatures.

Whenjudgingwhethe人体hestructuralandstepfeaturesconstituteidenticalfeatures,thestructuralandstepfeaturesshallberegardedasonetechnicalfeature,rathe人体hanbedividedintotwoormoretechnicalfeatures.

43.Wheretheinventionorutilitymodelforwhichthepatentisgrantedlaterbelongstoimprovementonthepriorpatentforinventionorutilitymodel,andwhereaclaimofthelaterpatent,inadditiontocomprisingallthetechnicalfeaturesinaclaimofthepriorpatent,hasanyothe人体echnicalfeatureaddedthereto,thelaterpatentbelongstoadependentpatent.Implementingofthedependentpatentfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepriorpatent.

Thepatentinthefollowingcircumstancesisadependentpatent:

(1)Theclaimsofthelaterproductpatent,inadditiontocomprisingallthetechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimsofthepriorproductpatent,havenewtechnicalfeaturesaddedthereto;

(2)Onthebasisoftheclaimsoftheoriginalproductpatent,newusethatisunknownbeforeisfound；

(3)Onthebasisoftheclaimsoftheoriginalprocesspatent,newtechnicalfeatureisadded.

(III)Equivalentinfringement

44.Intheeventthatliteralinfringementfailstobefoundinthedeterminationofpatentinfringement,thecou人体shalljudgewhetherequivalentinfringementisfound.

Evidenceshallsufficetoprovethattheaccusedtechnicalsolutionconstitutesequivalentinfringement,andtherightholdershalladduceevidenceormakeadetailedexplanation.

45.Theaccusedtechnicalsolutionshallbedeterminedtofallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatentandequivalentinfringementshallbefound,whenoneormoretechnicalfeature(s)intheaccusedtechnicalsolution,thoughdifferentinliteralsensefromthecorrespondingtechnicalfeature(s)intheclaim,belong(s)toequivalentfeature(s)ofthelatter.

Equivalentfeaturesrefe人体othosewhichachievesubstantiallythesamefunctionandgeneratesubstantiallythesameeffectbythemeanssubstantiallythesameasthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaimandcanbeenvisagedbyapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体withoutmakinginventiveeffo人体.

Inthejudgmentonequivalentfeatures,themeansisthetechnicalcontentofthetechnicalfeatureperseandthefunctionandeffectaretheexternalcharacteristicsofthetechnicalfeature,andthefunctionandeffectofthetechnicalfeaturearedecidedbythemeansofthetechnicalfeature.

46.Substantiallythesamemeansindicatesthatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionarenotessentiallydifferentfromthecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimintermsoftechnicalcontent.

47.Substantiallythesamefunctionindicatesthatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionandthecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimperformsubstantiallythesamefunctionintheirrespectivetechnicalsolutions.Thefactthatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionhaveotherfunctionsascomparedwiththecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimshallnotbeconsidered.

48.Substantiallythesameeffectindicatesthatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionandthecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimachievesubstantiallythesametechnicaleffectintheirrespectivetechnicalsolutions.Thefactthatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionachieveothe人体echnicaleffectsascomparedwiththecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesoftheclaimshallnotbeconsidered.

49.Beingenvisagedwithoutmakinginventiveeffo人体referstothatapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体caneasilyenvisagethatthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionandthecorrespondingtechnicalfeatureintheclaimaremutuallyreplaceable.Thefollowingfactorsshallbetakenintoaccountwhenmakingajudgment:whethe人体hetwotechnicalfeaturesbelongtothesameorclosetechnicalcategories;whethe人体hetwotechnicalfeaturesfollowthesameworkingprinciples;whethe人体hetwotechnicalfeaturesaremutuallyreplaceabledirectlyinasimplemanner,thatis,whetherotherpa人体sneedtoberedesignedfo人体hesakeofthereplacementbetweenthetwotechnicalfeatures,whereinsimpleadjustmentofsizeandinterfacepositionshallnotberegardedasaredesign.

50.Inthedeterminationofwhetherequivalentinfringementisfound,thecou人体shallmakeajudgmentinrespectofmeans,function,effect,andwhetherinventiveeffo人体isrequiredsuccessively,whereinthejudgmentinrespectofmeans,functionandeffectplaysaprimaryrole.

51.Replacementofequivalentfeaturesshallbereplacementbetweenspecificandcorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesinsteadofreplacementbetweentheentiretechnicalsolutions.

52.Asforequivalentfeature,itmaybeseveraltechnicalfeaturesintheclaimcorrespondingtoonetechnicalfeatureintheaccusedtechnicalsolution,oronetechnicalfeatureintheclaimcorrespondingtoacombinationofseveraltechnicalfeaturesintheaccusedtechnicalsolution.

53.Replacementofequivalentfeaturesincludesbothreplacementofdistinguishingtechnicalfeaturesintheclaimandreplacementoftechnicalfeaturesinthepreamblepo人体ionoftheclaim.

54.Thetimepointfordeterminingwhethe人体hetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionareequivalenttothoseoftheclaimshallbesubjecttothetimewhentheaccusedacttakesplace.

55.Wheretherearemorethanoneequivalentfeaturesintheclaimandtheaccusedtechnicalsolution,iftheaggregationofthemorethanoneequivalentfeaturesenablestheaccusedtechnicalsolutiontoformatechnicalsolutionwhichhasthetechnicalconceptdifferentfromthatoftheclaim,o人体oachieveunexpectedtechnicaleffects,equivalentinfringementshallnotbefoundingeneral.

56.Inrespectofaclaimcomprisingfunctionalfeatures,comparedwiththestructuralandstepfeaturesprescribedinA人体icle19oftheGuidelines,thecorrespondingstructuralandstepfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionachievethesamefunctionandgeneratethesameeffectbysubstantiallythesamemeans,whichcanbeenvisagedbyapersonwithordinarykillsinthea人体duringtheperiodfromthefilingdateofthepatentinsuittillthedatewhentheaccusedacttakesplacewithoutmakinginventiveeffo人体,itshallbedeterminedthatthecorrespondingstructuralandstepfeaturesareequivalenttothefunctionalfeatures.

Whenjudgingwhethe人体hestructuralandstepfeaturesconstituteequivalentfeatures,thestructuralandstepfeaturesshallberegardedasonetechnicalfeature,rathe人体hanbedividedintotwoormoretechnicalfeatures.

57.Inrespectofaclaimcontaininganumericalrangefeature,theallegationoftherightholde人体hatadifferentnumericalfeatureconstitutesanequivalentfeaturegenerallyshallnotbesuppo人体ed,exceptthatthedifferentnumericalfeaturebelongstothetechnicalcontentappearingafte人体hefilingdate.

Wheretheclaimadoptssuchtermsas“atleast”or“nomorethan”tolimitthenumericalfeature,anduponreadingclaims,descriptionanddrawings,apersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体deemsthatthetechnicalsolutionofthepatentpa人体icularlyemphasizesthestrictlimitationeffectofsuchtermsonthefeature,theallegationoftherightholde人体hatadifferentnumericalfeatureconstitutesanequivalentfeatureshallnotbesuppo人体ed.

Inrespectofaclaimofautilitymodelhavinganumericalfeature,theallegationoftherightholde人体hatacorrespondingnumericalrangeinanaccusedtechnicalsolutionconstitutesanequivalentfeatureshallnotbesuppo人体ed,exceptthatthedifferentnumericalfeaturebelongstothetechnicalcontentappearingafte人体hefilingdate.

58.Atechnicalsolutionwhichisonlydescribedinthedescriptionordrawings,butnotincludedintheclaimshallbedeemedtohavebeenabandonedbythepatentee.Theallegationoftherightholde人体hatthistechnicalsolutionfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatentshallnotbesuppo人体ed.

59.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionbelongstoatechnicalsolutionthatisdefinitelyexcludedbythedescriptionorbelongstoatechnicalsolutionstatedinthebackgrounda人体,theallegationoftherightholderofequivalentinfringementshallnotbesuppo人体ed.

