Nanjing Intermediate Court Rules on SEP Patent Royalty Dispute between Huawei and Conversant

The Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing Municipality has given a first-instance judgment in three cases brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, Huawei Device Co. Ltd & Huawei Software Technologies Co. Ltd against Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.

Conversant and Huawei had been unable to reach agreement on a royalty rate for three   of Conversant’s standard essential patents (SEPs), Conversant claiming that the rate proposed by Huawei did not meet the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) requirements.   Huawei brought an action in the Intermediate People’s Court of Nanjing, seeking a non-infringement declaration and a determination of royalties.

The Court declined to make a non-infringement declaration, but determined the royalties that should be paid to Conversant.

Whereas Conversant had argued that royalties should be calculated on the basis of ‘Comparable Licences’ (i.e. on the basis of other licences for the same patent) the Court used the Top-Down method (i.e. taking the aggregate royalties payable in relation to all SEPs covering a particular standard and then allocating a portion to the individual SEP concerned).

The appeal period has not yet expired.

 

华为诉康文森确认不侵犯专利权及标准必要专利使用费纠纷三案一审宣判

9月16日,江苏省南京市中级人民法院就合并审理的华为技术有限公司、华为终端有限公司、华为软件技术有限公司起诉康文森无线许可公司确认不侵犯专利权及标准必要专利使用费纠纷三案作出一审判决。

在该案审理中,双方争议的核心为许可费率。法院经审理,最终采用了自上而下计算FRAND许可费率法,确定标准必要专利的中国费率的计算公式为:单族专利的中国费率=标准在中国的行业累积费率×单族专利的贡献占比,并以此作出前述判决。据了解,该案是南京中院作出的首例标准必要专利许可费纠纷。

法院对华为公司与康文森公司所涉及的标准必要专利许可费率予以确认,并且华为公司仅需就一件专利技术方案的4G移动终端产品向被告康文森公司支付许可费。

与此同时,法院对许可专利、许可产品、许可行为进行明确。首先,在许可专利上,法院确认康文森公司所有以及有权做出许可的、声称并实际满足2G、3G、4G标准或技术规范且为原告华为公司所实际实施的全部中国必要专利。其次,许可产品为华为公司的移动终端产品,即手机和有蜂窝通信功能的平板电脑;最后,许可行为包括制造、销售、许诺销售、进口许可产品,以及在许可产品上使用许可专利。对华为公司请求确认在中国制造、销售、许诺销售移动终端产品的行为不侵犯康文森公司享有的3件发明专利权的诉讼请求,法院不予支持。

目前,本案仍在上诉期中

 

Foreo awarded 3 Million Yuan (approx. US$ 426,081) in Design Patent Infringement Action

Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court gave a first-instance judgment in a design patent infringement case: Foreo (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. v. Zhongshan kingdomcares Electric Appliance Co., Lt;, Zhuhai kingdomcares Electric Appliance Co., Lt; and. Shanghai Zhuo Kang(卓康) Industrial Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff has a design patent entitled ‘Face Cleaner (ii)’ for its ‘Foreo Luna Smart Facial Cleansing Brush’. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has held that the Defendants’ product falls within the scope of the patent: it has a similar overall shape to the patented design, similar arrangement of bristles and raised arcs, a similarly positioned set of buttons, and similar charging port.   Although there are some differences, they are not sufficiently substantial to affect the overall impression.

The three Defendants were ordered to immediately stop infringing the Plaintiff’s design patent.

The first two Defendants, Zhongshan kingdomcares Company and Zhuhai kingdomcares Company, were ordered to compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable expenses amounting to 3 million yuan (approx. US$ 426,081). The Defendant Zhuo Kang(卓康) Company was held to be jointly liable for compensation up to 50,000 yuan (approx. US$ 7,101).

 

网红LUNA洁面仪因专利被侵权获赔300万元

近日,上海知产法院对原告斐珞尔(上海)贸易有限公司诉被告珠海金稻电器有限公司、中山市金稻电器有限公司、上海卓康实业有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案作出一审判决,

判令三被告立即停止侵害原告享有的名称为“面部清洁器(二)”的外观设计专利权,被告珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司赔偿原告经济损失及合理费用300万元,被告卓康公司在5万元范围内承担连带赔偿责任。

上海知产法院审理后认为,原告系名称为“面部清洁器(二)”、专利号为ZL201330013432.2的外观设计专利的专利权人,在该专利权有效期内,任何单位或个人未经原告许可,都不得实施其专利。

本案被诉侵权洁面仪和原告涉案专利产品均为洁面仪,属于相同种类的产品。

被诉侵权洁面仪与涉案专利的外观设计相比,在整体外形结构、刷毛及凸起弧线的排列分布、按钮及充电口的位置设置上均基本一致。

虽然被诉侵权洁面仪和涉案专利之间确实存在一些区别,但对整体视觉效果不产生实质性影响,被诉侵权洁面仪的设计落入原告外观设计专利权的保护范围。

JOEONE Wins Trademark Infringement Case - damages award of 2 Million Yuan (approx. US$ 284,054)

Recently, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province made a second-instance judgment in a trademark infringement and unfair competition action brought by Joeone Co Ltd against Shanghai Kaisahuang Industry Co, Ltd., Shanghai Zijing Trading Co, Ltd., and Chi Mo long. The Court found that use of trademarks ‘MUWANG’ ‘MuWang and its pinyin’ by the two defendants infringed Joeone’s exclusive rights to the trademark ‘Jiu Mu Wang’ and other trademarks. The Defendants were ordered jointly to compensate the company for a total loss of 2 million yuan (approx. US$ 284,054).

