|
Recently, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court issued a Judgment of first instance for the patent infringement dispute case JUKI Corporation v. Zhejiang New Jack Sewing Machine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter New Jack company), Shanghai Yao Jie Sewing Machine Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Yao Jie company)
Plaintiff JUKI corporation is a world famous sewing machine manufacturer and enjoys a number of patents relating to manufacturing of sewing machines. On November 6, 2001, the Plaintiff was granted an invention patent in China named “chain-stitch screw-shaping method and chain-stitch sewing machine”. Recently, JUKI corporation has discovered a lot of sewing machines manufactured by New Jack company that infringes JUKI’s patent right, so JUKI filed a lawsuit against New Jack company and its distributor Jie Yao company with the people’s court, asking the two companies to stop the infringement and compensate for its losses.
During the hearing, in order to prove that the sewing machine manufactured by New Jack and distributed by Jie Yao has infringed JUKI’s patent right, JUKI provided the court with the following evidence: (1) certificate of the invention patent; (2) Description of the invention patent; (3) copy of the patent registration book; (4) notarial deed issued by the notary office of Luwan District Shanghai (including the sewing machine, photos, the invoice, business card, etc.); (5) invoice of the attorney fee; (6) notarial deed issued by No. 1 notary office of Huangpu District Shanghai; (7) notarial deed issued by notary office of Taizhou Zhejiang; (8) franchise distribution authorization document of Defendant Jie Yao company for selling sewing machines manufactured by Defendant New Jack company, photos of business place of Defendant Jie Yao company, etc. However, defendants New Jack and Jie Yao held that the disputed sewing machine was not manufactured or distributed by New Jack and New Jack’s trademark had also been worked off by others, so they pleaded with the court for dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims against them.
During the hearing the court found that the Plaintiff JUKI Corporation is a famous sewing machine manufacturer established in Japan and it has acquired in accordance with the Chinese law the invention patent named “chain-stitch screw-shaping method and chain-stitch sewing machine”; the Defendant New Jack company is a sewing machine manufacturer established in the People’s Republic of China which manufactures the series products bearing the registered trademark “JACK”. After comparison, the model JK-T373 sewing machine manufactured by New Jack company was found to have a good many sameness or similarities to the disputed infringing sewing machine, with respect to the packaging, machine head and base, specifications, packing list and accessories, etc; besides the distributor Jie Yao company was a franchise distributor of New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine was purchased from the Jie Yao company. Combining the foresaid facts, the court determined that the disputed infringing sewing machine was manufactured and distributed by the Defendant New Jack company. In the mean time, the two companies, New Jack and Jie Yao both confirmed that relevant technologies of the disputed sewing machine should fall in the protection scope of the Plaintiff’s disputed patent. Therefore the manufacturing and distributing conduct of New Jack company and the distributing conduct of Jie Yao company have both constituted infringement on the Plaintiff’s patent right. With regard to the liabilities to be born by the two companies, the court held that since the foresaid conducts have both infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right, Defendant New Jack company should immediately stop manufacturing and distributing the infringing sewing machines infringing and Defendant Jie Yao company should immediately stop distributing the infringing sewing machines; with regard to determination on the compensation amount, the court held that since the Plaintiff did not provide evidence for the actual losses and could not prove the actual sales amount and illegal profits of Defendant New Jack company, the court would take into account various factors including type of the disputed patent, lasting period and range of the defendant’s infringement and their subjective fault, to determine the amount of the compensation.
Finally, the court issued the Judgment of first instance, ordering that Defendant New Jack company should stop manufacturing and distributing the sewing machines that infringed JUKI’s invention patent; Defendant Jie Yao company should immediately stop distributing the sewing machines that infringed JUKI’s invention patent; Defendant New Jack company should compensate RMB 120,000 for Plaintiff JUKI’s economic losses; Defendant New Jack and Defendant Jie Yao company should bear related liability to compensate RMB 60,000 for JUKI’s reasonable expenses.
