Page 138 - 2017 White Paper
P. 138
7 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
for 14 cases, conducting technical consultation for 122 instance and the second instance, Shuanghuan Company
cases, and issuing 110 technical investigation reports. added a claim of requesting the court order Honda to
Meanwhile, the trial quality and efficiency of the technical compensate its economic losses, attorney fees, evaluation
cases has improved significantly. fees, and litigation fees in the amount of 25,791,390 yuan
in the lawsuit of determination of non-infringement it
2. The System of Evidence Disclosure initiated on April 26th 2008 on the grounds that Honda
had constantly sent demand letters, and as a result,
The plaintiff generally has preliminary evidence to Shuanghuan Company delayed in putting its automobiles
prove that the defendant infringed its patent rights in the into the market, transformed the appearance and moulds
case of intellectual property infringement, but it is difficult of its automobiles, causing its economic losses. Honda
to provide detailed documents, such as the quantity of was dissatisfied with the administrative ruling and
production or whether the defendant’s product falls in applied for retrial. The Supreme People’s Court made
the scope of its patent claims, to prove it was infringed. an Administrative Judgement (2010) Xing TiZi No. 3 on
Because of this, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court November 26th 2010 as to the validity of the concerned
began to use the system of evidence disclosure. The patent right, ruling to revoke the decision. After the
so-called system of evidence disclosure comes from patent right was declared valid, Honda increased the
Anglo-American law. In this system, the plaintiff can file amount of its claim for infringement and filed a lawsuit
an application to the court to request the defendant to of infringement against Shuanghuan Company, etc. with
submit all the relevant financial, business, technology the Hebei Provincial High People’s Court. The Supreme
reports to the court. The plaintiff can organize experts, People’s Court ordered the Hebei High People’s Court
academics and lawyers to study the documents provided to be the court of the first instance and to try the case
by the defendant so as to reduce the difficulties of proof that had been tried by the Shijiazhuang Intermediate
and enforce the protection of intellectual property People’s Court who determined the non-establishment
rights. The system requires the defendant must submit of infringement together. The Hebei Provincial High
the documents upon the Court’s request, otherwise the People’s Court accepted the two cases separately on
defendant could face serious sanctions including case January 16th 2013 and tried the cases. On April 1st 2014,
dismissal. the Shuanghuan Company increased its claimed amount,
requesting compensation of 365,740,000 yuan on the
Significant Cases grounds that Honda sent demand letters and spread
adverse publicity that damaged its right to operate and
Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. its reputation. The Hebei Provincial High People’s Court
and Honda Motor Company Limited made the original judgement regarding this case: the
concerned automobiles manufactured and sold by
1. Case Brief Shuanghuan Company did not infringe upon the patent
right of Honda and Honda should compensate economic
Honda Motor Company Limited (Honda) sent a losses in the amount of 50 million yuan (inclusive of
demand letter to Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. the reasonable expenses for rights protection) to the
(Shuanghuan Company) on the grounds that Shuanghuan Shuanghuan Company; dismissed the other claims of
Company was suspected of infringing the appearance Shuanghuan Company. Both the Shuanghuan Company
design of Honda’s automobiles and initiated a lawsuit of and Honda were dissatisfied with this judgement and
patent infringement in 2003. The Shuanghuan Company appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme
filed a lawsuit with Shijiazhuang Intermediate Court on People’s Court ruled that the concerned automobiles
October 16th 2003, requesting the court to determine manufactured and sold by Shuanghuan Company did
that the manufacturing and the sales of the appearance not infringe upon the patent right of Honda and Honda
design of the automobile concerned had not infringed should compensate the Shuanghuan Company for its
upon the patent rights concerned and later requested economic losses in the amount of 16 million yuan.