The Higher People's Court of Fujian held that the ‘Jiu Mu Wang’ brand has a high reputation in the industry and that Kaisahuang Company and Zijing Company, as competitors in the same industry, would have been aware of its popularity.

As the trademark they were using, -which had been registered by a company controlled by the third Defendant - was similar, they had a high duty of care to ensure that confusion was avoided. In fact, they made significant changes to the mark, deliberately highlighting the words ‘Mu Wang’ and the similarity between the two marks. The Defendants had the intention of free riding on the Plaintiff’s reputation and use of their mark was likely to cause confusion among general consumers.

In determining the amount of compensation, the Higher People’s Court of Fujian held that the relevant evidence indicated that the total sales value of ‘Mu wang’ products in the Muwang flagship store during the period from 23 June 2016 to 21 March 2018 amounted to more than 60 million yuan (approx. US$ 8,521,637). Referring to the average sales profit rate in China's garment industry, it determined that the profit from the production and sale of infringing apparel products would have been substantial .

 

九牧王公司赢得商标纠纷案 二审获赔200万元

近日,福建省高级人民法院就九牧王股份有限公司起诉上海凯撒皇实业有限公司、上海紫敬贸易有限公司、池某隆商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案作出二审判决,认定二公司使用“MUWANG牧王”“牧王及拼音”等商标的行为侵犯了九牧王公司对“九牧王及拼音”等系列商标的注册商标专用权,三被告需共同赔偿九牧王公司经济损失等200万元。

福建高院经审理认为,“九牧王”品牌在同业内具有较高知名度,凯撒皇公司、紫敬公司作为同业竞争者,对“九牧王”品牌的知名度显然是知悉的,

由于第801503号商标与涉案权利商标亦存在相似元素,则凯撒皇公司、紫敬公司在商业经营中应负有更高的审慎注意义务,对自身的商标应当进行严格的规范使用,以合理避让涉案权利商标,避免造成冲突。

凯撒皇公司、紫敬公司对第801503号商标进行改变显著性的拆分使用,在被诉侵权产品上刻意突出与权利商标相近似的“牧王”文字,主观上具有傍品牌、搭便车的故意,客观上也会造成一般消费者的混淆误认。

在赔偿数额确定上,福建高院认为,相关证据表明,牧王旗舰店”在2016年6月23日至2018年3月21日期间涉及“牧王”商品的销售总金额达到6000多万元,

参考中国服装行业平均销售利润率,可以认定二公司生产、销售涉案侵权服装产品的金额及获利额较大。因并无证据证明池某隆对注册数量众多的商标有进行实际的商业运营和使用,二审法院在综合考虑该案具体情况后,依法将该案赔偿额调整为200万元。

 

Huawei Seeks 20 Million Yuan Compensation in Copyright Infringement action against Rival Chinese Phone Manufacturer, Shenzhen Transsion

Huawei claims to be the owner of copyright in a mobile phone wallpaper artwork design, ‘Pearl Aurora Pearl Theme Wallpaper’. It has commenced copyright infringement proceedings against rival phone maker Shenzhen Transsion in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, seeking compensation of 20 million yuan (approx. US$ 2.8 million). Shenzhen Transsion has for several years been the top seller of mobile phones in Africa.

In response to Huawei’s claims, Shenzhen Transsion and its related subsidiaries simply adjusted the colour purity of the ‘Pearl Aurora Pearl Theme Wallpaper’ and continued to use the artwork as the preset wallpaper on the HiOS4.1 and HiOS5.0 systems, as well as in promotional material.

Huawei has requested the Court to order Shenzhen Transsion and its five subsidiaries to stop the infringement immediately; pay compensation and costs of 20 million yuan (approx. US$2.8 million); and make a public apology to Huawei on the official website. 

The case has been accepted, but not yet heard.

 

因著作权侵权 传音科创板上市前夕被华为起诉索赔两千万

华为认为其是“珍珠极光Pearl主题壁纸”美术作品的著作权所有权人,

而传音控股及其相关子公司将“珍珠极光Pearl主题壁纸”美术作品仅简单调整色彩纯度后持续用在所开发的HiOS4.1和HiOS5.0系统预置壁纸中,并在发布会、网页展示、广告等宣传中使用该壁纸,

前述行为侵犯了华为的署名权、修改权等人身权利。华为请求法院判令传音控股及其前述五家子公司:立即停止侵权、赔偿华为经济损失及为制止侵权支出的合理费用人民币2000万元、就侵权事实在官方网站向华为公开致歉、承担本案的全部诉讼费用。

目前案件已受理,但暂未开庭审理。