Shanghai IP Court sides with Japanese toy maker in invention patent dispute
两家外企在华展开专利诉讼
2019年6月12日 中国知识产权报 第12版：双语
Centering on a bead toy, two enterprises from Japan and Australia came to China for a patent lawsuit. A Japanese company called Epoch Toys alleged Moose Toys, Shanghai Musha E-commerce, two individuals surnamed Yang and Pi have infringed its invention patent. Shanghai IP Court later made its first instance, ordering an injunction against Moose and Musha and 800,000 yuan in damages and reasonable expense paid up to Epoch. As of publication, the ruling is in effect.
The plaintiff Epoch Company is a Japanese toy manufacturer. In February 2016, the company filed a patent application titled soluble bead toy, which was granted on September 16, 2015. In February 2016, Epoch purchased three types of bead toys produced by Moose from a Taobao shop named Shanghai Jinxi E-commerce Company. After comparison, the purchased toys were suspected of falling into the protection scope of the patent claims. Considering that Jinxi Company had become defunct, Yang and Pi shall bear the relevant civil liability as shareholders of the company.
Epoch then filed the case at Shanghai IP Court, seeking an injunction against all of the above-mentioned defendants and 1.323 million yuan in damages and reasonable expenses from Moose.
One of the reasons motivating the two foreign enterprises to choose China as the location of litigation is that the alleged infringing products are labeled Made in China. After hearing and receiving no contradicting evidence from Moose, the Court held that the products alleged of infringement were produced in China. In addition, although the Made in China label was marked according to the rules governing appellations of origin for import and export goods, the information about manufacturer and manufacture location of the alleged infringing products has given a clear idea of the origin and quality guarantee to buyers. The Court then confirmed that Moose manufactured the alleged products in China.
The Court held that the patent claims of the soluble bead toy can be dissected into the following technical features: one type of soluble bead toy; polyhedral granular beads made of transplant soluble resin; the grain diameter of the granular beads are about three to six millimeter. After comparison, the alleged infringing products own all of them.
In this connection, the Court made the above-mentioned judgment.
(by Feng Fei)
本报记者 冯 飞
一粒小小的珠子玩具，引发了日本和澳大利亚的两家企业来中国打专利官司。近日，上海知识产权法院针对日本永福有限公司（下称永福公司）起诉澳大利亚驼鹿玩具有限公司（下称驼鹿公司）、上海慕莎电子商务有限公司（下称慕莎公司）、杨某君、皮某伟侵犯发明专利权纠纷案作出一审判决，判令驼鹿公司和慕莎公司立即停止专利侵权行为，驼鹿公司赔偿永福公司经济损失和合理开支80万元。
该案原告永福公司是日本的一家玩具生产制造商，2012年5月2日，其在中国提交了一件名为“可溶珠子玩具”的专利申请，并于2015年9月16日获得授权。2016年2月，永福公司从一家名为“上海锦晰电子商务有限公司（下称锦晰公司）”的淘宝店购买了驼鹿公司生产的3种珠子玩具，经比对认为，涉嫌落入了“可溶珠子玩具”专利权利要求的保护范围。鉴于锦晰公司已办理注销登记，杨某君和皮某伟作为该公司的股东，依法应当对该公司的上述涉嫌侵权行为承担相应的民事责任。
据此，永福公司将生产商驼鹿公司、销售商慕莎公司、杨某君、皮某伟起诉至上海知识产权法院，请求法院判令被告停止侵权；驼鹿公司赔偿经济损失及合理开支132.3万余元。
两家国外企业之所以选择来中国诉讼，原因之一是被控侵权产品的原产地显示为“Made In China”。上海知识产权法院经审理认为，在驼鹿公司未能提交相反证据的情况下，法院认定被控侵权产品原产地在中国。此外，虽然被控侵权产品上的“Made In China”标识系根据进出口货物的原产地规定而标记，但是被控侵权产品上记载的有关制造者、制造地的信息，就商品溯源和品质保证向购买者进行了明确提示，表达了其将自己对外公示为被控侵权产品制造者、制造地的意思表示。据此，法院认为驼鹿公司在中国制造了被控侵权产品。
此外，上海知识产权法院经审理后认为，“可溶珠子玩具”专利权利要求可以分解为如下技术特征：一种可溶珠子玩具；由透明的水溶性树脂制成的多面体粒状珠子；粒状珠子的粒径是3毫米至6毫米等。经比对发现，被控侵权产品均具有上述技术特征。
据此，上海知识产权法院作出上述判决。