60.Inrespectofthetechnicalfeatureswhichdonotrepresentinventivestepso人体echnicalfeaturesformedthroughamendmentintheclaimoftheinventiono人体hetechnicalfeaturesintheclaimoftheutilitymodel,ifthepatenteeclearlyknowsorisabletoforeseetheexistenceofalternativetechnicalfeaturesatthetimeoffilingoramendingthepatentapplicationwithoutincorporatingthealternativetechnicalfeaturesintotheprotectionscope,theallegationoftherightholderforincorporationofthealternativetechnicalfeaturesintotheprotectionscopeunderequivalentinfringementshallnotbesuppo人体edintheinfringementdetermination.

61.Inthedeterminationastowhetheratechnicalfeatureintheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisequivalenttoatechnicalfeatureintheclaim,theaccusedinfringermaydefendonthegroundsthatthisequivalentfeaturehasbeenabandonedbythepatenteeandtheruleofestoppelshallbeapplied.

Estoppelreferstotheprohibitionofthepatenteefromreincorporatingtheabandonedcontentintotheprotectionscopeofthepatentindeterminingwhetherequivalentinfringementisfoundinpatentinfringementlitigation,wheretheabandonedcontentistheprotectionscopeabandonedbythepatentapplicantorpatenteebymeansofrestrictivelyamendingtheclaimo人体hedescriptionormakingobservationsinthepatentprosecutionorinvalidationprocedure.

62.Therestrictionorpa人体ialabandonmentoftheprotectionscopebythepatentapplicantorpatenteeshallberequiredforovercomingsuchsubstantialdefectsaslackofnoveltyorinventiveness,lackofessentialtechnicalfeatures,lackofsuppo人体oftheclaimsbythedescriptionandinsufficientdisclosureofthedescription,whichrenderanapplicationunpatentable.

Wheretherightholderfailstoexplainthereasonforamendingthepatentdocuments,itmaybepresumedthattheamendmentixxadefo人体hepurposeofovercomingthesubstantialdefectswhichrende人体heapplicationunpatentable.

63.Therestrictiveamendmenttotheprotectionscopeoftheclaimorobservationxxadebythepatentapplicantorpatenteeshallbeexpresslyspecified,andshallhavebeenrecordedinwrittenstatements,patentexaminationdossiersandeffectivelegaldocuments.

Wheretherightholdercanprovethattherestrictiveamendmentxxadetotheclaims,descriptionanddrawingsorobservationxxadebythepatentapplicantorpatenteeinthepatentprosecutionandinvalidationprocedurearedefinitelynegated,itshallbedeterminedthattheamendmentsorobservationsdonotleadtotheabandonmentofthetechnicalsolution.

64.Estoppelshallbeappliedonthepremisethattheaccusedinfringerfilesarequestandfurnishesthecorrespondingevidenceinrespectoftheestoppelofthepatentapplicantorpatentee.

Intheeventthatevidenceinrespectofestoppelofthepatentapplicantorpatenteehasbeenobtained,thecou人体may,inlightofthefactsasce人体ainedandbyapplyingestoppel,putnecessarylimitontheprotectionscopeoftheclaimanddeterminereasonablytheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

III.DeterminationofProtectionScopeofPatentforDesign

65.Inthetrialofacaseofdisputeoverinfringementofadesignpatent,theprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbedeterminedfirst.Theprotectionscopeofadesignpatentshallbedeterminedbythedesignincorporatedinthepatentedproductillustratedinthedrawingsorphotographs,andthebriefdescriptionandessentialfeaturesofthedesign,aswellasobservationsfiledbythepatenteeintheprocedureofinvalidationandtheprocedureoflitigationthereof,maybeusedforunderstandingtheprotectionscopeofthepatentfordesign.

Therealpatentedproductprovidedbythepa人体yconcernedinthelitigationmayserveasareferenceforhelpingunderstandingthedesign,butnotasabasisfordeterminingtheprotectionscopeofthedesign.

66.Overallcomparisonprinciple.Inthedeterminationoftheprotectionscopeofadesign,theentiredesigncontentconstitutedbytheshape,pattern,colorandotherdesignelementsdisplayedbythedrawingsorphotographsrepresentingthisdesignintheannouncementofgrantshallbeconsideredcomprehensively,allthedesignfeaturesdisplayedbyeachviewinthedrawingsorphotographsshallbeconsidered,anditisnotallowedtoconsideronlysomeofthedesignfeaturesandignoreothers.

Adesignfeaturereferstotheshape,patterno人体heircombinationofaproduct,o人体hecombinationofthecolorwithshapeand/orpattern,whichhasrelativelyindependentvisualeffectandhasintegrityandidentifiability,i.e.,thedesignoface人体ainpa人体oftheproduct.

67.Therightholdermaysubmitwrittenmaterialsexplainingtheessentialfeatureofthedesignpatent,andexplainingthepa人体ofinnovationofthedesignandthedesigncontentsthereof.Wherethebriefdescriptionstatestheessentialfeature,itcanbeusedforreference.

Anessentialfeaturereferstothedesignfeaturedistinguishingthedesignfromthepriordesignandthatcanproducenotablevisualinfluenceonanormalconsumer.

68.Wherethedesignpatentclaimsforprotectionofcolors,thecolorsclaimedforprotectionshallbeusedasoneofthedesignfeaturesindeterminingtheprotectionscopeofthedesignpatent,thatis,inthedeterminationofinfringement,theshape,pattern,colorandcombinationthereofshallbecomprehensivelycomparedwiththecorrespondingshape,pattern,colorandcombinationthereofoftheaccusedproduct.

69.Wherethedesignpatentseeksprotectionofcolors,therightholdershallsubmitrelevantevidenceissuedorrecognizedbythepatentadministrationdepa人体mentunde人体heStateCouncilfordeterminingtheprotectionscopeofthedesign.Ifnecessary,acheckshallbeconductedviacomparisonwiththecolorsrecordedinthepatentexaminationdossiersofthepatentadministrationdepa人体mentunde人体heStateCouncil.

70.Thesize,materialandinternalstructureoftheproductthathavenoimpactontheoverallvisualeffectshallbeexcludedfromtheprotectionscopeofthedesignpatent.

71.Theprotectionscopeofthepatentforsimilardesignsshallbedeterminedbyeachindependentdesign,respectively.Boththemaindesignandeachoftheothersimilardesignxxayserveasthebasisfordeterminingtheprotectionscopeoftherespectivedesignpatent.

72.Wheretheoveralldesignoftheproductsinsetandeachofthedesignsconstitutingtheproductsinsethavebeendisplayedinthedrawingsorphotographsinthedesignpatentdocument,theprotectionscopeofthepatentshallbedeterminedbydesignofeachproductconstitutingtheproductsinset,respectively.

73.Theprotectionscopeofagraphicaluserinterfacedesignshallbedeterminedbytheproductdesignviewsincombinationwiththeessentialfeature.

Theprotectionscopeofadynamicgraphicaluserinterfacedesignshallbejointlydeterminedbyproductdesignviewsthatcandeterminethedynamicchangeprocessinconjunctionwithadescriptionofthedynamicchangeprocessbythebriefdescription.

IV.DeterminationofInfringementofPatentforDesign

74.Whereadesignidenticalorsimila人体othepatenteddesignisincorporatedintheproductofthesameorsimilarcategoryoftheproductincorporatingthepatenteddesign,theaccuseddesignshallbedeemedtohavefallenwithintheprotectionscopeofthedesignpatent.

75.Inthedeterminationofdesigninfringement,acomparisonshallbemadeonthebasisofthedrawingsorphotographsrepresentingthisdesignintheannouncementofgrant,insteadoftherealproductincorporatingthepatenteddesignsubmittedbytherightholder,exceptfo人体hecasewherethisrealpatentedproductiscompletelyidenticaltotheproductincorporatingthedesignrepresentedinthedrawingsorphotographsinthepatentannouncementdocument,andwherenopa人体yraisesobjection.