In this case, although New Jack company and Jie Yao company both do not object to that the disputed infringing product should fall in the protection scope of JUKI’s patent, yet since Plaintiff JUKI could not provide direct evidence to prove that the infringing product was manufactured by Defendant New Jack company, New Jack company denied the product was manufactured by it. Under this circumstance, if it can not be identified that the product was manufactured by New Jack company, the Plaintiff would not be able to ask New Jack to stop the infringement and claim for compensation. In this case, the court, according to the principle of discretional evaluation of evidence and the rule of evidence probabilism, finally determined the manufacturer of the disputed infringing product was New Jack company.
According to Article 64 of the Rules on Evidence, the court should, in accordance with the law, follow the work ethics of a judge and apply logic reasoning and daily experience to make an independent judgment as to whether the evidence is valid or how much the validity is valued and make public the reasons for the judgment and the result. That is to say, the law does not provide for the extent of validity of the evidence and for how to apply the evidence, which shall be determined, accepted or rejected by the judge according to his own reasoning and free judgment. Among the foresaid, daily experience shall refer to any general knowledge, experience, common sense or principle that may be used to deduce unknown facts based on known facts; logic reasoning shall refer to the deducing tools mainly including law of identity, law of contradiction that are used to deduce know facts into unknown facts. As for this case, although Plaintiff JUKI did not provide direct evidence to prove that “the infringing product was manufactured by New Jack company”, it had proved a good many sameness or similarities between the model JK-T373 sewing machine manufactured by New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine, with respect to the packaging, machine head and base, specifications, packing list and accessories, etc; moreover, it had also proved that the distributor Jie Yao company was a franchise distributor of New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine was purchased from the Jie Yao company. Although all of the foresaid evidence is considered as indirect, taking all these into consideration, the court thinks a complete evidence chain can be formed among the evidence and prove the fact that the disputed infringing machine was manufactured by New Jack company, which finally led to support of the Plaintiff JUKI’s claims. This method of applying logic reasoning and daily experience for a comprehensive examination and for accepting or rejecting evidence deserves affirmation and recommendation.
Recently, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court issued a Judgment of first instance for the patent infringement dispute case JUKI Corporation v. Zhejiang New Jack Sewing Machine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter New Jack company), Shanghai Yao Jie Sewing Machine Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Yao Jie company)
Plaintiff JUKI corporation is a world famous sewing machine manufacturer and enjoys a number of patents relating to manufacturing of sewing machines. On November 6, 2001, the Plaintiff was granted an invention patent in China named “chain-stitch screw-shaping method and chain-stitch sewing machine”. Recently, JUKI corporation has discovered a lot of sewing machines manufactured by New Jack company that infringes JUKI’s patent right, so JUKI filed a lawsuit against New Jack company and its distributor Jie Yao company with the people’s court, asking the two companies to stop the infringement and compensate for its losses.
During the hearing, in order to prove that the sewing machine manufactured by New Jack and distributed by Jie Yao has infringed JUKI’s patent right, JUKI provided the court with the following evidence: (1) certificate of the invention patent; (2) Description of the invention patent; (3) copy of the patent registration book; (4) notarial deed issued by the notary office of Luwan District Shanghai (including the sewing machine, photos, the invoice, business card, etc.); (5) invoice of the attorney fee; (6) notarial deed issued by No. 1 notary office of Huangpu District Shanghai; (7) notarial deed issued by notary office of Taizhou Zhejiang; (8) franchise distribution authorization document of Defendant Jie Yao company for selling sewing machines manufactured by Defendant New Jack company, photos of business place of Defendant Jie Yao company, etc. However, defendants New Jack and Jie Yao held that the disputed sewing machine was not manufactured or distributed by New Jack and New Jack’s trademark had also been worked off by others, so they pleaded with the court for dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims against them.