the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO declare the
patent right concerned invalid. After the administrative 2. Comment
decision that declared the concerned patent right invalid
was sustained after administrative trials of the first This case involved objections of jurisdiction, correlated
litigation aspects of patent right’s infringement and
138
for 14 cases, conducting technical consultation for 122 instance and the second instance, Shuanghuan Company
cases, and issuing 110 technical investigation reports. added a claim of requesting the court order Honda to
Meanwhile, the trial quality and efficiency of the technical compensate its economic losses, attorney fees, evaluation
cases has improved significantly. fees, and litigation fees in the amount of 25,791,390 yuan
in the lawsuit of determination of non-infringement it
2. The System of Evidence Disclosure initiated on April 26th 2008 on the grounds that Honda
had constantly sent demand letters, and as a result,
The plaintiff generally has preliminary evidence to Shuanghuan Company delayed in putting its automobiles
prove that the defendant infringed its patent rights in the into the market, transformed the appearance and moulds
case of intellectual property infringement, but it is difficult of its automobiles, causing its economic losses. Honda
to provide detailed documents, such as the quantity of was dissatisfied with the administrative ruling and
production or whether the defendant’s product falls in applied for retrial. The Supreme People’s Court made
the scope of its patent claims, to prove it was infringed. an Administrative Judgement (2010) Xing TiZi No. 3 on
Because of this, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court November 26th 2010 as to the validity of the concerned
began to use the system of evidence disclosure. The patent right, ruling to revoke the decision. After the
so-called system of evidence disclosure comes from patent right was declared valid, Honda increased the
Anglo-American law. In this system, the plaintiff can file amount of its claim for infringement and filed a lawsuit
an application to the court to request the defendant to of infringement against Shuanghuan Company, etc. with
submit all the relevant financial, business, technology the Hebei Provincial High People’s Court. The Supreme
reports to the court. The plaintiff can organize experts, People’s Court ordered the Hebei High People’s Court
academics and lawyers to study the documents provided to be the court of the first instance and to try the case
by the defendant so as to reduce the difficulties of proof that had been tried by the Shijiazhuang Intermediate
and enforce the protection of intellectual property People’s Court who determined the non-establishment
rights. The system requires the defendant must submit of infringement together. The Hebei Provincial High
the documents upon the Court’s request, otherwise the People’s Court accepted the two cases separately on
defendant could face serious sanctions including case January 16th 2013 and tried the cases. On April 1st 2014,
dismissal. the Shuanghuan Company increased its claimed amount,
requesting compensation of 365,740,000 yuan on the
Significant Cases grounds that Honda sent demand letters and spread
adverse publicity that damaged its right to operate and
Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. its reputation. The Hebei Provincial High People’s Court
and Honda Motor Company Limited made the original judgement regarding this case: the
concerned automobiles manufactured and sold by
1. Case Brief Shuanghuan Company did not infringe upon the patent
right of Honda and Honda should compensate economic
Honda Motor Company Limited (Honda) sent a losses in the amount of 50 million yuan (inclusive of
demand letter to Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. the reasonable expenses for rights protection) to the
(Shuanghuan Company) on the grounds that Shuanghuan Shuanghuan Company; dismissed the other claims of
Company was suspected of infringing the appearance Shuanghuan Company. Both the Shuanghuan Company
design of Honda’s automobiles and initiated a lawsuit of and Honda were dissatisfied with this judgement and
patent infringement in 2003. The Shuanghuan Company appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The Supreme
filed a lawsuit with Shijiazhuang Intermediate Court on People’s Court ruled that the concerned automobiles
October 16th 2003, requesting the court to determine manufactured and sold by Shuanghuan Company did
that the manufacturing and the sales of the appearance not infringe upon the patent right of Honda and Honda
design of the automobile concerned had not infringed should compensate the Shuanghuan Company for its
upon the patent rights concerned and later requested economic losses in the amount of 16 million yuan.
the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO declare the
patent right concerned invalid. After the administrative 2. Comment
decision that declared the concerned patent right invalid
was sustained after administrative trials of the first This case involved objections of jurisdiction, correlated
litigation aspects of patent right’s infringement and
138