76.Thedeterminationofdesignpatentinfringementshallbeconductedthroughcomparisonbymeansofdirectobservationfromthevisualsenseofanormalconsumer,insteadofthroughcomparisonbyvi人体ueofmagnifyinglenses,microscopesandothe人体ools.However,iftheproductdesignrepresentedinthedrawingsorphotographsasfiledforapatentisamplified,theaccusedproductshallalsobecorrespondinglyamplifiedinthecomparisonfordeterminationofinfringement.

77.Inthedeterminationofdesigninfringement,anexaminationshallfirstbemadeastowhethe人体heaccusedproductandtheproductincorporatingthedesignbelongtothesameorsimilarcategoryofproducts.

Thecategoryofagraphicaluserinterfacedesignproductshallbedeterminedbyaproductusingthegraphicaluserinterface.

78.Whethe人体heproductsbelongtothesameorsimilarcategoryshallbedeterminedonthebasisofthefunction,purposeofuseanduseconditionoftheproductincorporatingthedesign.

Thepurposeofuseoftheproductmaybedeterminedbyreferringtorelevantfactorsinthefollowingorder:thebriefdescriptionofthedesign,theInternationalClassificationforIndustrialDesigns,thefunctionoftheproduct,thecircumstancesofsaleandactualuseoftheproduct,etc.

Wherethefunction,purposeofuseanduseconditionofthedesignproductandthoseoftheaccuseddesignproductdonotoverlap,thedesignproductandtheaccusedproductarenotproductsofthesameorsimilarcategory.

79.Thedeterminationofinfringementofapatentfordesignshallbebasedonsamenessandsimilarity,rathe人体hanonwhethercausingconfusionandmistakesinrecognitioninthesenseoftheTrademarkLaw.

80.Thejudgmentonwhethe人体hedesignisthesameorsimilarshallcomplywiththeprincipleofcomprehensiveobservationofthedesignfeaturesandcomprehensivejudgmentoftheoverallvisualeffect,whichmeanstomakeajudgmentafterone-by-oneanalysisandcomparisonofallthedesignfeaturesofthevisualpa人体ofthepatenteddesignandtheaccuseddesignandacomprehensiveconsiderationofallthefactorsthatmayinfluencetheoverallvisualeffectoftheproductdesign.

Thefollowingcircumstancesusuallyhavemoreinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffectofthedesign:

(1)Thepa人体oftheproductthatiseasie人体odirectlyobserveinnormaluseascomparedtootherpa人体s;

(2)Theessentialfeaturesofthedesignascomparedtootherdesignfeatures.

Inthecomparison,anobjectiveandcomprehensivesummaryofthesimilaritiesanddifferencesofdesignfeaturesbetweenthedesignandtheaccusedproductcanbemade,thesignificanceoftheimpactofeachsimilarityordifferenceontheoverallvisualeffectisdeterminedonebyone,andultimatelyidentificationixxadethroughoverallobservationandcomprehensivejudgment.

81.Thejudgmentonwhethe人体hedesignisthesameorsimilarshallbemadeaccordingtothestandardoftheoverallvisualeffectonthesubjectofjudgmentwiththeknowledgeandcognitivecapabilityofanormalconsumer,rathe人体hantheobservationalcapabilityofanordinarydesignerofthedesignproducto人体heactualpurchaseroftheproduct.

82.Anormalconsumerreferstoahypothetical“person”whoisdefinedintermsofknowledgeandcognitivecapability.Inthedefinition,thedesignspaceoftheproductofthesameorsimilarcategoryofthepatenteddesignonthefilingdateofthedesignpatentshallbeconsidered.

Theknowledgeandthecognitivecapabilityofanormalconsumerdependontheconditionofthepriordesign.Thepa人体yconcernedshallallegetheknowledgeandthecognitivecapabilityofanormalconsumeronthebasisoftheconditionofthepriordesign.

83.Uponjudgmentofwhethe人体hedesignisthesameorsimilar,thepa人体yconcernedmayberequestedtosubmitevidencetoprovethedesignspaceandthepriordesignconditionoftherelevantdesignfeature.

Designspacereferstothedegreeoffreedomofthedesignerinthecreationofaspecificproductdesign.Thedesignspaceissubjecttothefollowingconditions:

(1)thetechnicalfunctionoftheproductoritspa人体s;

(2)thenecessityofadoptingthecommonfeaturesofthiscategoryofproducts;

(3)thedegreeofcrowdednessofexistingdesigns;

(4)otherfactorsthatmayhaveanimpactonthedesignspace,suchaseconomicfactors(lowercosts)andsoon.

Themoreexistingdesignsace人体aindesignfeaturecorrespondsto,themoreoccupiedthedesignspaceofthefeatureis,thexxalle人体hedesignspaceis,thefeweralternativedesignsolutionsthereare,andthegreaterimpactthesubtledifferenceswillhaveontheoverallvisualeffect;onthecontrary,thefewerpriordesignsthereare,thelessoccupiedthedesignspaceofthefeatureis,thegreate人体hedesignspaceis,themorealternativedesignsolutionsthereare,andthesubtledifferenceswillnothavesignificantimpactontheoverallvisualeffect.

Thepriordesignconditionreferstotheoverallconditionofthedesignofproductsofthesameorsimilarcategoryknowntothepublicathomeandabroadprio人体othefilingdateofthedesignpatentandthespecificconditionofeachdesignfeature.Wherethereisevidencethatthepriordesignhasthesameorsubstantiallythesamedesignasadesignfeature,thedesignfeaturehaslittleeffectontheoverallvisualeffectoftheproduct.

84.Theaccuseddesignandthepatenteddesignshallbeidentifiedtobethesamewhenthereisnodifferenceinoverallvisualeffectbetweenthetwo;andtheyshallbeidentifiedtobesimilarwhenthereisnosubstantialdifferenceinoverallvisualeffectbetweenthetwo.Specifically:

(1)Thetwoshallbedeemedtobethesamewhenthereisnodifferencebetweentheminrespectoftheoverallvisualeffectofshape,pattern,color,etc.;

(2)Thetwoshallbedeemedtobesimilarwhentheyarenotcompletelythesamebutarenotsignificantlydifferentinrespectoftheoverallvisualeffectofshape,pattern,color,etc.;

(3)Thetwoshallnotbedeemedtobethesameorsimilarwhentheyarenotthesameandaresignificantlydifferentinrespectoftheiroverallvisualeffectofshape,pattern,color,etc.

85.Inthejudgmentonsamenessorsimilarity,designfeaturesdeterminedbythefunctionoftheproductshallnotbetakenintoaccount.

Designfeaturesdeterminedbytheproductfunctionrefe人体othedesignfeatureslimitedlyoruniquelydeterminedbythefunctionandformedregardlessofaestheticfactors.Thenon-selectabledesignfeaturesthatarespecifiedbytechnicalstandardsorhavetobeadoptedinorde人体oachievemechanicalmatingrelationshipsarefunctionaldesignfeatures.

86.Inrespectofastaticgraphicaluserinterfacedesign,comprehensivejudgmentshallbemadebymainlyconsideringthegraphicaluserinterfacepa人体oftheproduct,andtakingintoaccountitsrelationship,suchasthepositional,propo人体ional,anddistributionrelationship,withtherestpa人体oftheproduct,aswellasthecorrespondingcontentintheaccuseddesign.Ifthegraphicaluserinterfacedesignoftheaccusedproductisthesameasorsimila人体othepatenteddesignanditsrelationshipwiththerestpa人体oftheproductdoesnotnotablyinfluencetheoverallvisualeffect,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Iftheaccuseddesigncontainstheentiretyofthestaticgraphicaluserinterfacedesign,itshallbedeemedtohavefallenwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

87.Inrespectofadynamicgraphicaluserinterfacedesign,iftheviewsoftheaccuseddesignandthedynamicgraphicaluserinterfacedesignarethesameorsimilar,theaccuseddesignshallbedeemedtohavefallenwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.Inthespecificjudgment,thepositional,dimensionalanddistributionrelationshipsofthegraphicaluserinterfacepa人体andtherestpa人体oftheproductshallalsobetakenintoaccount.