During the hearing the court found that the Plaintiff JUKI Corporation is a famous sewing machine manufacturer established in Japan and it has acquired in accordance with the Chinese law the invention patent named “chain-stitch screw-shaping method and chain-stitch sewing machine”; the Defendant New Jack company is a sewing machine manufacturer established in the People’s Republic of China which manufactures the series products bearing the registered trademark “JACK”. After comparison, the model JK-T373 sewing machine manufactured by New Jack company was found to have a good many sameness or similarities to the disputed infringing sewing machine, with respect to the packaging, machine head and base, specifications, packing list and accessories, etc; besides the distributor Jie Yao company was a franchise distributor of New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine was purchased from the Jie Yao company. Combining the foresaid facts, the court determined that the disputed infringing sewing machine was manufactured and distributed by the Defendant New Jack company. In the mean time, the two companies, New Jack and Jie Yao both confirmed that relevant technologies of the disputed sewing machine should fall in the protection scope of the Plaintiff’s disputed patent. Therefore the manufacturing and distributing conduct of New Jack company and the distributing conduct of Jie Yao company have both constituted infringement on the Plaintiff’s patent right. With regard to the liabilities to be born by the two companies, the court held that since the foresaid conducts have both infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right, Defendant New Jack company should immediately stop manufacturing and distributing the infringing sewing machines infringing and Defendant Jie Yao company should immediately stop distributing the infringing sewing machines; with regard to determination on the compensation amount, the court held that since the Plaintiff did not provide evidence for the actual losses and could not prove the actual sales amount and illegal profits of Defendant New Jack company, the court would take into account various factors including type of the disputed patent, lasting period and range of the defendant’s infringement and their subjective fault, to determine the amount of the compensation.
Finally, the court issued the Judgment of first instance, ordering that Defendant New Jack company should stop manufacturing and distributing the sewing machines that infringed JUKI’s invention patent; Defendant Jie Yao company should immediately stop distributing the sewing machines that infringed JUKI’s invention patent; Defendant New Jack company should compensate RMB 120,000 for Plaintiff JUKI’s economic losses; Defendant New Jack and Defendant Jie Yao company should bear related liability to compensate RMB 60,000 for JUKI’s reasonable expenses.
In this case, although New Jack company and Jie Yao company both do not object to that the disputed infringing product should fall in the protection scope of JUKI’s patent, yet since Plaintiff JUKI could not provide direct evidence to prove that the infringing product was manufactured by Defendant New Jack company, New Jack company denied the product was manufactured by it. Under this circumstance, if it can not be identified that the product was manufactured by New Jack company, the Plaintiff would not be able to ask New Jack to stop the infringement and claim for compensation. In this case, the court, according to the principle of discretional evaluation of evidence and the rule of evidence probabilism, finally determined the manufacturer of the disputed infringing product was New Jack company.
According to Article 64 of the Rules on Evidence, the court should, in accordance with the law, follow the work ethics of a judge and apply logic reasoning and daily experience to make an independent judgment as to whether the evidence is valid or how much the validity is valued and make public the reasons for the judgment and the result. That is to say, the law does not provide for the extent of validity of the evidence and for how to apply the evidence, which shall be determined, accepted or rejected by the judge according to his own reasoning and free judgment. Among the foresaid, daily experience shall refer to any general knowledge, experience, common sense or principle that may be used to deduce unknown facts based on known facts; logic reasoning shall refer to the deducing tools mainly including law of identity, law of contradiction that are used to deduce know facts into unknown facts. As for this case, although Plaintiff JUKI did not provide direct evidence to prove that “the infringing product was manufactured by New Jack company”, it had proved a good many sameness or similarities between the model JK-T373 sewing machine manufactured by New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine, with respect to the packaging, machine head and base, specifications, packing list and accessories, etc; moreover, it had also proved that the distributor Jie Yao company was a franchise distributor of New Jack company and the disputed infringing sewing machine was purchased from the Jie Yao company. Although all of the foresaid evidence is considered as indirect, taking all these into consideration, the court thinks a complete evidence chain can be formed among the evidence and prove the fact that the disputed infringing machine was manufactured by New Jack company, which finally led to support of the Plaintiff JUKI’s claims. This method of applying logic reasoning and daily experience for a comprehensive examination and for accepting or rejecting evidence deserves affirmation and recommendation.
|
RELATED LAYWER:
|
