Case Summary
Our client operates in the conveyor belt repair business. The patentee filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, alleging that the method used by our client in its contracted conveyor belt repair projects embodied its patented method, and claimed hundreds of thousands of yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses.
The client retained Shengzhi lawyers to represent it in the first-instance proceedings. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court eventually rejected all of the patentee’s claims, ruling that the method employed by our client did not constitute patent infringement. The patentee subsequently appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, and the client continued to entrust Shengzhi lawyers with the second-instance representation.
Case Handling Process
In response to the patentee’s infringement allegations, Shengzhi lawyers conducted an in-depth analysis of the scope of protection of the patent claims and the accused infringing method, and presented defenses from two perspectives: non-infringement defense and prior art defense, with the non-infringement defense as the core argument.
For the non-infringement defense, Shengzhi lawyers contended that the sequence of steps in the accused method was inconsistent with that specified in the patent claims, and that the corresponding technical features of each individual step were neither identical nor equivalent. Accordingly, the accused method did not constitute patent infringement.
After trial, the Supreme People’s Court held that for method inventions with a specific step sequence, both the steps themselves and their order are essential technical features of the method patent and shall define the scope of patent protection.
Ultimately, the SPC fully adopted Shengzhi’s defense opinions in the second instance, ruled that the accused method did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent right, and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment. Our client was exempt from any infringement liability, successfully avoiding hundreds of thousands of yuan in economic losses and damage to its business reputation.
Legal Insights
Pursuant to Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases, the step sequence of a method patent is one of the core elements for infringement determination. If there are substantial differences in the step sequence between the accused method and the method recited in the patent claims, and the technical features are neither identical nor equivalent, no infringement is constituted.
In this case, through detailed comparison of the step sequence and technical details between the patent and the accused method, Shengzhi lawyers successfully demonstrated the dual defense logic of “difference in step sequence” and “non-equivalence of technical features”, providing key support for the court’s non-infringement conclusion.
This case serves as a typical winning example of “step sequence defense” in method patent infringement disputes, reflecting the following judicial orientations:
Strict application of the all-elements rule: The court adopts a restrictive interpretation of the scope of method patent protection, requiring that the accused technical solution must fully reproduce all steps and their sequence as set forth in the patent claims.
Encouraging technological improvement and free competition: Judicial practice tends to be cautious in applying the doctrine of equivalents, so as to avoid hindering technological progress by over-expanding the scope of patent protection.
Equal emphasis on procedural justice and evidence rules: In upholding the first-instance ruling, the appellate court particularly highlighted the integrity of the evidence chain and the logical rigor of technical comparison, underscoring the growing specialization of patent case adjudication.
(Note: The above content is compiled from judicial precedents and practical experience. Specific strategies shall be adjusted according to individual cases. When encountering patent disputes, enterprises are advised to engage professional lawyers as early as possible to formulate targeted solutions.)