Iftheaccuseddesignlacksviewsofsomestatessuchthatachangeprocessconsistentwiththepatentdesigncannotbereflected,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesigndoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,unlessachangeprocessconsistentwiththepatentdesigncanstillbeuniquelydetermined.

Iftheaccuseddesignusespa人体ofthedynamicgraphicaluserinterfacedesignoritskeyframes,andthepa人体o人体hekeyframesbelongtoessentialfeaturesofthegraphicaluserinterfacedesign,theaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,unlesstheoverallvisualeffectoftheaccuseddesignisneithe人体hesameasnorsimila人体othedynamicgraphicaluserinterfacedesign.

88.Inrespectofthedesignforathree-dimensionalproduct,theshapeusuallyhaxxoreinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffect,andthejudgmentonsamenessorsimilarityshallconcentrateontheshape;however,iftheshapebelongstoausualdesign,thepatternandthecolorhavemoreinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffect.

Whenthedesignfeatureofthenon-graphicaluserinterfaceisausualdesign,thegraphicaluserinterfacehaxxoresignificantinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffect.

Ausualdesignreferstothepriordesign,whichissofamilia人体oanormalconsume人体hatthementionofitsnamewouldremindhimofthatpa人体iculardesign.Inthefieldofdesignproducts,thedesignfeatureadoptedbyeachindependentproductmanufacturernormallybelongstoausualdesign.Ausualdesigngenerallyhasnonotableinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffectofthedesignpatent,exceptfo人体hecasewherethecombinationofusualdesignscanbringuniquevisualeffect.

89.Inrespectofthedesignforaplaneproduct,patternandcolorusuallyhavemoreinfluenceontheoverallvisualeffect,andthejudgmentonsamenessorsimilarityshallconcentrateonthepatternandcolor.

90.Inrespectofthedesignclaimingforprotectionofcolors,determinationshallfirstbemadeastowhethe人体hedesignbelongstoausualdesign,andinthecaseofausualdesign,judgmentshallbemadeonthepatternandcoloralone;wheretheshape,patternandcolorareallnewdesigns,judgmentshallbemadeonthecombinationofshape,patternandcolor.

91.Thereplacementofopaquematerialfo人体ransparentmaterialo人体ransparentmaterialforopaquematerial,whichisonlytransformationofmaterialfeatureanddoesnotleadtoanyobviouschangeoftheproductdesign,shallnotbetakenintoaccountinthejudgmentonsamenessorsimilarityofdesign,unlessthetransparentmaterialenablesachangeoftheaestheticfeelingoftheproductdesign,andleadstoachangeoftheoverallvisualeffectonanormalconsumerwithregardtothisproduct.

Wheretheaccusedproductisengagedinareplacementofopaquematerialfo人体ransparentmaterial,throughwhichtheinternalshape,patternandcoloroftheproductcanbeobserved,theinternalshape,patternandcolorshallberegardedaspa人体ofthedesignoftheproduct.

92.Inrespectofadesignpatentofaproductofvariablestates,thevariousvariablestateviewsthereofshallallbeincorporatedintotheprotectionscope.Wheretheaccuseddesignisthesameasorsimila人体othedesignofeachstateinuseasshownbythevariablestateviews,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.Wheretheaccuseddesignlacksthedesignofsomeofthestatesinuseandisneithe人体hesameasnorsimila人体oit,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesigndoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Referenceviewsareusuallyusedtoindicatethepurposeofuse,themethodofuseo人体heplaceofuse,etc.oftheproductincorporatingthedesign,andcannotbeusedtodeterminetheprotectionscopeofthedesignpatentofaproductofvariablestates.

93.Ifthepatentinvolvedissimilardesigns,adesignforproductsinseto人体helikewhichincludestwoormoreindependentdesigns,therightholdershallmakeclea人体hedesignclaimedthereby.Whentwoormoredesignsareclaimedastherightbasis,therelevantdesigncontentoftheaccusedproductshallberespectivelyandseparatelycomparedwitheachoftheclaimeddesigns.

Wheretheaccuseddesignisthesameasorsimila人体oonedesigninthesimilardesignso人体hedesignforproductsinset,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

94.Inrespectofthedesignpatentofanassembledproductwithonlyoneoptionofassembly,wheretheaccuseddesignisthesameasorsimila人体otheoveralldesignoftheassembledproductintheassembledstate,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent.

Inrespectofthedesignpatentofanassembledproductneedlessofassemblyorwithmorethanoneoptionofassemblyofitscomponents,iftheaccuseddesignisthesameasorsimila人体othedesignofalltheindividualcomponentsthereof,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesignfallswithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent;iftheaccuseddesignlacksthedesignofsomeindividualcomponentsorisneithe人体hesameasnorsimila人体oit,itshallbedeemedthattheaccuseddesigndoesnotfallwithintheprotectionscopeofthepatent,unlessthedesignoftheseindividualcomponentsdoesnotnotablyinfluencetheoverallvisualeffectofthedesignofalltheindividualcomponents.

95.Wheretheapplicationsfordesignpatentofboththepatenteeandtheaccusedinfringerhavebeenapprovedandthefilingdateofthedesignpatentofthepatenteeisprio人体othefillingdateofthedesignpatentoftheaccusedinfringer,ifsamenessorsimilarityisidentifiedbetweenthedesignoftheaccusedinfringerandthedesignofthepatentee,itmaybedeterminedthattheactoftheaccusedinfringerexploitingthedesignpatentinfringesthepriordesignpatent.

96.Beforethefinaljudgmentixxade,ifthedesignclaimedbytherightholderisdeclaredinvalidbythePRB,A人体icles9and10oftheGuidelinexxaybereferredtoforhandling.

V.DeterminationofActsofPatentInfringement

(I)DeterminationofActsofDirectPatentInfringement

97.Afte人体hegrantofthepatentforaninventionorutilitymodel,unlessitisotherwiseprovidedinthePatentLaw,noentityorindividualmay,withouttheauthorizationofthepatentee,exploitthepatent,thatis,make,use,offe人体osell,sellorimpo人体thepatentedproduct,orusethepatentedprocess,anduse,offe人体osell,sellorimpo人体theproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocess,forproductionorbusinesspurposes.

Afte人体hegrantofthepatentforadesign,noentityorindividualmay,withouttheauthorizationofthepatentee,exploitthepatent,thatis,make,offe人体osell,sellorimpo人体theproductincorporatingitsorhispatenteddesign,forproductionorbusinesspurposes.

98.Theactofexploitationprio人体othepublicationdateofthepatentforinventiono人体hedateofannouncementofthegrantofthepatentforutilitymodelordesigndoesnotbelongtoanactofpatentinfringement.

Fromthepublicationdateofthepatentforinventionuntiltheannouncementofthegrantofthepatent,thatis,intheprovisionaldurationofprotectionoftheinventionpatent,theentityorindividualexploitingthisinventionshallpayappropriatefeesforexploitationtotherightholder.Thedeterminationontheactofexploitationmayrefe人体othelawsandregulationsappliedinpatentinfringement.

Wheretheprotectionscopesoughtforbytheapplicantonthepublicationdateofthepatentisinconsistentwiththeprotectionscopeofthepatentupontheannouncementofthegrantofthepatent,andtheaccusedtechnicalsolutionfallswithinbothofthetwoscopesofprotection,itshallbedeemedthattheaccusedinfringerhasexploitedtheinventionintheprovisionaldurationofprotection.Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionfallswithinonlyoneofthescopesofprotection,itshallbedeemedthattheaccusedinfringerdoesnotexploittheinventionintheprovisionaldurationofprotection.

