Case Brief

Shenzhen Zudian Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zudian) is the owner of the patent for utility model No. 201720131230.0, entitled "A Dynamic Password USB Wire Rod". Zudian considered that Shenzhen Simsukian Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Simsukian) and several others had committed infringement acts and filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province. Simsukian and several others argued that since Zudian applied for the patent for utility model involved in the case and the related patent for utility model, which relate to substantially the same technical solution, on the same day, and the related patent had been declared invalid, the patent involved should be invalid as well based on the same reason, and argued that the claim of Zudian shall be rejected accordingly. The court of first instance found that the technical solutions of the two patents were substantially the same, and that the patent involved may apparently or very likely be invalidated, and therefore rejected Zudian's claim. Zudian appealed from the judgment. During the procedure of the second instance, Simsukian filed a request for invalidation of the patent involved. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the case may be properly disposed at judicial discretion in the case where the stability of the patent involved is doubtful or disputed and there are multiple alternative handling methods in the subsequent trial procedure. Both parties, after seeking clarification of the case, voluntarily made a commitment to compensate for the future interest in view of the stability of the patent right. Based on the basic facts of the case, the evidence in the case and the commitment of both parties, the Supreme People's Court disposed the case in accordance with the principle "determine to dismiss the appeal and then allow for a separate appeal", and ruled to revoke the judgment of the first instance and dismissed the appeal.

Typical Significance

In this case, the People's Court tried for the first time to guide the parties to voluntarily make a commitment to compensate for future interest in view of the uncertainty of the outcome of the administrative confirmation procedure of the patent involved, which had already been started. For a case involving the judgment and determination of patent infringement, if the stability of the patent right in question is doubtful or disputed, the People's Court may, for fairness and good faith, encourage and guide the parties to voluntarily make a commitment or declaration to compensate for the relevant future interest, which not only effectively expedites the trial process, but also appropriately balances the substantive benefits of the parties.

(Source of the case: website of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)