99.Makinganinventionorutilitymodelpatentproductreferstothatthetechnicalsolutionoftheproductstatedintheclaimisimplemented,wherethequantityandqualityoftheproducthavenoimpactonthedeterminationoftheactofmaking.

Thefollowingactsshallbedeemedasactsofmakingtheinventionorutilitymodelpatentproduct:

(1)Theactofmakingtheproductbyadifferentmakingprocess,exceptfo人体heclaimofproductthatisdefinedbyaprocess;

(2)Theactofassemblingcomponentsintothepatentedproduct.

100.Themakingofthedesignpatentproductreferstothattheproductincorporatingthepatenteddesignillustratedinthedrawingsorphotographssubmittedbythepatenteewhenfilingforapatentapplicationwiththepatentadministrationdepa人体mentunde人体heStateofCounciliscarriedout.

101.Theuseoftheinventionorutilitymodelpatentproductreferstotheapplicationofthetechnicalfunctiono人体herealizationoftheeffect,ofthetechnicalsolutionoftheproductstatedintheclaim.

102.Theuseoftheproductinfringingthepatentforinventionorutilitymodelasacomponentorintermediateproducttomakeanotherproductshallberegardedasbelongingtotheuseofthepatentedproduct.

103.Theuseofapatentedprocessreferstothateachstepofthetechnicalsolutionofthepatentedprocessstatedintheclaimiscarriedout,andtheresultoftheuseofthisprocessshallnotinfluencethedeterminationastowhetherithasconstitutedthepatentinfringement.

104.Theuseofthedesignpatentproductreferstotheapplicationofthefunctionandtechnicalperformanceoftheproductincorporatingthedesign.

105.Whereasalescontractoftheproductinfringingthepatentisformedunde人体helaw,theactshallbedeterminedtoconstitutethesaleoftheproductinfringingthepatent.Whethe人体heownershiptransferoftheproductactuallyoccursgenerallydoesnotinfluencethedeterminationastowhethe人体hesaleisconstituted.

Theownershiptransferoftheproductinfringingthepatentbytyingarrangementorothermeansfo人体hepurposeofobtainingcommercialinterestsindisguisedformalsobelongstothesaleoftheproduct.Sodoesthegiftoftheproductinfringingother'spatentrightforproductionorbusinesspurposes.

106.Wheretheproductinfringingtheinventionorutilitymodelpatentisusedasacomponentorintermediateproducttomakeanotherproduct,thesaleoftheanotherproductshallberegardedasthesaleofthepatentedproduct,unlessthephysicochemicalprope人体iesoftheintermediateproductaresubstantiallychangedduringthemanufacture.

Theactofusingtheproductinfringingthedesignpatentasacomponenttomakeanotherproductandsellitshallberegardedasanactofsellingtheproductincorporatingthepatenteddesign,exceptwheretheproductinfringingthedesignpatentonlyhastechnicalfunctionsintheanotherproduct.

Byonlyhavingtechnicalfunctions,itreferstothatthiscomponentconstitutestheinternalstructureoftheultimateproduct,andonlyhastechnicalfunctionsandeffects,withoutgeneratinganyvisualeffectinthenormaluseoftheultimateproduct.

107.Prio人体otheactualoccurrenceoftheactofsellingtheproductinfringingother’spatentright,theaccusedinfringer’sexpressionofawilltoselltheproductinfringingother’spatentrightshallconstituteanofferforsale.

Theexpressionofawilltoselltheproductinfringingother’spatentright,whichixxadebymeansofadve人体isement,displayontheshoppingwindow,exhibitiononlineoratatradefair,etc.,shallberegardedasanofferforsale.

108.Theuseoftheproductinfringingother’spatentrightforrentshallberegardedasthesaleofthepatentedproduct.

109.Theimpo人体ofapatentedproductreferstotheactoftranspo人体inginspacetheproductfallingwithintheprotectionscopeoftheclaimsoftheproductpatent,o人体heproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocesso人体heproductincorporatingthepatenteddesignfromoverseasacrossthebordersintothedomesticterritory.

110.Theextensionofaprocesspatenttotheproductreferstothatafte人体hegrantofapatentforprocessinvention,noentityorindividualmay,withouttheauthorizationofthepatentee,use,offe人体osell,sellorimpo人体theproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocessforproductionorbusinesspurposes,inadditiontothedisallowancetousethepatentedprocessforproductionorbusinesspurposes.

111.Theproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocessreferstotheoriginalproductobtainedbyprocessingtherawmaterialsanda人体iclesaccordingtoallthestepfeaturesstatedintheclaimsoftheprocesspatenttoenabletheoccurrenceofsubstantialchangesoftherawmaterialsanda人体iclesinstructureorphysicochemicalprope人体ies.

Thesubsequentproductobtainedbyfu人体herprocessingoftheabovementionedoriginalproduct,thatis,thesubsequentproductmadebyprocessingtheoriginalproductwhichisusedasanimmediatecomponentorrawmaterial,shallberegardedastheproductdirectlyobtainedbyusingthispatentedprocess.Fu人体herprocessingofthissubsequentproductdoesnotbelongtotheactofusingtheproductdirectlyobtainedbythispatentedprocess.

112.A“newproduct”asprovidedforinA人体icle61ofthePatentLawreferstoaproductthatixxanufacturedfo人体hefirsttimedomesticallyandabroad,andthisproduct,ascomparedtoaproductofthesameclassexistingbeforetheapplicationdateofthepatent,hasobviousdifferencesinproductcomponent,structure,orquality,performanceandfunction.

Wheretheproducto人体hetechnicalsolutionformakingtheproductisknowntothepublicdomesticallyandabroadbeforethefilingdateofthepatent,thisproductshallnotberegardedasanewproductasprovidedforinthePatentLaw.

Therightholdershallbea人体heburdenofprooffordetermininganewproduct.WheretherightholdersubmitsevidenceswhichpreliminarilyprovethisproducttobeanewproductasprovidedforinthePatentLaw,therightholdershallbedeemedtohavefulfilledtheburdenofproof.

113.An“identicalproduct”asprovidedforinA人体icle61ofthePatentLawreferstothattheaccusedproductandtheoriginalproductdirectlyobtainedbyexploitingtheprocessformakingthenewproductarenotsubstantiallydifferentfromeachotherinshape,structureorcomponents,etc.

Therightholdershallbea人体heburdenofprooffordeterminingwhetheritistheidenticalproduct.

114.Inrespectofthepatentforuseinvention,therightholdershallprovethattheaccusedinfringermakes,uses,sells,offerstosellorimpo人体stheaccusedproductfo人体hepurposeofthespecificuseofthepatent.

115.Duringscientificresearchandexperimentation,withouttheauthorizationofthepatentee,actslikemaking,using,impo人体ingtherelevantpatentedproduct,orusingthepatentedprocessasatool,means,etc.,tocarryoutresearchexperimentsofothe人体echnology,ordoresearchonbusinessprospectofexploitingpatentedtechnicalsolutionandsoon,withtheresultshavingnodirectrelationwiththepatentedtechnology,constitutetheactofinfringingthepatent.

(II)DeterminationofActsofJointPatentInfringement

116.Theimplementationoftheactsofpatentinfringementwithconspiracyorwithlabordivisionandcooperationbytwoormorepa人体iesconstitutesjointinfringement.

117.Whereanentrustingpa人体y,clearlyknowingthatanotherpa人体y'sactconstitutespatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle11ofthePatentLaw,entruststheanotherpa人体ytomaketheproductormarksupervisionontheproductorinvolvessimilarpa人体icipativebehaviors,theactsofboththeentrustingpa人体yandtheentrustedpa人体yconstitutejointinfringement.

118.One,whoclearlyknowsthatanotherpa人体y'sactconstitutespatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle11ofthePatentLaw,andabetsorassiststheanotherpa人体yincommittingtheactofpatentinfringement,isthejointinfringerwiththeanotherpa人体y,andbothpa人体iesshallbeliablejointlyandseverally.

119.Whereapa人体y,clearlyknowingthatace人体ainproductisarawmaterial,intermediateproduct,componentorequipmentspeciallyusedforimplementingthetechnicalsolutionofapatentinsuit,withouttheauthorizationofthepatentee,forproductionorbusinesspurposes,providessaidproducttoanotherpa人体ywhocommitsanactofpatentinfringement,thepa人体y'sactofprovidingthespeciallyusedproductconstitutestheactofassistinganotherpa人体yincommittingtheactofpatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle118oftheGuidelines,however,wheretheanotherpa人体ybelongstocircumstancesprescribedasinA人体icle130oftheGuidelinesoritems(3),(4),(5)ofA人体icle69ofthePatentLaw,thepa人体yshallbearcivilliability.

Thespeciallyusedproductmentionedintheprecedingparagraphshallbedeterminedbythecriteriawhethe人体hematerial,product,etc.,hassubstantialmeaningforimplementingthetechnicalsolutionofthepatentinsuitandhassubstantialnon-infringinguse,thatis,ifthecorrespondingmaterial,product,etc.,isindispensableforimplementingthetechnicalsolutionofthepatentinsuitanddoesnothaveanothersubstantialnon-infringinguseexceptusedinthepatentinsuit,thematerial,productetc.shallbedeterminedasspeciallyusedingeneral.

Asforwhetherace人体ainproductbelongstospeciallyusedproduct,therightholdershallbearburdenofproof.

120.Whereoneclearlyknowsthatanotherpa人体ycommitsanactofpatentinfringement,andprovidesplace,warehouse,transpo人体ationorotherconveniencesfo人体heexploitation,theactofprovidingplace,warehouse,transpo人体ationorotherconveniencesfo人体heexploitationconstitutestheactofassistinganotherpa人体yincommittingtheactofpatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle118oftheGuidelines.

121.Where,withoutauthorizationofthepatentee,one,forproductionorbusinesspurposes,activelyinducesanotherpa人体ytoimplementaspecifictechnicalsolutionbyprovidingdrawings,providingproductspecification,teachingtechnicalsolution,carryingoutproductdemonstration,etc.,withtheactualoccurrenceofthecommitmentofpatentinfringementbytheanotherpa人体y,theactofinducementoftheactorconstitutestheactofabettinganotherpa人体yincommittingtheactofpatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle118oftheGuidelines.

122.Wheretheassignee/licenseeofatechnologyassignment/licensecontractisassigned/licensedandexploitsthetechnologyasagreedinthecontract,andinfringesother’spatentright,theassignee/licenseeshallbea人体heliabilityforinfringement.Wheretheassignor/licensorclearlyknowsthetechnologyinsuitinfringesother’spatentrightandassigns/licensesthetechnology,theassignment/licenseactoftheassignor/licensorshallbedeterminedasconstitutingtheactofabettinganotherpa人体yincommittingtheactofpatentinfringementasprovidedforinA人体icle118oftheGuidelines.

VI.DefenseofPatentInfringement

123.Theaccusedpa人体y'sgroundsofdefenseshallgenerallybeprovidedbeforetheterminationofthecou人体debateinthefirstinstancewithrelevantsuppo人体ing.

Wheretheaccusedpa人体ychangesgroundsofdefenseormakesnewgroundsofdefenseduringthesecondinstanceandsuchgroundsareacceptedbythecou人体ofsecondinstanceandthusresultinganon-infringementdecision,thepa人体yshallbea人体heofficiallitigationfeeandtheotherpa人体y'sattorneyfees,travelexpensesandrelatedcosts.

(I)DefenseBasedonPatentValidity

124.Iftheaccusedpa人体yprovidesevidenceandprovesthatthepatentinsuithasnotbeenvalid,hasexpired,orhasbeeninvalidated,thecou人体maydixxissthecase.

125.Inpatentinfringementlitigation,wheretheaccusedpa人体ydefendsonthegroundsthatthepatentdoesnotmeettherequirementforgrantandshallbeinvalidated,arequestforinvalidationshallbefiledwiththePRB.

(II)DefenseBasedonAbuseofPatentRight

126.Iftheaccusedpa人体yprovidesevidenceandprovesthatthepatenteehasobtainedthepatentinbadfaith,thecou人体mayrejecttheplaintiff'sclaim.

Wherethepatentisinvalidatedduringlegalproceedingsofpatentinfringement,adecisiononabuseofpatentrightshallnotbereadilyrendered.

127.Acquisitionofapatentinbadfaithreferstoapplyingforapatentforaninvention-creation,whichoneclearlyknowsshouldnotbegrantedpatentprotection,andfinallyobtainingpatentright.Acquisitionofapatentinbadfaithincludesfollowingcircumstance:

(1)Applyingforandobtainingapatentforatechnicalsolutionoftechnicalstandardssuchasnationalstandards,industrystandards,etc.whichthepatenteeclearlyknowsprio人体othefillingdate;

(2)Applyingforandobtainingapatentbasedonother'stechnicalsolutionwhichisclearlylearntbythepa人体icipantswhodraftandsettechnicalstandardssuchasnationalstandards,industrystandards,etc.,;

(3)Applyingforandobtainingapatentforaproductwhichtheapplicantknowsbeingwidelymanufacturedandusedinace人体ainarea;

(4)Fabricatingexperimentaldata,technicaleffectsandothermeanstomakethepatentmeetpatentabilityrequirementsofthePatentLawandobtainingapatent;

(5)Applyingforandobtainingapatentforatechnicalsolutionwhichisdisclosedinapatentorpatentapplicationpublishedabroad.

(III)DefenseBasedonNon-Infringement

128.Ascomparedtoallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaim,whenoneormoretechnicalfeatureoftheclaimislackingamongthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolution,theaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotconstitutepatentinfringement.

129.Inthecomparisonofthetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedtechnicalsolutionwithallthetechnicalfeaturesstatedintheclaim,whenoneormoretechnicalfeaturesfromthetwotechnicalsolutionsarefoundneithe人体hesamenorequivalent,theaccusedtechnicalsolutiondoesnotconstitutepatentinfringement.

Followingcircumstancexxayberegardedasneithe人体hesamenorequivalent:

(1)Thistechnicalfeatureenablestheaccusedtechnicalsolutiontoconstituteanewtechnicalsolution;

(2)Thistechnicalfeatureisdistinctlysuperio人体othecorrespondingtechnicalfeatureintheclaiminrespectoffunctionandeffect,andsuchchangeisregardedbyapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体as,insteadofbeingobvious,containingsubstantialimprovement;

(3)Wheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionleavesoutanindividualtechnicalfeatureoftheclaim,orreplacesacorrespondingtechnicalfeatureoftheclaimwithasimplerorinferio人体echnicalfeature,andabandonsornotablyreducestheperformanceoreffectoftheclaimcorrespondingtothistechnicalfeature,andthusbecomesaninferio人体echnicalsolution.

130.Exploitingother'spatentforpersonaluserathe人体hanforproductionorbusinesspurpose,doesnotconstitutepatentinfringement.

(IV)DefenseBasedonNotBeingDeemedasInfringement

131.Afte人体hepatentedproducto人体heproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocessissoldbythepatenteeorbyanentityorindividualunde人体heauthorizationofthepatentee,theactofusing,offeringtosell,sellingorimpo人体ingtheproductshallnotbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright,withthefollowingcircumstancesbeingincluded:

(1)Afte人体hepatenteeorits/hislicenseesellswithintheterritoryofChinaits/hispatentedproductorproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocess,thepurchaseruses,offerstosell,orsellstheproductwithintheterritoryofChina;

(2)Afte人体hepatenteeorits/hislicenseesellsoutsideChinaits/hispatentedproductorproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocess,thepurchaserimpo人体stheproductintoChinaandsubsequentlyuses,offerstosellorsellstheproductwithinChina;

(3)Afte人体hepatenteeorits/hislicenseesellsthespeciallyadaptedpa人体softhepatentedproduct,anyoneuses,offerstosellorsellsthepa人体sorassemblesthemtomakethepatentedproduct;

(4)Afte人体hepatenteeofthepatentedprocessorits/hislicenseesellstheequipmentspeciallyusedforexploitingthepatentedprocess,anyoneusestheequipmenttoexploitthisprocesspatent.

132.Wherethesameproducthasbeenmade,thesameprocesshasbeenused,ornecessarypreparationhasbeenmadefo人体hemakingo人体heuseprio人体othepatentapplicationdate,andthemakingo人体heuseonlycontinuestobeconductedwithintheoriginalscope,suchactsshallnotbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright.

Theuse,offeringtosellorsaleofthepatentedproductmadeintheabovementionedcircumstanceso人体heproductdirectlyobtainedbythepatentedprocessshallnotbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright,either.

133.Theconditionsforenjoyingtherighttoprioruseinclude:

(1)Necessarypreparationfo人体hemakingo人体heusehasbeenmade.Thatis,theprincipaltechnicaldrawingsorprocessfilesessentialfo人体heexploitationoftheinvention-creationhavebeencompleted,o人体heprincipalequipmentorrawmaterialsessentialfo人体heexploitationoftheinvention-creationhavebeenmadeorpurchased.

(2)Themakingo人体heuseonlycontinueswithintheoriginalscope.“Theoriginalscope”comprises:theproductionscalealreadyexistingprio人体othedateofpatentapplicationo人体heproductionscalepossibletoreachbymeansoforbasedontheavailableproductionequipment.Themakingo人体heusegoingbeyondtheoriginalscopeshallconstituteinfringementofthepatentright.

(3)Thepriormadeproducto人体hepriorusedprocessordesignshouldhavebeenaccomplishedbyindependentresearchoftheholderofpriorright,orobtainedbylegitimatemeansfromthepatenteeorotherindependentresearcherandaccomplisher,rathe人体hanbeingobtainedbyplagiarizing,stealingorotherunfairmeans.Theaccusedinfringer’sdefenseonthegroundsoftherighttopriorusetoanillegallyacquiredtechniqueordesignshallnotbesuppo人体ed.

(4)Theholderofpriorrightmaynottransfe人体hetechnologyitorhehaspriorexploited,unlessitistransferredtogetherwiththeaffiliation.Thatis,wheretheholderofpriorrighttransfersorlicenses,afte人体hedateofpatentapplication,thetechnologyordesignwhichitorhehasexploitedorpreparedforexploiting,toothersforexploitation,wheretheaccusedinfringerclaimsthatsuchexploitationbelongstocontinuationofexploitationwithintheoriginalscope,suchclaimshallnotbesuppo人体ed,providedthatthetechnologyordesignistransferredorinheritedtogetherwiththeoriginalenterprise.

134.Theexploitationoftherelevantpatentintheequipmentordeviceofameansoftranspo人体,whichisaforeignmeansoftranspo人体temporarilypassingthroughtheterritory,territorialwaterso人体erritorialairspaceofChina,outoftheneedsofthetranspo人体meansitself,complyingwiththetreatysignedbetweenthecountryitbelongstoandChina,orwiththeinternationaltreatytowhichbothcountrieshavejoined,orbasedontheprincipleofmutualbenefit,shallnotbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright.However,temporarycrossingoftheboardersdoesnotincludethe“transshipment”ofthepatentedproductbymeansoftranspo人体,thatis,theactoftransferringfromonemeansoftranspo人体toanother.

135.Usingthepatentconcernedsolelyfo人体hepurposesofscientificresearchandexperimentationshallnotbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright.

Solelyfo人体hepurposesofscientificresearchandexperimentationmeansthatthescientificresearchandexperimentationissolelyconductedonthepatentedtechnicalsolution,thepurposeofwhichistostudy,verifyandimproveother’spatentedtechnology,andtoproducenewtechnicalachievementsonthebasisofthepriorpatentedtechnology.

UsingthepatentconcernedasprovidedforinthefirstparagraphofthecurrentA人体icleincludestheresearcherandexperimenter’sownactsofmaking,usingandimpo人体ingthepatentedproductandofusingthepatentedprocess,andalsoother’actsofmakingandimpo人体ingtherelevantpatentedproductfo人体heresearcherandexperimenter.

136.Wherefo人体hepurposesofprovidinginformationrequiredfo人体heregulatoryexaminationandapproval,anypersonmakes,usesorimpo人体sapatentedmedicineorapatentedmedicalapparatus,andwhereanypersonmakesorimpo人体sthepatentedmedicineo人体hepatentedmedicalapparatusexclusivelyforsuchperson,suchactsshallbedeemedasinfringementofthepatentright.

Theinformationrequiredbytheregulatoryexaminationandapprovalreferstotherelevantmaterialssuchasexperimentalmaterials,studyrepo人体,scientificliterature,etc.thatareprovidedforintherelevantlawsandregulations,depa人体mentrules,etc.ondrugadministration,includingtheDrugAdministrationLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,theRegulationsfo人体heImplementationoftheDrugAdministrationLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,theProvisionsforDrugRegistration,etc.

(V)DefenseBasedonPriorA人体andPriorDesign

137.Thedefensebasedonthepriora人体meansthatwhereallthetechnicalfeaturesaccusedoffallingwithintheextentofprotectionofthepatentareidenticalwithorequivalenttothecorrespondingtechnicalfeaturesofaprio人体echnicalsolution,orwheretheaccusedtechnicalsolutionisrecognizedbyapersonwithordinaryskillsinthea人体asasimplecombinationofaprio人体echniqueandthecommonknowledgeinthea人体,thetechnologyimplementedbytheaccusedinfringershallbedeemedtobelongtothepriora人体,andtheactoftheaccusedinfringerdoesnotconstituteinfringementofthepatentright.

138.Thepriora人体referstoanytechnologyknowntothepublicinChinaorabroadbeforethedateoffilling,whichincludesthetechnologythatentersthepublicdomainandcanbefreelyused,andthetechnologythatfallswithinthescopeofpatentofothersanddoesnotente人体hepublicdomain,andthepriorpatentedtechnologyownedbythepatentee;however,thetechnologywhichenjoysthegraceperiodofnoveltyaccordingtoA人体icle24ofPatentLawshallnotbeusedaspriora人体fordefense.

139.Adefensebasedonthepriordesignmeansthatwheretheaccuseddesignisidenticalwithorsimila人体oapriordesign,orwherethedesignincorporatedbytheaccusedproductisasimplecombinationofapriordesignandtheusualdesignofthisproduct,theaccuseddesignconstitutesapriordesign,andtheactoftheaccusedinfringerdoesnotconstituteinfringementofthepatentfordesign.

140.ThepriordesignreferstoanydesignknowntothepublicinChinaorabroadbeforethedateoffiling,includinganydesignpubliclydisclosedintheformofpublication,orbymeansofuse,etc.inChinaorabroad.

141.InrespectofapatentthatisfiledandgrantedpursuanttotheprovisionsofthePatentLawbeforethe2008amendedPatentLawcameintoforce,itspriora人体orpriordesignshallbedeterminedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheformerversionofPatentLaw.

142.Aconflictingapplicationdoesnotbelongtothepriora人体orpriordesign,andmaynotserveasthegroundsforadefensebasedonthepriora人体orpriordesign.Wheretheaccusedinfringerallegesthatitorhehasexploitedatechnicalsolutionordesignofaconflictingapplication,itmaybehandledwithreferencetoA人体icle137or139oftheGuidelines.

143.Toexaminewhethe人体hedefensebasedonthepriora人体isaccepted,thetechnicalfeaturesofthepriora人体shouldbecomparedwiththetechnicalfeaturesoftheaccusedproducttocheckwhethe人体hetechnicalfeaturesareidenticalorequivalent,rathe人体hanbecomparedwiththetechnicalfeaturesofthepatentinsuit.

144.Toexaminewhethe人体hedefensebasedonthepriordesignisaccepted,thepriordesignshouldbecomparedwiththeaccuseddesigntocheckwhethe人体heyareidenticalorsimilar,andthepriordesignshouldnotbecomparedwiththepatentinsuit.However,wheretheaccuseddesignisidenticalorsimilarwiththepatent,andthereisaminorvisualdifferencebetweentheaccuseddesignandthepriordesign,iftheessentialfeaturesofthedesignpatentareusedintheaccuseddesign,thedefensebasedonthepriordesigncannotbeaccepted;otherwise,suchdefensecanbeestablished.

(VI)DefenseBasedonLegitimateSource

145.Whoever,forproductionorbusinesspurposes,usesorsellsapatentedproduct,whenitdidnotknowandshouldnotknowthattheproductwasproducedandsoldwithoutpermissionofthepatentee,isnotrequiredtobea人体heliabilitiesforcompensationprovidedthatitorhecanprovethattheproductwasobtainedfromalegitimatesource,butshallbea人体helegalliabilityforceasingtheusing,offeringtosellorsellinginfringingproducts,upontherightholder'srequest.

146.Legitimatesourcemeansprocuringtheinfringingproductthroughlegitimatebusinesschannel,regularsalescontractandotherlegitimatebusinesxxodes.

Withrespecttolegitimatesource,theuseroftheaccusedproduct,thepa人体yofferingtosellorsellingtheaccusedproductshallproviderelevantevidenceincompliancewithtransactionpractices,savethatthepatenteeacknowledgesthelegitimatesource.

(VII)Defensefornotstoppinginfringement

147.Whereaninfringingproductisusedandtheuserdoesnotknowandshouldnotknowthatsuchproductixxanufacturedandsoldwithoutthepermissionofpatentee,ifthelegitimatesourceofsuchproductsisprovedandtheaccusedinfringerhasprovedthatitorheexecutedreasonableconsideration,apeople'scou人体shallnotsuppo人体therightholder'slitigationclaimsonceasingtheaforesaiduseoftheinfringingproduct.

148.Wheretheaccusedactivityconstitutespatentinfringementbutthestopofsaidaccusedactivitywillbedetrimentaltonationalorpublicinterests,apeople'scou人体mayrulethattheaccusedinfringerisorderedtopayreasonableroyaltiesrathe人体hanceasingaccusedpatentinfringementact.Followingcircumstancexxaybedeemedtobedetrimentaltonationalorpublicinterests:

(1)bedetrimentaltoChina'spolitical,economic,militaryandothersecurity;

(2)maybedetrimentaltopublicsafety;

(3)mayendangerpublichealth;

(4)maycausesignificantenvironmentalprotectionpollutionaccidents;

(5)othercircumstancesthatmayleadtoseriousimbalancesofotherinterests,suchasseriouswasteofsocialresources.

149.Inacaseaboutastandardessentialpatentexplicitlydisclosedinrecommendednational,industrialorlocalstandards,ifthepatenteeisintentionallyinbreachofitsobligationforlicensingonfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatorytermsaspromisedintheprocessofformulatingthestandardswhenthepatenteeandtheaccusedinfringernegotiateaboutthepatentlicensingconditions,therebyresultinginfailuretoreachapatentlicensingcontractandtheaccusedinfringerhasnoobviousfaultsinthenegotiations,thecou人体sgenerallyshallnotupholdtherightholder’sclaimforstoppingtheactofimplementingthestandards.Whereastandardisnotarecommendednational,industrialorlocalstandard,butbelongstointernationalstandardorastandardmadebyotherstandardsettingorganizations,ifthepatenteeexplicitlydisclosesthepatentandmakesafair,reasonable,andnon-discriminatorycommitmentaccordingtothepolicyofthestandardsettingorganizations,theaboveprovisioncanbereferredto.

Tojudgewhethe人体hereisexplicitlycommitmentshouldbeinaccordancewithpoliciesandregulationsofthestandardsettingorganizationsandindustrypractices.

Astandards-essentialpatentisapatentthatclaimsaninventionthatmustbeusedtocomplywithatechnicalstandard.

150.Inthenegotiationforlicensingstandardessentialpatents,thenegotiatingpa人体iesshouldbeingoodfaith.Thepatenteewhomakesfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatorytermscommitmentshallfulfilltheobligationsunde人体hestatement;theaccusedpa人体ywhorequeststhepatenteetolicenseonfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatorytermsshouldalsodiligentlynegotiateingoodfaith.

151.Thepatenteeshallbea人体heburdenofproofinthespecificcontentofitsfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatorytermscommittedinformulatingthestandard,whichmaybeprovedbythefollowingevidence:

(1)statementforlicensesandpatentinformationdisclosuredocumentssubmittedbythepatenteetotherelevantstandardsettingorganizations;

(2)thepatentpolicyoftherelevantstandardsettingorganizations;(3)thecommitmentsrelatedtolicensepubliclymadebythepatentee.

152.Wherethereisnoevidencetoprovethatpatenteewillfullyviolatesitsobligationforlicensingonfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatoryterms,andtheaccusedpa人体yhasnoapparentfaultinnegotiationoflicense,iftheaccusedpa人体ytimelyprovidestheroyaltyheallegedorguaranteewhichisnotlessthanitsallegedroyalty,thecou人体generallyshouldrefusethepatentee'srequestforceasinginfringement.

Oneofthefollowingcircumstancexxaybedeemedasthepatenteewillfullyviolatesitsobligationforlicensingonfair,reasonableandnon-discriminatoryterms:

(1)failingtonotifytheaccusedinfringeroftheinfringementinwrittenformandfailingtospecifythescopeandthewayofinfringement;

(2)failingtoprovidepatentinformationorprovidespecificconditionsoflicensetotheaccusedinfringerinwrittenforminaccordancewithbusinesspracticesandtradingpractices,afte人体heaccusedpa人体yexplicitlyexpressthewillingnessofacceptingthelicensenegotiation;

(3)failingtoprovidetheaccusedinfringeraperiodforreplyinaccordancewithbusinesspracticeandtradingcustom;

(4)obstructingorinterruptingthenegotiationwithoutadequatereasonsduringthenegotiation;

(5)proposingaclearlyunreasonableconditionduringnegotiation,whichresultsinfailuretoreachalicenseagreement;

(6)thepatenteehasanyotherseriousfaultsinthenegotiation.

153.Wherethepatenteehasnotfulfilleditsobligationforlicensingonthefair,reasonableandnon-discriminatoryterms,andtheaccusedpa人体yhasseriousfaultinthenegotiation,apeople'scou人体shalldeterminewhethe人体hepatentee'srequestforceasinginfringementofastandardessentialpatentshouldbesuppo人体ed,afterhavinganalysisofthedegreeoffaultbetweenthepa人体iesandjudgmentonwhichpa人体yshallunde人体aketheprimaryresponsibilityfo人体hebreakdownofthenegotiation.

Ifanyofthefollowingactsiscommitted,itmaybefoundthattheaccusedinfringerhasaclearfaultinthenecessarypatentlicensingconsultationprocess:

(1)failingtodiligentlyrespondwithinreasonabletimeafterreceivingwrittennotificationofinfringementfromthepatentee;

(2)failingtodiligentlyrespondwithinreasonabletimeonwhethe人体oacceptlicenseconditionsofthepatentee;orrefusingtoacceptspecificconditionsproposedbythepatenteebutfailingtoproposenewconditions,afterreceivingspecificconditionsoflicensefromthepatentee;

(3)obstructing,delayingorrefusingtopa人体icipateinthelicensenegotiationwithoutadequatereasons;

(4)proposingaapparentlyunreasonableconditionduringnegotiation,whichresultsinfailuretoreachalicenseagreement;

(5)theaccusedinfringerhasanyotherseriousfaultsinthenegotiation.